<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <title>Jeff&apos;s Lunchbreak</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/" />
    <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/atom.xml" />
   <id>tag:www.jefflewis.net,2012:/blog//1</id>
    <link rel="service.post" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1" title="Jeff's Lunchbreak" />
    <updated>2012-01-31T18:39:32Z</updated>
    <subtitle>A skeptical blog discussing evolution, aviation, religion, and anything else I feel like.</subtitle>
    <generator uri="http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/">Movable Type 3.2</generator>
 
<entry>
    <title>Local Church Misunderstands Evolution - Why Are There Still Apes?</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/2012/01/local_church_misunderstands_ev.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=475" title="Local Church Misunderstands Evolution - Why Are There Still Apes?" />
    <id>tag:www.jefflewis.net,2012:/blog//1.475</id>
    
    <published>2012-01-31T18:36:20Z</published>
    <updated>2012-01-31T18:39:32Z</updated>
    
    <summary>My wife spotted an interesting message on a sign out in front of one of the churches here in town. So, she took a picture of it and texted it to me. For anyone that can&apos;t download images, here&apos;s the...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Jeff</name>
        
    </author>
            <category term="Science &amp; Nature" />
            <category term="Skepticism, Religion" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/">
        <![CDATA[<p>My wife spotted an interesting message on a sign out in front of one of the churches here in town.  So, she took a picture of it and texted it to me.</p>

<p><img src="/graphics/blog/church_sign-apes_sm.jpg" width=400 height=300 alt="Church Sign"></p>

<p>For anyone that can't download images, here's the message.</p>

<blockquote>IF MAN CAME FROM APES WHY ARE THERE STILL APES?</blockquote>

<p>I've been seeing this as a parody of creationists for so long, that it's almost a bit surreal to see someone actually using it seriously.  And it's not just some random commenter on a blog, but the message a church is putting out to the public.  Even if the sign person at the church has enough freedom where the message doesn't have to get approved by someone else first, my wife tells me that the message has been up for over a week - plenty of time for someone in the congregation to say something about it.</p>

<p>I could just point and laugh at the sign, which may even have been enough for this entry, but that's not very productive.  So, while I've covered this on the blog before, since the prior coverage was brief, I'll go through again explaining why this question sounds silly once you actually understand evolution.  Since I have covered this before, some of the content below has been copied copiously from a <a href="/blog/2011/03/book_review_god_or_gorilla_cha_1.html">previous post</a>.</p>

<p>One of the easiest ways to see the error in this line of thinking is to use an analogy.  I'll use myself as an example. My great great grandfather and grandmother on one side were German - not just of German ancestry, but born in Germany and immigrants to the U.S. So, I can quite literally say that I am descended from Germans. But it's also quite obvious that I'm not descended from any living Germans. A certain group of Germans and I share a common ancestry through my great great great grandparents. The descendants of my great great great grandparents split into two lineages - one that continued in the U.S., and one that continued in Germany. That lineage in Germany is composed of my cousins, not my ancestors.</p>

<p>Another way to see the error in this line of thinking is to pose it with a different group of animals. It's a bit like asking, 'If crows evolved from birds, why are there still birds?'</p>

<p>It's a very similar case with us and chimpanzees and bonobos. Around 6 million years ago, there was a population of apes that was neither human, chimpanzee, nor bonobo. Over the generations, this population split into multiple lineages, each of which evolved independently. Most of those lineages have gone extinct, but there are still three of us left. We are cousins. We can go back further in time and find the ancestor that we share with gorillas, and further to find the ancestor we share with orangutans, and on and on all the way back till life began. None of those ancestors will look exactly like any of their modern descendents, since evolution has been occurring in all of the lineages.  (Obviously, we haven't actually found fossils of all species that have ever existed. But, in the same way that you know you must have a great great great great great great grandmother, even if you don't have any record of her, we also know that we must have common ancestors with Earth's other organisms, even if we haven't yet found their fossils.)</p>

<p>I think there's another misconception associated with this assertion.  I think it goes back to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_chain_of_being">Great Chain of Being</a>, where people feel that evolution is directed, and that us humans are the pinnacle.  That's not the case.  Much of the change that occurs in evolution is through mutation and natural selection (though those aren't the only drivers).  Mutation is random.  It just happens, without any conscious intent.  Think about yourself - did you pick any of the mutations that make your DNA slightly different from your parents?  Did you pick any of the mutations that make your children's different from yours?  Natural selection isn't random.  It acts like a filter - eliminating the mutations that don't work as well, while allowing the ones that do to pass through.  But it's only a filter.  It relies on the raw material from random mutations.</p>

<p>It's also important to keep in mind that mutations aren't good or bad on their own.  It all depends on the environment an organism is living in, the animals lifestyle, and other factors.  DNA to make gills is very useful for a fish, but wouldn't do a damn for us.</p>

<p>So, let's go back to that ancestral population of apes.  Somehow, it got split into at least two lineages.  Those lineages, once they became reproductively isolated, could no longer share DNA between each other.  So, whatever beneficial mutations popped up in one population would have been available only in that population.  Any mutations that made the eventual chimp lineage better at climbing trees, for example, would have been unavailable to our lineage.  Likewise, any mutations that made or lineage better at walking on the ground would not have been available to the lineage that led to chimps & bonobos.  So, once that population was split, the two lineages went their own separate evolutionary ways.</p>

<p>Environment could also have played a role.  Now, I doubt the following is exactly what happened, but it's an interesting thought experiment.  What could have caused that ancestral population to become split?  Imagine that it was a new river, that cut through their range.  Imagine that the river became so big that the ancestral apes couldn't cross it.  And suppose that on one side of the river, the forest stayed largely intact, while on the other side, the forest gave way to savannah.  Now, with one lineage living in forest, and the other in savannah, you can see how natural selection would have favored different mutations in each of the two lineages, causing each to evolve markedly differently.</p>

<p>So, once you understand a bit about how evolution works, the question 'If man came from apes, why are the still apes?' seems nonsensical, and even a bit silly.</p>

<hr>

<p>Here's a related blog entry I wrote a few years ago:<br />
<a href="/blog/2008/09/why_do_people_have_a_problem_w.html">Why Do People Have a Problem With Our Relation to Other Apes?</a></p>

<p>That entry also addresses the semantics of this a bit.  In my opinion, we are just a type of ape, so saying that we evolved from apes just seems obvious.</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>
<entry>
    <title>Atheist Temples</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/2012/01/atheist_temples.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=474" title="Atheist Temples" />
    <id>tag:www.jefflewis.net,2012:/blog//1.474</id>
    
    <published>2012-01-27T21:19:45Z</published>
    <updated>2012-01-27T21:28:08Z</updated>
    
    <summary>Here&apos;s a hell of an idea. A philosopher, Alain de Botton, who already has earned a bit of a questionable reputation for saying that atheists should copy the trappings of religion, has pushed this idea even further into the ridiculous....</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Jeff</name>
        
    </author>
            <category term="Skepticism, Religion" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/">
        <![CDATA[<p><img src="/graphics/blog/atheist_temple_sm.jpg" width=125 height=160 alt="Atheist Temple" align="right">Here's a hell of an idea.  A philosopher, Alain de Botton, who already has earned a bit of a questionable reputation for saying that <a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/01/19/alain-de-botton-is-right-about-one-thing/">atheists should copy the trappings of religion</a>, has pushed this idea even further into the ridiculous.  He thinks there should be <a href="http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-01/25/alain-de-botton-atheist-temples">atheist temples</a>.  He's proposing a 46 meter tall black tower - 46 meters to symbolize the 4.6 billion year age of the Earth, with a millimeter thick band of gold at the bottom to represent humanity's existence.</p>

<p>I find this to be incredibly silly, and I'm not alone.  The comments to the article linked to above are nearly all atheists ridiculing the idea.  <a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/01/26/oh-please/">Pharyngula</a> also has a blog entry on it, with over 100 comments so far saying how stupid they think the idea is.</p>

<p>I touched on this before in my review of <a href="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/2010/07/book_review_the_year_of_living.html">The Year of Living Biblically</a>, but it's worth repeating here since it's so relevant.</p>

<p>Atheism is only a big deal in the present, because religion is such a big deal.  There are lots of other things people don't believe in, but nobody notices because there's no countering belief.  Let me use an example.  I realize there are still a handful of people who believe in fairies, but they are the exception, not the rule.  Most people are a-fairiests.  But nobody would propose building a museum or a temple dedicated to the non-belief in fairies.</p>

<p>Right now, us atheists are vocal because religion has so much undue influence in society.  But if society gradually shifts to become more atheistic, as appears to be the case, eventually being an atheist will just be the default position, and nobody will make a big deal of it.</p>

<p>In my case, and in the case of many of the 'new' atheists, atheism is really only a side effect of other, positive values.  We're committed to rationality, critical thinking, evidence, the wonders of the universe.  But there are already grand buildings dedicated to those values - museums, universities, libraries.  These aren't like temples in that people go there to worship, but they do provide a setting for those values to thrive.  I'd much rather see money going to support those existing institutions than see it go to some cockamamie temple of non-belief.</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>
<entry>
    <title>2012 Political Litmus Test Update</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/2012/01/2012_political_litmus_test_upd.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=473" title="2012 Political Litmus Test Update" />
    <id>tag:www.jefflewis.net,2012:/blog//1.473</id>
    
    <published>2012-01-23T19:56:43Z</published>
    <updated>2012-01-23T19:58:32Z</updated>
    
    <summary>A little while back, I wrote an entry titled 2012 Political Litmus Test. I looked at the candidates positions on climate change and evolution, since those are both well supported by the evidence, and well enough known that everyone should...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Jeff</name>
        
    </author>
            <category term="Politics" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/">
        <![CDATA[<p><img src="/graphics/blog/litmus-acid_sm.jpg" width=125 height=129 alt="Litmus Paper" align="right">A little while back, I wrote an entry titled <a href="/blog/2011/08/2012_political_litmus_test_1.html">2012 Political Litmus Test</a>.  I looked at the candidates positions on climate change and evolution, since those are both well supported by the evidence, and well enough known that everyone should have been exposed to that evidence, so there's no good rational reason to doubt them.  Well, I wrote that entry early on in the campaigning.  And if there's one thing politicians are known for, it's pandering.  Since there are really only two candidates left in the running, I'll just look at their current positions, and ignore the rest of the field.</p>

<p>Mitt Romney has backpedaled on his acceptance of global warming.  Here's what Romney had to say this past October.</p>

<blockquote>My view is that we don't know what's causing climate change on this planet. And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us.</blockquote>

<p><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/10/28/355736/romney-flips-to-denial-we-dont-know-whats-causing-climate-change/">Source - Think Progress</a></p>

<p>As far as I know, he still accepts evolution.</p>

<p>Newt Gingrich has also backed away from supporting climate change.  In a town hall meeting in Iowa, he said that global warming "hasn't been totally proven", and that even if it had been, he'd no longer support a cap and trade strategy to address it.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.mediaite.com/tv/newt-gingrich-defends-climate-change-credentials-i-am-an-amateur-paleontologist/">Source - Mediaite</a></p>

<p>There's also the matter of his upcoming book, where he has decided to cut a chapter on global warming.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jan/06/climate-scientist-newt-gingrich-book-chapter">Source - The Guardian</a></p>

<p>Gingrich has recently made some disparaging remarks about evolution.  In the quote below, I included just a bit more, to highlight his contempt for the separation of church and state.</p>

<blockquote>The idea that taking school prayer out in 1963 made the country better? I don't see any evidence that children who don't spend a moment recognizing that they're subservient to God... [I think the video was edited here -JRL]  I'll let you approach God in any way you want to. There's an enormous difference between a culture which believes it is purely secular, and a culture which believes that it is somehow empowered by our Creator.  I always tell my friends who don’t believe in this stuff, fine, how do you think — we’re randomly gathered protoplasm? We could have been rhinoceroses, but we got lucky this week?</blockquote>

<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RHkBHbbJW4&feature=player_embedded">Source 1 - YouTube</a><br />
<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/09/30/332730/gingrich-deceives-stem-cell-research/">Source 2 - Think Progress</a></p>

<p>Actually, that part about approaching God any way I want to really pisses me off.  What about those of us that don't believe in any gods?  Are we non-existent?  Or just not worthy of any consideration?</p>

<p><br />
So, going back to the point of that original Political Litmus Test blog entry, I no longer see any Republican candidates worthy of consideration.  Someone living in a fantasy land, or someone willing to lie on something so obviously true, is not someone I want running the executive branch of the federal government.</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>
<entry>
    <title>Jessica Ahlquist, School Prayer, and Christian Love</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/2012/01/jessica_ahlquist_school_prayer.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=472" title="Jessica Ahlquist, School Prayer, and Christian Love" />
    <id>tag:www.jefflewis.net,2012:/blog//1.472</id>
    
    <published>2012-01-21T01:32:05Z</published>
    <updated>2012-01-21T01:40:53Z</updated>
    
    <summary>This is old news by now, and has certainly made the rounds in the skeptical blogosphere, but like I often do, I&apos;m repeating this for friends and family who don&apos;t frequent the same areas of the web that I do....</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Jeff</name>
        
    </author>
            <category term="Politics" />
            <category term="Skepticism, Religion" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/">
        <![CDATA[<p><i>This is old news by now, and has certainly made the rounds in the skeptical blogosphere, but like I often do, I'm repeating this for friends and family who don't frequent the same areas of the web that I do.</i></p>

<p><img src="/graphics/blog/cranston_school_prayer_sm.jpg" width=125 height=215 alt="Cranston West School Prayer" align="right">At Cranston High School West in Rhode Island, there was a mural painted to look like a banner with a prayer on it.  For reference, here's the full text of the prayer (per <a href="http://www.wpri.com/dpp/news/cranston-west-prayer-banner-text-detail">WPRI</a>):</p>

<blockquote>Our Heavenly Father,
Grant us each day the desire to do our best,
To grow mentally and morally as well as physically,
To be kind and helpful to our classmates and teachers,
To be honest with ourselves as well as with others,
Help us to be good sports and smile when we lose as well as when we win,
Teach us the value of true friendship,
Help us always to conduct ourselves so as to bring credit to Cranston High School West.
Amen</blockquote>

<p>The mural had been there for decades, but just recently, it has become the focus of some controversy.  The <a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/wwjtd/2012/01/12/jessica-ahlquist-totally-was-the-bad-guy/">short story</a> is that a student, Jessica Ahlquist, complained to the adminstration that the banner was illegal and that it marginalized non-Christians.  The school didn't listen, so she went to the ACLU.  The ACLU told the school that the banner was clearly illegal, and that there wouldn't even be a debate if it were to go to court.  The school still did nothing.  So, the ACLU followed through, filed a lawsuit, and unsurprisingly, a judge <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/12/us-usa-school-prayer-idUSTRE80B2AG20120112">ruled that mural had to be removed</a>.  As part of his opinion, he wrote:</p>

<blockquote>No amount of debate can make the School Prayer anything other than a prayer.</blockquote>

<p>Well, as you can expect, throughout the whole affair the 'good' Christians of Cranston have not been happy about this at all.  It really has brought out the worst in some people.  The blog, <a href="http://jesusfetusfajitafishsticks.blogspot.com/2012/01/ahlquist-screenshots-if-by-christian.html">JesusFetusFajitaFishsticks</a>, has a collection of some of the comments that have been directed at Jessica.  Of course, there are the usual Christian threats that she'll burn in Hell, along with lots of people calling her a bitch.  There are some threats that get even more explicit, such as:</p>

<blockquote>Fuck Jessica alquist I'll drop anchor on her face</blockquote>

<blockquote>Let's all jump that girl who did the banner #fuckthatho</blockquote>

<blockquote>"@Ry_Simoneau: But for real somebody should jump this girl" lmao let's do it!</blockquote>

<blockquote>@jessicaahlquist your home address posted online i cant wait to hear about you getting curb stomped you fucking worthless cunt</blockquote>

<p>As that last comment pointed out, someone even published her home address in the comments section of the local paper.  In fact, the threats were so bad, that Jessica had to get <a href="http://cranston.patch.com/articles/ahlquist-fight-over-mural-despite-harrassment-threats-worth-it">police protection</a>.</p>

<p>And it's not just young students acting out against Jessica.  Grown adults are getting in on the act.  Rhode Island State Representative Peter Palumbo, a Democrat, made some comments about Jessica on the John DePetro Show.  He called her, perhaps somewhat jokingly, "an evil little thing".  He also said, "Poor thing. And it’s not her fault. She’s being trained to be like that."  When pressed on it, he relented a bit on her, but said that "she's being coerced by evil people."  Seriously.  An elected official is calling people <i>evil</i> for asking a school to take down a sectarian prayer.</p>

<p>On the petty side, local florist shops are <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/01/20/cranston-florists-dont-want-to-do-business-with-atheists/">refusing to deliver flowers to Jessica</a>.  The organization that was trying to send her the flowers eventually went to an out of state florist.  According the the FFRF press release:</p>

<blockquote>FFRF was forced to go to an out of state business, Glimpse of Gaia, in Putnam, Conn., which not only agreed to deliver the flowers but threw in a second bouquet from the shop with its own message, “Glimpse of Gaia fully supports our First Amendment and will not be bullied by those who do not. Here’s to you, Jessica Ahlquist.”</blockquote>

<p>This whole ordeal has revealed quite a bit of hatred and bad behavior over someone simply asking a school to follow the law of the land and respect the Constitution.  It's certainly revealed the ugly side of Christianity, and shown Jessica Ahlquist to be a very courageous young woman.</p>

<hr>

<p>Here are a few sites where you can show your support for Jessica:<br />
<a href="http://jessicaahlquist.com/">jessicaahlquist.com</a><br />
<a href="http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/support-jessica-ahlquist/">Support Jessica Ahlquist</a><br />
<a href="http://www.evillittleshirts.com/">Evil Little Shirts</a></p>

<p>Here's one more link to a news story:<br />
<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/US/rhode-island-teens-battle-prayer-banner-mayor/story?id=15386786#.TxoT2fmxt8M">Rhode Island Teen's Battle Against Prayer Banner Has Gone 'Too Far,' Mayor Says</a></p>

<p>And I'll also note that <a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/cuttlefish">The Digital Cuttlefish</a> has devoted quite a few blog entries to creating verse about this situation.  It's well worth browsing through that site to read them (as well as all the other poems).</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>
<entry>
    <title>How Much Gas to Charge an iPhone?</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/2012/01/how_much_gas_to_charge_an_ipho.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=471" title="How Much Gas to Charge an iPhone?" />
    <id>tag:www.jefflewis.net,2012:/blog//1.471</id>
    
    <published>2012-01-09T19:38:35Z</published>
    <updated>2012-01-09T19:47:57Z</updated>
    
    <summary>I got a link to an interesting article recently, How many gallons of gasoline would it take to charge an iPhone?. The article was published on ExxonMobil&apos;s Perspectives blog. It was an attempt to put into perspective just how much...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Jeff</name>
        
    </author>
            <category term="Science &amp; Nature" />
            <category term="Skepticism, Religion" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/">
        <![CDATA[<p><img src="/graphics/blog/iphonegas_sm.jpg" width=125 height=204 alt="iPhone Gas" align="right">I got a link to an interesting article recently, <a href="http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2011/12/14/how-many-gallons-of-gasoline-would-it-take-to-charge-an-iphone/">How many gallons of gasoline would it take to charge an iPhone?</a>.  The article was published on ExxonMobil's Perspectives blog.  It was an attempt to put into perspective just how much energy there is in gasoline, and why it's so useful as a fuel.</p>

<p>Early on, the article presented a 'fact', without any rationale to back it up:</p>

<blockquote>All of the energy concentrated in one gallon of gasoline is enough to charge an iPhone once a day for almost 20 years.</blockquote>

<p>So, I thought I'd run some numbers to see just how reasonable this was.</p>

<p>First, what's the energy content of a gallon of gas?  According to Wikipedia's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Common_energy_densities">Energy densities</a> page, the energy density of gasoline is 47.2 megajoules per kilogram.  A gallon of gas weighs about 6 lbs, for a mass of about 13.2 kg.  Multiplying by the energy density gives 623.04 MJ in a gallon of gas.</p>

<p>Now, for something that took a little more work, what's the energy content of the iPhone battery.  According to Wikipedia's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_4">iPhone 4</a> page, the battery is 3.7V at 1420 mAh.  (An Ah is the "the electric charge transferred by a steady current of one ampere for one hour" - <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampere-hour">Wikipedia</a>).  So, doing a simple calculation on that, let's figure out the power the battery is putting out, and then how much energy that would be after the one hour for the Ah:</p>

<p>P = IV<br />
P = 1.42A * 3.7V<br />
P = 5.254W</p>

<p>As a sanity check, that's in line with what some random guy on the Internet claimed on <a href="http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101224150322AA7P2pe">Yahoo Answers</a>, according to his kill-a-watt power meter.</p>

<p>And since energy is qual to Power times time:</p>

<p>E = Pt<br />
E = 5.254W * 3600s<br />
E = 18,914.4J</p>

<p>So, if we simply divide the energy content of the gas by the energy content of the battery, we get 32,940 charges.  Assuming a charge every day for a year, that's 90.2 years.  Now, of course, there are inefficiencies in the systems, so that's not right.  Gasoline engines in cars are typically on the order of 25% - 30% efficient (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency#Gasoline_.28petrol.29_Engines">per Wikipedia</a>), and their alternators are typically on the order of 50% - 60% efficient.  However, permanent alternators run optimally can have efficiencies in the high 90%'s (again, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternator#Automotive_alternators">per Wikipedia</a>).  So, the claim that a gallon of gas could charge an iPhone every day for 20 years seems pretty reasonable.</p>

<p>An iPhone may not be huge, but 20 years is a pretty long time.  It really just goes to show how much energy gasoline contains, and why it's so useful for powering vehicles.</p>

<hr>

<p>As a side note, this is why I personally think that biofuels offer so much hope.  If a way can be found to efficiently convert biomass into a gasoline like fuel (such as some of the studies on algae), we'd have a high density energy source that could take advantage of existing infrastructure.  No waiting overnight to charge batteries - just a quick 10 minute stop at the pump to fill up with dead algae.</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>
<entry>
    <title>Website Update - Top 10 Page List for December 2011</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/2012/01/website_update_top_10_page_lis_26.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=470" title="Website Update - Top 10 Page List for December 2011" />
    <id>tag:www.jefflewis.net,2012:/blog//1.470</id>
    
    <published>2012-01-06T18:17:35Z</published>
    <updated>2012-01-06T18:18:03Z</updated>
    
    <summary>I&apos;m back from the holidays. I know I didn&apos;t get anything posted last week, but that&apos;s because I was off from work all last week spending time with my family. And I don&apos;t really have anything big for this week...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Jeff</name>
        
    </author>
            <category term="Website Update" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/">
        <![CDATA[<p><img src="/graphics/blog/top_ten_sm.jpg" width=125 height=125 alt="Top 10 List" align="right">I'm back from the holidays.  I know I didn't get anything posted last week, but that's because I was off from work all last week spending time with my family.  And I don't really have anything big for this week because I've been so busy at work.  But at least this entry is something.</p>

<p>There was quite a mix up in the top 10 list this month.  Two of the pages hadn't made the list before - <a href="/blog/2008/02/ray_comfort_quote_miner_extrao.html">Ray Comfort: Quote Miner Extraordinaire</a> and <a href="/blog/2009/09/response_to_an_email_supposedl.html">Response to an E-Mail Supposedly Summarizing Dr. Charles Krauthammer's Views on Obama</a>.  In addition, the order was mixed up quite a bit from the trend it had been falling into.  The <a href="/blog/2007/07/massai_barefoot_technology_sho_1.html">MBT</a> entry was down to 9th, while the blog entry, <a href="/blog/2009/10/origin_of_arabic_numerals_was_1.html">Origin of Arabic Numerals - Was It Really for Counting Angles?</a>, made it to the top spot for the first time.</p>

<p>Traffic dipped just a bit in December, back to just about the same as last July, but still not too far out of line with what it's been for the last year.</p>

<p>Anyway, here are the 10 most popular pages from this site for December 2011.  And hopefully, I can get back to making substantive posts again next week.</p>

<ol>
  <li> <a href="/blog/2009/10/origin_of_arabic_numerals_was_1.html">Blog - Origin of Arabic Numerals - Was It Really for Counting Angles?</a></li>
  <li> <a href="/autogyros.html">Autogyro History & Theory</a></li>
  <li> <a href="/blog/2007/08/my_favorite_airplanes.html">Blog - My Favorite Airplanes</a></li>
  <li> <a href="/blog/2009/11/ray_comfort_still_ignorant_on.html">Blog - Ray Comfort - Still Ignorant on Evolution</a></li>
  <li> <a href="/blog/2008/02/book_review_voyage_of_the_beag.html">Blog - Book Review - Voyage of the Beagle</a></li>
  <li> <a href="/factoids.html">Factoids Debunked & Verified</a></li>
  <li> <a href="/blog/2008/02/ray_comfort_quote_miner_extrao.html">Blog - Ray Comfort: Quote Miner Extraordinaire</a></li>
  <li> <a href="/blog/2009/09/response_to_an_email_supposedl.html">Blog - Response to an E-Mail Supposedly Summarizing Dr. Charles Krauthammer's Views on Obama</a></li>
  <li> <a href="/blog/2007/07/crazy_email_cash_for_clunkers.html">Blog - Crazy E-mail - Cash for Clunkers</a></li>
  <li> <a href="/blog/2007/07/massai_barefoot_technology_sho_1.html">Blog - A Skeptical Look at MBT Shoes</a></li>
  <li> <a href="/blog/2007/05/creation_museumcreationist_rul.html">Blog - Creation Museum/2nd Law of Thermodynamics</a></li>
</ol>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>
<entry>
    <title>A Plane Christmas Greeting</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/2011/12/a_plane_christmas_greeting_1.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=371" title="A Plane Christmas Greeting" />
    <id>tag:www.jefflewis.net,2011:/blog//1.371</id>
    
    <published>2011-12-22T18:00:00Z</published>
    <updated>2011-12-22T19:26:40Z</updated>
    
    <summary>For Christmas, here&apos;s a poem my great uncle wrote and sent to a few of us last year. In case you&apos;re wondering on the choice of aircraft in the poem, he was writing it for all the guys based out...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Jeff</name>
        
    </author>
            <category term="Aviation" />
            <category term="General" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/">
        <![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.holidaycardcenter.org/asf/"><img src="/graphics/blog/aopa_christmas_card_2_sm.jpg" width=125 height=88 alt="AOPA Christmas Card" align="right"></a>For Christmas, here's a poem my great uncle wrote and sent to a few of us last year.  In case you're wondering on the choice of aircraft in the poem, he was writing it for all the guys based out of the same airfield as he is.  If you want the full effect, you can read <a href="/archive/A Plane Christmas Greeting.pdf">a scan of the original</a>.  (BTW, if you like the picture for this entry, click on it and support the AOPA's Air Safety Foundation by buying a Christmas card with that as the front, or pick one of their many other aviation themed cards.)</p>

<blockquote><u>A Plane Christmas Greeting</u><br>
<i>by Bud Eichel</i>

<p>T'was the night before Xmas,<br />
   At Finleyville "Airdrome".<br />
Not a creature was stirring,<br />
   Human, elf, or gnome.</p>

<p>All Aircraft secured,<br />
   In their Hangar "stalls".<br />
The Xmas shoppers,<br />
   Home from the Malls.</p>

<p>From atop the Hangar,<br />
   The wind-sock hung low.<br />
And bathed in moon-light,<br />
   The runway was aglow.</p>

<p>The rest of the field,<br />
   Was snowy and white.<br />
This flyer's home-base,<br />
   Was a beautiful sight.</p>

<p>Then quick as a wink,<br />
   Dark shadows appeared.<br />
Following moon-beams,<br />
   As they all neared.</p>

<p>Big ones and small,<br />
   These shadows all grew.<br />
Twisting and turning<br />
   As by me they flew.</p>

<p>They made a "formation",<br />
   The shape of a "V".<br />
Now as they pass,<br />
   They are plain to see.</p>

<p>Stearmans and Wacos,<br />
   A Stinson went by.<br />
T-Crafts and Luscombes,<br />
   All on the fly!</p>

<p>Home-builts, a Mooney,<br />
   A new Carter-copter.<br />
A Cessna amphibian,<br />
   An L-2 Grasshopper.</p>

<p>PT's and BT's,<br />
   From World War Two.<br />
And old-style craft,<br />
   Like the Wright Bros. flew.</p>

<p>A "Cub" and a Grumman,<br />
   A sleek Monocoupe.<br />
Can you believe this?<br />
   A pretty, '47 Ercoupe!</p>

<p>Aeroncas and Cessnas,<br />
   A Beech Musketeer.<br />
Of all these Planes,<br />
   Not one, could I hear!</p>

<p>Are they "ghosts" of the past?<br />
   Am I tired and weary?<br />
Wait, just a minute,<br />
   I have a theory!</p>

<p>That Angels exist,<br />
   I have no doubt.<br />
And on Christmas Eve,<br />
   I'm sure they're about.</p>

<p>Did they take the form,<br />
   Of things that I love?<br />
Is this my "gift",<br />
   From Heaven above?</p>

<p>If this was a gift,<br />
   I'd sure like to share.<br />
Merry Christmas, to All,<br />
   I wish you were there!</p>

<p><i>Happy Holiday's, and Happy Landing's, to all my Pilot friends, & families.</i></blockquote></p>

<p><br />
No matter how you celebrate this time of year (or even if you don't celebrate at all), I still hope you have a good time.</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>
<entry>
    <title>War on Christmas, 2011</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/2011/12/war_on_christmas_2011.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=469" title="War on Christmas, 2011" />
    <id>tag:www.jefflewis.net,2011:/blog//1.469</id>
    
    <published>2011-12-19T18:31:27Z</published>
    <updated>2011-12-19T18:46:40Z</updated>
    
    <summary>We&apos;re well into the War on Christmas, with less than a week left to try to destroy the holiday this year. I&apos;ve already written my post this year complaining about the Salvation Army, and I&apos;ve written in years past about...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Jeff</name>
        
    </author>
            <category term="Skepticism, Religion" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/">
        <![CDATA[<p><img src="/graphics/blog/war_on_christmas_sm.jpg" width=125 height=125 alt="Santa in the Crosshairs" align="right">We're well into the War on Christmas, with less than a week left to try to destroy the holiday this year.  I've already written my post this year complaining about the Salvation Army, and I've written in years past about the whole War on Christmas, so there's not much for me to add this year.  So, I think I'm just going to post a bunch of links.</p>

<p>But first, I think I'm going to make a tradition of something I did last year, and embed a YouTube video of Tim Minchin's 'White Whine in the Sun'.</p>

<p><object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fCNvZqpa-7Q?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fCNvZqpa-7Q?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object></p>

<p>My previous War on Christmas posts:</p>

<ul>
  <li><a href="/blog/2008/12/war_on_christmas.html">War on Christmas</a> (probably the most informative of all these links)
  <li><a href="/blog/2010/12/another_attack_in_the_war_on_c.html">Another Attack in the War on Christmas</a>
  <li><a href="/blog/2010/12/yes_virginia_there_are_liars.html">Yes, Virginia, There Are Liars</a>
  <li><a href="/blog/2011/12/the_salvation_army_to_give_or.html">The Salvation Army - To Give, or Not to Give?</a>
  <li><a href="/blog/2010/11/war_on_christmas_2010_1.html">War on Christmas, 2010</a> (not much to this one)
</ul>

<p>The Digital Cuttlefish has quite a few Christmas poems.  At the bottom of the first link below, he's provided a list of everything he posted this year.  So, I'll just link to that one, plus a poem he wrote last year that I really like.</p>

<ul>
  <li><a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/cuttlefish/2011/12/14/the-war-on-the-war-on-the-war-on-the-war-on-christmas/">(The War On) The War On The War On The War On Christmas</a>
  <li><a href="http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2010/11/night-before-war-on-christmas.html">The Night Before (The War On) Christmas </a>
</ul>

<p><br />
And that's it for my War on Christmas this year.</p>

<hr>

<p><i>Added 2011-12-19</i> - Okay, one more thing.  Here's a spoof on the Charlie Brown Christmas special that I couldn't resist posting (from <a href="http://www.calamitiesofnature.com/archive/?c=470">Calamities of Nature</a>).  Just click on the image to see it full size.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.calamitiesofnature.com/archive/?c=470"><img src="/graphics/blog/charlie_brown_christmas_sm.jpg" width=400 height=258 alt="Calamities of Nature Comic on Charlie Brown Christmas"></p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>
<entry>
    <title>Happy Wright Brothers Day, 2011</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/2011/12/happy_wright_brothers_day_2011.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=468" title="Happy Wright Brothers Day, 2011" />
    <id>tag:www.jefflewis.net,2011:/blog//1.468</id>
    
    <published>2011-12-17T14:26:21Z</published>
    <updated>2011-12-17T15:11:53Z</updated>
    
    <summary> 108 years ago today, the Wright brothers became the first humans to fulfill the dream of flight. I&apos;ve written about this before, and rather than repeat myself, I&apos;ll just link to those previous entries. Wright Brother&apos;s Day, 2007 Flying...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Jeff</name>
        
    </author>
            <category term="Aviation" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/">
        <![CDATA[<p><img src="/graphics/aircraft/Wright_Brothers_First_Flight_Dec_17_1903.jpg" width=400 height=308 alt="Wright Brothers' First Flight, December 17, 1903" border=0></p>

<p>108 years ago today, the Wright brothers became the first humans to fulfill the dream of flight.  I've written about this before, and rather than repeat myself, I'll just link to those previous entries.</p>

<ul>
  <li><a href="/blog/2007/12/wright_brothers_day.html">Wright Brother's Day, 2007</a>
  <li><a href="/blog/2009/11/flying.html">Flying</a>
</ul>

<p>So happy Wright Brothers Day.  And find a little wonder in the fact that you can go out and do something that our ancestors could only dream about for thousands and thousands of years.</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>
<entry>
    <title>God in Football</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/2011/12/god_in_football.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=467" title="God in Football" />
    <id>tag:www.jefflewis.net,2011:/blog//1.467</id>
    
    <published>2011-12-13T19:31:18Z</published>
    <updated>2011-12-13T19:33:08Z</updated>
    
    <summary>I just so happened to watch the Denver Chicago game over the weekend (I&apos;m not a huge sports fan, so that&apos;s pretty rare), and I caught the after the game sideline interview with the Broncos quarterback, Tim Tebow. He started...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Jeff</name>
        
    </author>
            <category term="Skepticism, Religion" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/">
        <![CDATA[<p><img src="/graphics/blog/touchdown-jesus_sm.jpg" width=125 height=139 alt="Touchdown Jesus" align="right">I just so happened to watch the Denver Chicago game over the weekend (I'm not a huge sports fan, so that's pretty rare), and I caught the after the game sideline interview with the Broncos quarterback, Tim Tebow.  He started off by acknowledging his "Lord and Savior Jesus Christ", and apparently, he's well know for his strong faith.</p>

<p>Athletes thanking Jesus is nothing new.  I always thought it was a bit odd to think that God would favor one team's prayers over another's, or that God would be a Broncos fan, but I'd gotten used to it.  But, a <strike>blog</strike> website I read on a regular basis, <a href="http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/12/13/god-helps-broncos-defeat-the-bears/">Why Evolution Is True</a>, also just so happened to discuss Tebow's religiosity, and one of the <a href="http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/12/13/god-helps-broncos-defeat-the-bears/#comment-163426">comments</a> on that site presented something novel.</p>

<blockquote>If you really believe there is a powerful supernatural agent that can actually affect the outcome of a football game in your favor, how the heck is this not cheating? If a powerful psychic was steering the ball around from the sidelines, this is obviously an unfair advantage. Once again, God gets a special exemption.</blockquote>

<p>I'd never looked at it that way before.  Anyway, I don't have any deep commentary.  I just thought it was funny and I wanted to share.</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>
<entry>
    <title>The Salvation Army - To Give, or Not to Give?</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/2011/12/the_salvation_army_to_give_or.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=466" title="The Salvation Army - To Give, or Not to Give?" />
    <id>tag:www.jefflewis.net,2011:/blog//1.466</id>
    
    <published>2011-12-07T19:48:23Z</published>
    <updated>2011-12-07T19:54:21Z</updated>
    
    <summary>It&apos;s that time of year when you can&apos;t go shopping without hearing the familiar ringing of bells being rung by the person standing next to the hanging red kettle, wishing you a Merry Christmas, grateful for any change you might...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Jeff</name>
        
    </author>
            <category term="General" />
            <category term="Politics" />
            <category term="Skepticism, Religion" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/">
        <![CDATA[<p><img src="/graphics/blog/salvation_army_question_sm.png" width=125 height=147 alt="Salvation Army?" align="right">It's that time of year when you can't go shopping without hearing the familiar ringing of bells being rung by the person standing next to the hanging red kettle, wishing you a Merry Christmas, grateful for any change you might have.  I'd always given to the Salvation Army, usually more than just a bit of spare change, but now that I've begun paying attention to some of the criticisms of the organization, I wonder whether I want to support them.</p>

<p>First things first, the Salvation Army does a lot of good.  Their thrift stores are well known, as well as their help to the needy.  Perhaps slightly less well known are their disaster relief, rehabilitation centers, and homeless shelters, as well as a few programs I'm sure I've forgotten.  And let me also dispel a prominent rumor.  The bell ringers don't take a cut from the red kettle (see <a href="http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/charity/bellringer.asp">Snopes</a>).</p>

<p>But, they're not without controversy.  Keep in mind, the Salvation isn't just a charity.  They're a church.  They take positions on issues that would otherwise have nothing to do with their charity work.  Take a look at this page on their site:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.salvationarmyusa.org/usn/www_usn_2.nsf/vw-dynamic-index/B6F3F4DF3150F5B585257434004C177D?Opendocument">Salvation Army USA - Position Statements</a></p>

<p>They have positions on:</p>

<ul>
  <li>Abortion
  <li>Alcohol and Drugs
  <li>Economic Justice
  <li>Euthanasia
  <li>Gambling
  <li>Homosexuality
  <li>Human Equality
  <li>Human Trafficking
  <li>Marriage
  <li>Pornography
  <li>Religious Persecution
  <li>Suicide
</ul>

<p>Their positions are exactly what you'd expect from the religious right.  For example, here's part of what they have to say about gambling.</p>

<blockquote>The Salvation Army believes that gambling engages its participants and promoters in an exercise of greed contrary to biblical moral teaching. Gambling at best wastes personal resources, and at worst afflicts millions through a lifestyle of compulsive behaviors and destructive influences.</blockquote>

<p>And just to show what they consider so bad:</p>

<blockquote>Some examples of gambling include casino games, state lotteries, and betting on sports.</blockquote>

<p>Moving on to something that's more of an active political discussion right now, here's part of their statement on homosexuality.</p>

<blockquote>Scripture forbids sexual intimacy between members of the same sex. The Salvation Army believes, therefore, that Christians whose sexual orientation is primarily or exclusively same-sex are called upon to embrace celibacy as a way of life. There is no scriptural support for same-sex unions as equal to, or as an alternative to, heterosexual marriage.</blockquote>

<p>And here's the beginning of their statement on marriage.</p>

<blockquote>The Salvation Army affirms the New Testament standard of marriage, which is the loving union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Marriage is the first institution ordained by God (Genesis 2:24), and His Word establishes its significance (Matthew 19:4-6).</blockquote>

<p>Now, if they just had position statements, as bad as they are, that would be one thing.  But the Salvation Army actively works to support their positions.  The most famous example from this country was when New York City passed the Equal Benefits Bill, requiring all organizations receiving public funds to provide the same benefits to "domestic partners" as they do to spouses.  The Salvation Army threatened to quit receiving public funding rather than abide by the law, which would have in effect shut down the majority of their operations in the city.</p>

<p>Then, there are numerous local incidents - none which are officially supported by Salvation Army headquarters, but which are still rather widespread.  Someone else has already covered this pretty well, so here's a link to their article on the issue:</p>

<p><a href="http://arise-blog.org/2010/12/do-not-donate-to-the-salvation-army/">ARISE - Do not donate to the Salvation Army</a></p>

<p>Here's just a sampling of some of those local incidents:</p>

<ul>
  <li><a href="http://www.bilerico.com/2010/11/why_you_shouldnt_give_to_the_salvation_army.php">Refusing to help a gay homeless couple</a>
  <li><a href="http://blog.chron.com/believeitornot/2010/12/salvation-army-welcomes-harry-potter-twilight-toys/">Disposing of Harry Potter and Twilight toys because they were against Christian principles
  <li><a href="http://canadianatheist.com/2010/09/01/the-salvation-army-destroys-books/">Destroying books they disagree with</a>
  <li><a href="http://texascivilrightsreview.org/phpnuke/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1309">Turning away a transgender woman who subsequently died from the cold</a>
  <li><a href="http://www.nashvillescene.com/pitw/archives/2009/12/15/the-salvation-army-should-be-ashamed-of-itself">Turning away children of illegal immigrants</a>
</ul>

<p>Aside from how their positions affect their own charitable donations, here's an example of them trying to 'steal' money from another charity.  When H. Guy Di Stefano died, he wanted his estate to be split evenly between 8 charities.  One of them, Greenpeace International, was absorbed by the Greenpeace Fund between the writing of the will and Di Stefano's death.  The money that was to go to Greenpeace International was going to go to the Greenpeace Fund, and none of the other charities had a problem with that, except for the Salvation Army.  They argued that because it wasn't the same charity named in the will, that the money should be split evenly between the 7 remaining charities.  An agreement was reached, and The Army's lawsuit was dropped.</p>

<p>More Info:<br />
<a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003697026_webgreenpeace07m.html">Seattle Times - Salvation Army settles its dispute over Issaquah man's $33 million bequest</a></p>

<p>And then, there's their cult like treatment of officers in their church.  They can only marry other officers in the church.  And it's not an empty threat.  A few years ago, they did terminate an officer when he became engaged to someone from outside the organization.</p>

<p>More Info:<br />
<a href="http://www.christianpost.com/news/salvation-army-leader-to-lose-job-for-violating-marriage-policy-35740/">Christian Post - Salvation Army Leader to Lose Job for Violating Marriage Policy</a></p>

<p><br />
So, what's a person to do?  I think it's up to the person and how they're realistically going to respond.  It's not as if the Salvation Army is the only game in town.  There are plenty of worthwhile charities that don't have such horrible positions.  My wife and I already donate to several charities, but I've decided to donate just a little more to make up for what I used to put into the red kettles.</p>

<p>But, I do think the Salvation Army does much more good than harm.  So, if the only way you would donate would be to drop your change into one of their kettles, then don't hold back!  Most of your money will go to helping people, and it's better than doing nothing at all.  So in that case, go ahead and give the Salvation Army your spare change.</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>
<entry>
    <title>Website Update - Top 10 Page List for October &amp; November 2011</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/2011/12/website_update_top_10_page_lis_25.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=465" title="Website Update - Top 10 Page List for October &amp; November 2011" />
    <id>tag:www.jefflewis.net,2011:/blog//1.465</id>
    
    <published>2011-12-02T15:00:46Z</published>
    <updated>2011-12-02T15:01:12Z</updated>
    
    <summary>I try to do this Top 10 update every month, but I just completely forgot to do it a month ago. So, the Top 10 list for this entry is actually two Top 10 lists, one for October, and one...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Jeff</name>
        
    </author>
            <category term="Website Update" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/">
        <![CDATA[<p><img src="/graphics/blog/top_ten_sm.jpg" width=125 height=125 alt="Top 10 List" align="right">I try to do this Top 10 update every month, but I just completely forgot to do it a month ago.  So, the Top 10 list for this entry is actually two Top 10 lists, one for October, and one for November.</p>

<p>As far as overall traffic, the site just keeps on plugging along about the same.  Based on average per day (since some months have more days than others), October had a slight dip in traffic, but November had a slight increase to above what it had been in September.</p>

<p>The top 3 seems pretty solidifed for now.  I was a bit dissapointed to see the Ray Comfort entry dip off the Top 10 in November, but I was happy to see the chicken enchilada page make it back in.</p>

<p>Anyway, here are the 10 most popular pages from this site for October 2011.</p>

<ol>
  <li> <a href="/autogyros.html">Autogyro History & Theory</a></li>
  <li> <a href="/blog/2007/07/massai_barefoot_technology_sho_1.html">Blog - A Skeptical Look at MBT Shoes</a></li>
  <li> <a href="/blog/2009/10/origin_of_arabic_numerals_was_1.html">Blog - Origin of Arabic Numerals - Was It Really for Counting Angles?</a></li>
  <li> <a href="/blog/2009/06/running_autocad_r14_in_xp_pro.html">Blog - Running AutoCAD R14 in XP Pro 64</a></li>
  <li> <a href="/factoids.html">Factoids Debunked & Verified</a></li>
  <li> <a href="/blog/2009/11/ray_comfort_still_ignorant_on.html">Blog - Ray Comfort - Still Ignorant on Evolution</a></li>
  <li> <a href="/blog/2007/08/letter_to_pharmacy_about_mbt_s.html">Blog - Letter to Pharmacy about MBT Shoes</a></li>
  <li> <a href="/blog/2007/08/my_favorite_airplanes.html">Blog - My Favorite Airplanes</a></li>
  <li> <a href="/factoids2.html">Factoids Debunked & Verified, Part II</a></li>
  <li> <a href="/programming.html">Programming</a></li>
</ol>

<p>And here are the pages from November 2011.</p>

<ol>
  <li> <a href="/autogyros.html">Autogyro History & Theory</a></li>
  <li> <a href="/blog/2007/07/massai_barefoot_technology_sho_1.html">Blog - A Skeptical Look at MBT Shoes</a></li>
  <li> <a href="/blog/2009/10/origin_of_arabic_numerals_was_1.html">Blog - Origin of Arabic Numerals - Was It Really for Counting Angles?</a></li>
  <li> <a href="/blog/2009/06/running_autocad_r14_in_xp_pro.html">Blog - Running AutoCAD R14 in XP Pro 64</a></li>
  <li> <a href="/factoids.html">Factoids Debunked & Verified</a></li>
  <li> <a href="/blog/2007/08/letter_to_pharmacy_about_mbt_s.html">Blog - Letter to Pharmacy about MBT Shoes</a></li>
  <li> <a href="/factoids2.html">Factoids Debunked & Verified, Part II</a></li>
  <li> <a href="/blog/2007/05/creation_museumcreationist_rul.html">Blog - Creation Museum/2nd Law of Thermodynamics</a></li>
  <li> <a href="recipe-chicken_enchiladas.html">Recipe for 3 Cheese Chicken Enchiladas with Cream Cheese Sauce</a></li>
  <li> <a href="/programming.html">Programming</a></li>
</ol>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>
<entry>
    <title>Books, A Year in Review - 2011, Part II</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/2011/11/books_a_year_in_review_2011_pa_2.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=460" title="Books, A Year in Review - 2011, Part II" />
    <id>tag:www.jefflewis.net,2011:/blog//1.460</id>
    
    <published>2011-11-21T17:00:00Z</published>
    <updated>2011-11-22T14:36:58Z</updated>
    
    <summary> Here is the second part of my review of the books I read in the last year. Part I was an analysis of my reading habits, while this entry will give a brief review for each book. I usually...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Jeff</name>
        
    </author>
            <category term="Books" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/">
        <![CDATA[<p>
<img src="/graphics/blog/old_book_bindings_reduced.jpg" width=125 height=83 border=0 alt="Old Book Bindings, from Wikimedia Commons" align="right">
Here is the second part of my review of the books I read in the last year.  <a href="/blog/2011/10/books_a_year_in_review_2011_pa.html">Part I</a> was an analysis of my reading habits, while this entry will give a brief review for each book.
</p>

<p>
I usually try to point out my favorite books from the year in this part.  In years past, I've had some difficulty because there were just so many books that I liked.  This year, though, there were a few standouts.  My favorites were Dragon's Keep, All My Friends Are Dead, Why Evolution Is True, Two Years Before the Mast, and Castle.  That's not to say that some of the other books weren't really good, but those five, at least to me, were exceptional.
</p>]]>
        <![CDATA[Here's a list of all the books reviewed below.  Click on any of the titles to jump to that review.

<ul>
<li><a href="#Balook">Balook</a></li>
<li><a href="#ThroughTheLookingGlass">Through the Looking Glass</a></li>
<li><a href="#DragonsKeep">Dragon's Keep</a></li>
<li><a href="#FireWithin">The Fire Within</a></li>
<li><a href="#IceFire">Ice Fire</a></li>
<li><a href="#KillingMrGriffin">Killing Mr. Griffin</a></li>
<li><a href="#20000Leagues">20,000 Leagues Under the Sea</a></li>
<li><a href="#ChristmasCarol">A Christmas Carol</a></li>
<li><a href="#LeftBehind">Left Behind</a></li>
<li><a href="#ColorOfMagic">The Color of Magic</a></li>
<li><a href="#HuckFinn">The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn</a></li>
<li><a href="#Frankenstein">Frankenstein</a></li>
<li><a href="#AllMyFriendsAreDead">All My Friends Are Dead</a></li>
<li><a href="#EndOfBiblicalStudies">The End of Biblical Studies</a></li>
<li><a href="#MoreThanACarpenter">More Than a Carpenter</a></li>
<li><a href="#ThousandsNotBillions">Thousands, Not Billions</a></li>
<li><a href="#LeavingChristianity">Leaving Christianity: A Collection of Essays</a></li>
<li><a href="#WhatDoYouCare">What Do You Care What Other People Think</a></li>
<li><a href="#WhyEvolutionIsTrue">Why Evolution Is True</a></li>
<li><a href="#TwoYearsBeforeTheMast">Two Years Before the Mast</a></li>
<li><a href="#SoulMadeFlesh">Soul Made Flesh</a></li>
<li><a href="#Castle">Castle</a></li>
<li><a href="#BadAstronomy">Bad Astronomy</a></li>
<li><a href="#MeaningOfTingo">The Meaning of Tingo</a></li>
</ul>


<p>
  <a name="Balook"><b>Balook</b></a><br />
  <i>by Piers Anthony</i><br />
    <table cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 border=0><tr><td>
      <iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=jefflewisshomepa&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=0441003982&ref=tf_til&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="width:120px;height:240px;" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0" align="right"></iframe>
Anthony may be a renowned author, but it's not for this book.  To quote part of the School Library Journal review on Amazon:

      <blockquote>Beware, dear readers, of the book that includes a lengthy rationalization of its troubled publishing history. Take note especially of an author's note like Anthony's that follows, rather than precedes, the story. Although he goes to great lengths to convince his audience that editors bounced this book due to differences in ideological beliefs, readers will find a simpler explanation: it's bad writing.</blockquote>

      To be honest, I thought the book was decent.  It was set in the future, where a research project had brought back to life an extinct giant rhino, the Baluchitherium, nicknamed Balook (the current taxonomic consensus is that the genus should be called Paraceratherium - it's also been referred to as Indricotherium).  A young boy becomes involved in the project, and the book is about his adventure when Balook escapes from the compound.<br>
      <br>
      If you have this book laying around, or come across it for cheap at a used book store or garage sale, it's worth reading.
    </td></tr></table>
</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>
  <a name="ThroughTheLookingGlass"><b>Through the Looking Glass</b></a><br />
  <i>by Lewis Carroll</i><br />
    <table cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 border=0><tr><td>
      <iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=jefflewisshomepa&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=1616402245&ref=tf_til&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="width:120px;height:240px;" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0" align="right"></iframe>
      Well, this book is a classic, and it's very imaginative, and it's the source of numerous references in literature, and many people like it, but I couldn't get into it.  It was just too disjointed, jumping abruptly from scene to scene, without much tying it all together.  There was no real plot or central theme, other than the chess references and the loose connection to the Red Queen throughout.  Maybe that's the whole point.  I read one <a href="http://www.gradesaver.com/through-the-looking-glass/study-guide/section10/">review</a> that stated, "Rather, the reader is meant to focus on the fleeting nature of childhood and its fantasies, reflected by the many things and events Alice encountered in the Looking-Glass world that were present one moment, but over and gone the next."<br>
      <br>
      Oh well, I suppose this is probably worth reading to understand the references to it, and I'm sure many other people will enjoy it more than I did.
    </td></tr></table>
</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>
  <a name="DragonsKeep"><b>Dragon's Keep</b></a><br />
  <i>by Janet Lee Carey</i><br />
    <table cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 border=0><tr><td>
      <iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=jefflewisshomepa&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=015206401X&ref=tf_til&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="width:120px;height:240px;" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0" align="right"></iframe>
      My daughter recommended this book to me, and I agree with her that it was great.  It's a fantasy set in the universe of King Arthur, but many generations later than Arthur.  The story took place on the small island nation of Wilde Island, which had a long standing uneasy relationship with dragons.  The dragons would periodically come and steal an islander to eat.<br>
      <br>
      The princess, Rosalind, was born with one finger as a dragon's claw.  Merlin had told a prophecy of her, "The signs all point to the twenty-first queen of Wilde Island.... Three things the stars say of this queen. She shall redeem the name Pendragon. End war with the wave of her hand. And restore the glory of Wilde Island....And yet I see darkly in the stars...a beast."  The book tells the story of how she eventually fulfilled that prophecy.<br>
      <br>
      The book ended at a good spot, but left open much more that could have been told.  I didn't know much about the book when I read it, so I was hoping that maybe it was the start of a series.  Unfortunately, it wasn't.  I was pretty disappointed when I found out.  Maybe Carey will eventually write a sequel.  In the meantime, I highly recommend this book.
    </td></tr></table>
</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>
  <a name="FireWithin"><b>The Fire Within</b></a><br />
  <i>by Chris D'Lacey</i><br />
    <table cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 border=0><tr><td>
      <iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=jefflewisshomepa&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=0439672449&ref=tf_til&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="width:120px;height:240px;" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0" align="right"></iframe>
      When Elizabeth Pennykettle put out an ad for a room available for rent in her house, it was answered by college student, David Rain.  Liz lived with her daughter, Lucy.  She made a living by making and selling clay dragons, and David was struck by all the dragons throughout the house.  But he also noticed that Liz must have been moving the statues all the time, since they always seemed to be in different places.<br>
      <br>
      The book differs from many other fantasy novels I've read in that it doesn't have a lot of action.  It's mostly about David building a relationship with the Pennykettles, and trying to understand just what's going on with those clay dragons.<br>
      <br>
      The book is good, and my daughter and I would both recommend it.  It's also part of a series.  So far, I've read one sequel, and plan to read more.  My daughter has read three or four of the books in the series.
    </td></tr></table>
</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>
  <a name="IceFire"><b>Ice Fire</b></a><br />
  <i>by Chris D'Lacey</i><br />
    <table cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 border=0><tr><td>
      <iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=jefflewisshomepa&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=0439672465&ref=tf_til&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="width:120px;height:240px;" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0" align="right"></iframe>
      <font color="red"><b>Warning - Contains spoilers for The Fire Within</b></font><br>
      <br>
      After learning the truth about the Pennykettles' dragons, this book starts off with David doubting everything again.  He's unsure with himself about whether or not he was just dreaming everything that happened in the conclusion of the first book.<br>
      <br>
      This book introduces a few more characters.  David's love interest from the previous book is gone - off on a job in an African game reserve, but he meets a new girl at college, Zanna Marindale.  There's also the Pennykettles' Aunty Gwyneth, who David is unsure what to make of at first.  There's also Dr. Bergstrom, a college professor of David's, who's trying to get David to join him on a trip to the Antarctic.<br>
      <br>
      This still isn't an adventure book, but compared to the first book of the series, it does have a bit more action.  It also reveals more about the Pennykettles and their dragons.
    </td></tr></table>
</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>
  <a name="KillingMrGriffin"><b>Killing Mr. Griffin</b></a><br />
  <i>by Lois Duncan</i><br />
    <table cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 border=0><tr><td>
      <iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=jefflewisshomepa&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=0316099007&ref=tf_til&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="width:120px;height:240px;" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0" align="right"></iframe>
      The story takes place in a high school in Arizona.  A group of students are fed up with one of their teachers, Mr. Griffin, who's very strict and demanding.  One of the students hatches a plot, and convinces the other students to go along with it.  As the book description on Amazon says, "High school can be tough. But with teachers like Mr. Griffin it can seem impossible.  They only planned to scare him. But sometimes even the best-laid plans go wrong."<br>
      <br>
      Overall, the story was good, if a bit slow.  However, there was something odd about the version I read.  I'm sure I'm not alone in trying to put myself in the time frame from when a story was written.  It helps in visualizing everything, and understanding the mindset of the characters.  This book is relatively modern, but a few statements early on made me think it might have been from a few years ago.  So, I turned to the title page, and saw that the story was first published in 1978.  So, I put myself in that time frame, and visualized cars, clothing, and houses from the '70s.  But then, I'd read something about somebody using a cell phone, or checking something on the Internet.  It turns out that Duncan had gone back through the story and tried to update it to the present day.  The problem, in my opinion, is that it wasn't a complete update.  There were still parts of the book that read like a late '70s period, juxtaposed with present day scenarios.  It was a bit jarring.  So, if you do decide to read this book, I'd recommend looking for the old, non-updated version.
    </td></tr></table>
</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>
  <a name="20000Leagues"><b>20,000 Leagues Under the Sea</b></a><br />
  <i>by Jules Verne</i><br />
    <table cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 border=0><tr><td>
      <iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=jefflewisshomepa&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=1897093691&ref=tf_til&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="width:120px;height:240px;" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0" align="right"></iframe>
      Just for anybody who doesn't know what this book is about, it describes the adventures of Professor Pierre Aronnax, a noted French marine biologist, his assistant, Conseil, and a Canadian, harpoonist Ned Land.  The three were on a ship that was hunting for a 'sea monster' that had sunk several ships.  Arronax was knocked overboard after an encounter with the monster, and Conseil jumped in after him.  After hours of swimming, they found Ned Land, who had also been knocked overboard, but who was now riding the monster.  They were soon to learn that the monster was in fact a submarine, commanded by the mysterious Captain Nemo.  The rest of the book deals with their adventures.<br>
      <br>
      This book was interesting, but I didn't find it terribly engrossing.  Of course, Jules Verne is well known as one of the fathers of science fiction.  And his description of the submarine has been described as prophetic.  But, in much the same way as I complained about <a href="#ThroughTheLookingGlass">Through the Looking Glass</a>, this book didn't have a strong central plot.  It was mostly a series of short stories, bouncing around from one undersea location to another.<br>
      <br>
      Given when the book was written, it required a bit more suspension of disbelief than a typical sci fi story.  Sci fi stories often times tread on the boundary of what's known and what's still a mystery.  It gives the writer a place to let his imagination run wild.  But when stories like that are read by later generations, much of what was once unknown has now been discovered.  So it was with several scenes from <i>20,000 Leagues Under the Sea</i>.<br>
      <br>
      As I've learned of many books, especially from that time period, translation can be an issue.  As a Frenchman, Jules Verne wrote in French.  Some of what he wrote wasn't so flattering to the British Empire.  So, when the book was first translated into English by Reverend Lewis Page Mercier, nearly a quarter of the content was censored.  That original translation also had numerous errors that were down to incompetence.  So, if you do decide to read this book, check to make sure that you're getting a good translation, first.
    </td></tr></table>
</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>
  <a name="ChristmasCarol"><b>A Christmas Carol</b></a><br />
  <i>by Charles Dickens</i><br />
    <table cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 border=0><tr><td>
      <iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=jefflewisshomepa&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=193659434X&ref=tf_til&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="width:120px;height:240px;" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0" align="right"></iframe>
      I really enjoyed this story.  It's the famous tale of Ebenezer Scrooge, and his nightly visit by his old partner, Jacob Marley, and the three Christmas ghosts.  I don't know what I could write about this story that hasn't already been written.  And it's so familiar thanks to its many adaptations, that even including a plot summary seems superfluous.<br>
      <br>
      I will mention that if you've watched the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Christmas_Carol_%281984_film%29">1984 adaptation</a> with George C. Scott, that it's very, very close to Dickens' story.  In fact, I think it may be the most faithful adaptation of any book that I've read personally.
    </td></tr></table>
</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>
  <a name="LeftBehind"><b>Left Behind</b></a><br />
  <i>by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins</i><br />
    <table cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 border=0><tr><td>
      <iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=jefflewisshomepa&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=0842329110&ref=tf_til&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="width:120px;height:240px;" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0" align="right"></iframe>
      Although it's not a 'full' review, I've discussed this book twice already on this blog, in the entries, <a href="/blog/2011/01/some_early_thoughts_on_left_be_1.html">Some Early Thoughts on Left Behind</a> and <a href="/blog/2011/01/more_thoughts_on_left_behind_a.html">More Thoughts on Left Behind After Finishing the Book</a>.<br>
      <br>
      To quote myself from the second of those entries, "Left Behind wasn't great, but it wasn't horrible, either. It wasn't, as <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2006/06/25/lb-todays-gospel-reading/">Slacktivist</a> said, "The Worst Book Ever Written." At the very least, it gives you some insight into the mindset of premillenial dispensationalists. If you can get past the corny dialog, unlikeable heroes, and lack of detail, and then suspend your disbelief about the implausible scenarios, you can enjoy the book. I liked it enough that I'll probably read the rest of the series."
    </td></tr></table>
</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>
  <a name="ColorOfMagic"><b>The Color of Magic</b></a><br />
  <i>by Terry Pratchett</i><br />
    <table cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 border=0><tr><td>
      <iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=jefflewisshomepa&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=0060855924&ref=tf_til&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="width:120px;height:240px;" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0" align="right"></iframe>
      This is the first book in what has become the incredibly popular and extensive Discworld series.  To quote from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discworld">Wikipedia</a> the Discworld is "a flat world balanced on the backs of four elephants which, in turn, stand on the back of a giant turtle, Great A'Tuin," who, to quote from the book itself, is "swimming slowly through the interstellar gulf, hydrogen frost on his ponderous limbs, his huge and ancient shell pocked with meteor craters."<br>
      <br>
      There are wizards and magic and gods like typical fantasies, but elements of science as well.  The story (as well as the whole series, from what I understand) is also humorous.  As an example, one of the characters from a far away land had a magic picture box that made little pictures of people.  The locals were convinced that there must have been a little man inside painting tiny portraits.  Of course, this is a reference to what primitive peoples have thought when they've encountered cameras.  But in the book, after numerous pictures were made with the magic box, the little man finally stuck his head out and said that he was running out of a certain color paint.<br>
      <br>
      This story follows the adventures of Rincewind, a cowardly and somewhat incompetent wizard, and Twoflower, a tourist from the far away Agatean Empire (and owner of the magic picture box).  The story line is rather rambling, going to scene from scene without much tying it all together.  Much of what happens to the two main characters is being controlled by the gods, resulting in the ultimate <i>deus ex machina</i>.  By the end of the book, you've quit worrying about whether or not the two will escape whatever improbable scenario they find themselves in, because they always do.<br>
      <br>
      Overall, the book was fairly entertaining.  It had enough humorous elements to make up for the lack of plot.  And it's whet my appetite enough that I'll probably read more of the series in the future.
    </td></tr></table>
</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>
  <a name="HuckFinn"><b>The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn</b></a><br />
  <i>by Mark Twain</i><br />
    <table cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 border=0><tr><td>
      <iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=jefflewisshomepa&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=0520266102&ref=tf_til&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="width:120px;height:240px;" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0" align="right"></iframe>
      This is another classic that hardly needs any praise from me.  It's the story of the rascal, Huck Finn, as he runs away down the Mississippi River with the run away slave, Jim, who's hoping to eventually escape North where he can earn enough money to buy his family's freedom.<br>
      <br>
      Since there's nothing for me to add, I'll just quote my favorite passage from the book.  Recall that the story took place in a time of deep racism, and in a time when churches supported that racism.  People were told that it was immoral to aid runaway slaves.  Huck Finn, despite all his adventures with Jim, was worried that he was doing the wrong thing by helping Jim out, and that he'd end up in Hell because of it.  So, to 'ease his conscience', he wrote a letter that he was going to deliver that would reveal the full truth about Jim.<br>
      <br>
      <blockquote>It was a close place. I took it up [the letter], and held it in my hand. I was a trembling, because I'd got to decide, forever, betwixt two things, and I knowed it. I studied a minute, sort of holding my breath, and then says to myself:<br>
      <br>
      "All right, then, I'll go to hell"- and tore it up.<br>
      <br>
      It was awful thoughts, and awful words, but they was said. And I let them stay said; and never thought no more about reforming. I shoved the whole thing out of my head; and said I would take up wickedness again, which was in my line, being brung up to it, and the other warn't. And for a starter, I would go to work and steal Jim out of slavery again; and if I could think up anything worse, I would do that, too; because as long as I was in, and in for good, I might as well go the whole hog.</blockquote>
      <br>
      Even if it wasn't my favorite book I read this year, it's practically required reading.  If you haven't read it yet, go read it.
    </td></tr></table>
</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>
  <a name="Frankenstein"><b>Frankenstein</b></a><br />
  <i>by Mary Shelley</i><br />
    <table cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 border=0><tr><td>
      <iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=jefflewisshomepa&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=0486282112&ref=tf_til&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="width:120px;height:240px;" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0" align="right"></iframe>
      Although this book is a classic and has inspired many interpretations, I think most people know of Frankenstein more for the 1931 movie with Boris Karloff than for this book.  The book is the story of Victor Frankenstein, a gifted natural philosopher who discovered the secret of life.  His secret in the book is never actually revealed.  Electricity and lightning bolts were certainly never mentioned.  Armed with this secret, Frankenstein built his own human like creature.  But once he animated the creature, he was repulsed by it and abandoned it.  Eventually, he came back in contact with the creature, and it wasn't a happy family reunion.  The story ended in tragedy, but without any pitchforks, torches, or burning buildings.<br>
      <br>
      The story has been described as one of the first sci-fi stories.  And although we usually associate it with the horror genre, when you stop and think about it, there are no supernatural or mystical forces in the book.  It's all based on Frankenstein gaining an understanding of life through experimentation and observation.<br>
      <br>
      It took me a little while to get into the book.  It was written, as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankenstein">Wikipedia</a> describes it, as a frame story.  It started off being told by Captain Robert Walton, a man on an expedition hoping to reach the North Pole, in a series of letters to his sister.  Later, he writes of meeting Frankenstein, and the book transitions to a narrative from Frankenstein's point of view.  It was those introductory chapters being told by Walton that were a bit hard for me to get through.  So, if you start this book and similarly find that section dull, soldier through it and give the next part a chance.<br>
      <br>
      As an interesting side note, I'd just read Carl Zimmer's <a href="#SoulMadeFlesh">Soul Made Flesh</a> not long before.  It was a nearly perfect book to read first, to help you understand all the names involved in Frankenstein's studies, and to understand the scientific thinking on biological matters at the time.  Yes, we've learned more since Shelley wrote her book, making the particulars of her premise a bit hard to swallow, but it was still an interesting story.
    </td></tr></table>
</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>
  <a name="AllMyFriendsAreDead"><b>All My Friends Are Dead</b></a><br />
  <i>by Avery Monsen and Jory John</i><br />
    <table cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 border=0><tr><td>
      <iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=jefflewisshomepa&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=0811874559&ref=tf_til&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="width:120px;height:240px;" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0" align="right"></iframe>
      I already wrote a <a href="/blog/2011/05/book_review_all_my_friends_are.html">review</a> of this book.  Since the review's so short, I'll just quote it in its entirety.<br>
      <br>
      "I just recently bought a rather silly book that I happen to like quite a bit, All My Friends Are Dead. It's described as "either the saddest funny book or the funniest sad book you'll ever read." At only 96 pages long, with only a handful of words per page, it can be read cover to cover in less than a quarter of an hour. It's pretty funny, in an off beat way. I've handed it to nearly everyone who's come to the house since I bought it, and so far everyone's laughed out loud while reading it (not necessarily at every joke, but at quite a few). If you want a taste for what's inside, the book's website shares a few of the pages:<br>
      <br>
      <a href="http://nomorefriends.net/">Official Website for All My Frieds are Dead</a><br>
      <br>
      I definitely recommend this book.
    </td></tr></table>
</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>
  <a name="EndOfBiblicalStudies"><b>The End of Biblical Studies</b></a><br />
  <i>by Hector Avalos</i><br />
    <table cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 border=0><tr><td>
      <iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=jefflewisshomepa&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=1591025362&ref=tf_til&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="width:120px;height:240px;" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0" align="right"></iframe>
      I never wrote a full review of this book, but it did prompt one entry on this site, <a href="/blog/2011/02/reliance_on_bible_translations.html">Reliance on Bible Translations</a>.  It described how different translations can affect our understanding of the stories in the Bible, and how some peope can dishonestly translate to try to make the Bible seem better than it actually is.<br>
      <br>
      The book, as the title suggests, is a condmentation of Biblical studies.  Avalos covered a broad range of topics in the book, from textual criticism, to archaeology, to criticism of the <i>Journal of Biblical Literature</i>.  Unlike Bart Ehrman's <a href="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/2010/11/books_a_year_in_review_2010_pa_1.html#MisquotingJesus">Misquoting Jesus</a>, Avalos looked at the whole Bible, both Old and New Testaments.  However, I also found this book a bit drier than Ehrman's.  So, out of the two books I've read on this topic, I'd recommend <i>Misquoting Jesus</i> first, even though it was more limited in scope.  But for those wanting to learn even more, <i>The End of Biblical Studies</i> was very informative.
    </td></tr></table>
</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>
  <a name="MoreThanACarpenter"><b>More Than a Carpenter</b></a><br />
  <i>by Josh D. McDowell and Sean McDowell</i><br />
    <table cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 border=0><tr><td>
      <iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=jefflewisshomepa&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=1414326270&ref=tf_til&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="width:120px;height:240px;" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0" align="right"></iframe><br>
      I've already written a <a href="/blog/2011/04/book_review_more_than_a_carpen.html">full review</a> of this book.<br>
      <br>
      To quote from that review: "The book was bad. Practically every chapter relied on the Gospels being more or less reliable accounts, and then went off defending Jesus's divinity from there. As I've said plenty of times, if non-believers accepted that the Bible was true, we'd already be Christians. But we don't, so citing scripture as proof is nearly pointless. It would be like trying to prove Mormonism by quoting the Book of Mormon, or Buddhism by quoting the Buddhavacana. McDowell only spent one chapter (Chapter 6) trying to make a case for the Gospels being reliable, and didn't really succeed. And without that base, the rest of his book just falls flat."<br>
      And from the closing of that review, "This book won't convince anybody who's given serious thought to the question of Christianity, and doesn't even present any particularly thought provoking arguments."<br>
      <br>
      The full review is actually a fairly detailed chapter by chapter discussion of the book, if you really want more.
    </td></tr></table>
</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>
  <a name="ThousandsNotBillions"><b>Thousands, Not Billions</b></a><br />
  <i>by Donald B. DeYoung</i><br />
    <table cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 border=0><tr><td>
      <iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=jefflewisshomepa&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=0890514410&ref=tf_til&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="width:120px;height:240px;" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0" align="right"></iframe>
      I've already written a full review of this book in two parts: <a href="/blog/2010/11/book_review_thousands_not_bill.html">Part I</a> and <a href="/blog/2010/11/book_review_thousands_not_bill_1.html">Part II</a>.<br>
      <br>
      To quote a bit from that review, "The book is a summary of a research project known as <a href="http://www.icr.org/rate/">Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE)</a>, associated with The Institute for Creation Research (ICR). The book was written by one of the Researchers, Dr. Don DeYoung.<br>
      <br>
      "The subtitle of the book, "Challenging an Icon of Evolution, Questioning the Age of the Earth", might lead you to think that there'd be a bit of discussion of evolution. There wasn't. The book looked only at the age of the Earth, and focused entirely on radiometric dating."<br>
      <br>
      There were many problems with what these 'researchers' did.  First, as they even admitted in the book, they assumed that Scripture must be correct, and channeled all of their data to fit their preconceptions - exactly the wrong way to do science.  But even in their science there were numerous problems, most of which I covered in Part II of the review.  What I consider the fatal flaw of their argument, to which I devoted Part I of the review, was their conjecture that accelerated nuclear decay could be responsible for their 'findings', without ever accounting for all the heat that would have generated<br>
      <br>
      To quote the closing of the full review, "I usually end my reviews with a recommendation for or against reading the book. In this case, I definitely recommend against, unless you already know enough about the science, or are willing to put in the effort to research the claims. Otherwise, the arguments can sound convincing, and could mislead most of the people who read the book. If you don't know about these topics already, go read a real science book on geology."
    </td></tr></table>
</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>
  <a name="LeavingChristianity"><b>Leaving Christianity: A Collection of Essays</b></a><br />
  <i>by Jeff Lewis</i><br />
    <table cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 border=0><tr><td>
      <!-- Using a table instead of an iframe here, since Amazon doesn't carry this book.-->
      <table width="120" border="1" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" align="right" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0">
        <tr><td align="center" style="font-size:10px"><a href="http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/leaving-christianity/14354796"><img src="/graphics/blog/god_book_cover_amazon_clone.jpg" width=72 height=110 alt="Leaving Christianity, Cover"></a><br>
          <a href="http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/leaving-christianity/14354796">Leaving Christianity: A Collection of Essays</a><br>
          by Jeff Lewis<br>
          <font color="red">$4.99 from Lulu.com</font><br>
          <a href="http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/leaving-christianity/13991269"><img src="http://static.lulu.com/images/services/buy_now_buttons/us/orange.gif?20110531125308" border="0" alt="Support independent publishing: Buy this book on Lulu."></a>
      </td></tr></table>
      This book was incredible, great, fantastic - possibly the best book I've ever read on this subject.  It was just long enough to be engaging and informative, without being long and overwhelming...<br>
      <br>
      Okay, okay.  This was the book I wrote and self published.  It may not be the best book ever written, but I do think it's worth the time it takes to read it.  It is, as the title suggests, a collection of essays I wrote during and after my 'deconversion' from Christianity.  I did actually keep it to a length that should be informative without being overwhelming (~100 pages), so it could be a good primer on non-belief.  I've given copies to several friends, all of whom have said it was interesting.  Obviously, you wouldn't expect friends to tell you your book was horrible, but one of them even went out and bought 10 copies so that he could give it away to other people.<br>
      <br>
      So, in all honesty, I think this is a decent book to introduce people to atheism, and I think everybody should rush out and buy a dozen copies. (Well, metaphorically rush out.  You can only buy the book online from Lulu or Apple's iBooks.)<br>
      <br>
      Oh, I suppose I should mention that all of the essays in this book are available for free on this site, in my <a href="/religion">Religious Essays</a> section.  So, you can read it all for free if you want to.  I just think a print copy is nice (not to mention a great gift).
    </td></tr></table>
</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>
  <a name="WhatDoYouCare"><b>What Do <i>You</i> Care What Other People Think</b></a><br />
  <i>by Richard Feynman</i><br />
    <table cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 border=0><tr><td>
      <iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=jefflewisshomepa&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=0393320928&ref=tf_til&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="width:120px;height:240px;" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0" align="right"></iframe>
      This was Richard Feynman's follow up to his popular book, <i>Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! (Adventures of a Curious Character)</i>.  This sequel was also a collection of many anecdotes, but overall it was more serious.  He spent a good deal of it discussing the death of his first wife.  He devoted nearly half of the book to discussing his involvement with the investigation into the Challenger explosion.  Given that so much of the book was devoted to two topics, it didn't have the variety of the first book.  It didn't have the same adventurous feel as the first, either.<br>
      <br>
      If you really like Feynman, or have an interest in the Challenger disaster, this would be a good book for you.  For most people, though, I'd recommend they read <i>Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!</i> first.
    </td></tr></table>
</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>
  <a name="WhyEvolutionIsTrue"><b>Why Evolution Is True</b></a><br />
  <i>by Jerry A. Coyne</i><br />
    <table cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 border=0><tr><td>
      <iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=jefflewisshomepa&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=0143116649&ref=tf_til&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="width:120px;height:240px;" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0" align="right"></iframe>
      I've already written a <a href="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/2011/03/book_review_why_evolution_is_t.html">review</a> of this book.  To quote from it:<br>
      <br>
      "I've just finished reading Jerry Coyne's book, <i>Why Evolution Is True</i>. This is one of my new favorites for introducing evolution to people who don't currently understand or accept it. It contains a great balance of theory and evidence, or in other words, explaining how evolution works, as well as showing the evidence of how we know that."<br>
      <br>
      "In short, this book is a great introduction to people who don't understand evolution. Donald Prothero's <a href="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/2009/02/book_review_evolution_what_the.html">Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters</a> may have a more detailed discussion of the fossil evidence, and Carl Zimmer's <a href="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/2010/06/book_review_the_tangled_bank.html">The Tangled Bank</a> may have a more detailed discussion of the mechanisms, but Coyne's book has just the right balance of theory and evidence, especially evidence from a broad range of disciplines."<br>
      <br>
      I'll also add, as I already mentioned in that review, that Coyne spends just the right amount of time debunking creationism, without dwelling on it to the point of distracting from the actual science.<br>
      <br>
      Out of all the books on evolution that I've read, from now on, this is going to be the first one I recommend to people who want to learn more about it.
    </td></tr></table>
</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>
  <a name="TwoYearsBeforeTheMast"><b>Two Years Before the Mast</b></a><br />
  <i>by Richard Henry Dana</i><br />
    <table cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 border=0><tr><td>
      <iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=jefflewisshomepa&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=0451531256&ref=tf_til&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="width:120px;height:240px;" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0" align="right"></iframe>
      When Richard Henry Dana was a young man studying at Harvard, he began having trouble with his vision and thought a stint as a sailor might help improve his constitution.  So, on August 14th, 1834, he climbed aboard the ship, the Pilgrim, to start what would become a two year trek.<br>
      <br>The ship set sail from Boston harbor, went south and around Cape Horn at the southern tip of South America, and then on to California.  The ship went up and down the coast, trading for hides, periodically returning to port in San Diego to empty their current load of hides to make room for more.  At one point, Dana stayed behind in San Diego to work on the hide preparation while the ship went back to trading.  After nearly two years of this, Dana got to go home.  This time, he was aboard a different ship, the Alert.<br>
      <br>
      The book was interesting for a variety of reasons.  First, it gave insight into life aboard a sailing vessel, from the point of view of a common sailor.  I've always found that topic fascinating, but never really looked into it before.  I even remember wondering what there was to do aboard a ship, and imagined that, apart from short bursts of activity, it would have been a pretty idle life.  But apparently, there was always something to do on board, and the crew had very little time for leisure.  The book also showed the absolute power that a captain had aboard a ship, and how little recourse there was for the crew if the captain abused that power.<br>
      <br>
      The other aspect of the book I found fascinating was its description of California in that time period.  Dana travelled there while California was still a part of Mexico, before the Gold Rush and before California entered the Union in 1850.  It was only sparsely populated, at the time, and it's prime industry was the hide trade.  Many of the names we now recognize as big cities were in the book, but the settlements were relatively small at the time.  San Francisco Bay, for example, had the Presidio, the Mission of Dolores, and a few villages.  What makes this more interesting is that in the 1869 edition of the book (the one I read), Dana added an appendix where he wrote of his impressions after visiting California 24 years after his first trip.  His second visit was after the Gold Rush and California's statehood, and you could read a first hand account of the changes that had taken place.<br>
      <br>
      The book was hugely popular when it was published, and especially during the Gold Rush as it was one of the few 'guides' to the region.  Herman Melville even wrote of it, "But if you want the best idea of Cape Horn, get my friend Dana's unmatchable <i>Two Years Before the Mast</i>. But you can read, and so you must have read it. His chapters describing Cape Horn must have been written with an icicle."  If you have any interest in sailing or the history of California, I recommend this book.
    </td></tr></table>
</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>
  <a name="SoulMadeFlesh"><b>Soul Made Flesh</b></a><br />
  <i>by Carl Zimmer</i><br />
    <table cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 border=0><tr><td>
      <iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=jefflewisshomepa&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=0743272056&ref=tf_til&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="width:120px;height:240px;" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0" align="right"></iframe>
      The subtitle of this book was 'The Discovery of the Brain--and How it Changed the World'.  The descriptions I'd read beforehand billed it as mostly following the research of Thomas Willis.  However, both of those statements are a bit misleading.  The book is far more ranging than that.  It looked at the beginning of the modern understanding of the human body, from understanding that the circulatory system was actually circulatory (not one way), to finishing the book with a chapter discussing MRI machines, while touching on the English Civil War and the founding of the Royal Society.  The book was written with Zimmer's trademark storytelling, making the people involved more than just names associated with discoveries.<br>
      <br>
There's actually a very good <a href="http://www.amazon.com/review/R2B714BJ82P4GH/ref=cm_cr_dp_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0743230388&nodeID=283155&tag=&linkCode=">review</a> of the book on Amazon, that says exactly what I wanted to say.<br>
      <br>
      If you like Carl Zimmer (and who doesn't), or are interested in how we came to actually understand human anatomy, this is a good book to read.
    </td></tr></table>
</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>
  <a name="Castle"><b>Castle</b></a><br />
  <i>by David Macaulay</i><br />
    <table cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 border=0><tr><td>
      <iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=jefflewisshomepa&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=0395329205&ref=tf_til&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="width:120px;height:240px;" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0" align="right"></iframe>
      Back when I was a kid, I watched the documentary, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000EOTEJK/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=jefflewisshomepa&linkCode=as2&camp=217145&creative=399373&creativeASIN=B000EOTEJK">Castle</a>, on PBS, and I loved it.  It was such an interesting animation showing how castles were built and used in the Middle Ages.  Once I found out there was a book it was based on, I'd always wanted to read it.  I finally got around to doing so this year, and it was great.<br>
      <br>
      The book was written in McCauly's signature style - detailed ink illustrations accompanied by text to explain it.  It was the fictitious story of the Lord of Aberwyvern building a castle, but based on how castles were actually built, and how people actually lived in the Middle Ages.  The book is short.  I read it in a night or two, but I thoroughly enjoyed it, and plan to read it again.  It was good enough that I went out and bought another of McCauly's books, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0395316685/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=jefflewisshomepa&linkCode=as2&camp=217145&creative=399369&creativeASIN=0395316685">Cathedral: The Story of Its Construction</a>.<br>
      <br>
      I suppose it's also worth mentioning that this book earned the Caldecott Honor in 1978 (one of two runner ups that year).
    </td></tr></table>
</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>
  <a name="BadAstronomy"><b>Bad Astronomy: Misconceptions and Misuses Revealed, from Astrology to the Moon Landing "Hoax"</b></a><br />
  <i>by Philip C. Plait</i><br />
    <table cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 border=0><tr><td>
      <iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=jefflewisshomepa&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=0471409766&ref=tf_til&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="width:120px;height:240px;" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0" align="right"></iframe>
      This is the first of the two books that Phil Plait has written (so far - I wouldn't be surprised if he wrote more in the future).  The other, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0143116045?ie=UTF8&tag=jefflewisshomepa&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0143116045">Death from the Skies!</a>, I'd read a couple years ago.<br>
      <br>
      If you've ever read Plait's <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/">Bad Astronomy</a> blog, you'll know that he's passionate about science, particularly astronomy, and that he's also passionate about correcting misunderstandings and urban legends.  The reason for the title of this book is because Plait was addressing 'bad' astronomy.  He covered such wide ranging topics as the Coriolis effect (and how people mistakenly believe it's responsible for the direction toilets flush), the 'Great Planetary Alignment of 2000' (and the disaster it didn't cause), and the Moon-landing hoax (which wasn't a hoax).<br>
      <br>
      All in all, it was a very informative book, and entertaining at the same time.  However, having read <i>Death from the Skies</i> first, it's apparent that Plait's writing has matured.  If you have the time, then by all means, read both of these books.  But if you're looking for a single book by Plait to read, I'd recommend starting off with <i>Death from the Skies</i>.
    </td></tr></table>
</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>
  <a name="MeaningOfTingo"><b>The Meaning of Tingo</b></a><br />
  <i>by Adam Jacot de Boinod</i><br />
    <table cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 border=0><tr><td>
      <iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=jefflewisshomepa&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=0143038524&ref=tf_til&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="width:120px;height:240px;" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0" align="right"></iframe>
      This book carries the dubious distinction of being one of the few books I've started and not finished.  I picked it up from the clearance rack of the local book store, and it seemed to have an interesting premise.  The author collected interesting words and phrases from around the world, organized them by subject, and put them in the book.  It's an interesting way to see how different attitudes get manifested in language.  For example, 'tingo', from the title of the book, comes from the Pascuense language of Easter Island and supposedly means 'to take all the objects one desires from the house of a friend, one at a time, by borrowing them'.<br>
      <br>
      However, I decided to look the book up on Amazon while I was in the middle of reading it, and I checked a few of the reviews.  A native Chinese speaker complained of Boinod mistranslating the Chinese.  A native German speaker complained of mistranslations of German.  A native Russian speaker complained of mistranslations of Russian.  So, with all those people complaining about so many inaccuracies in the book, I lost my enthusiasm to read it.  And it's a shame, because like I wrote above, it really was an interesting concept.
    </td></tr></table>
</p>]]>
    </content>
</entry>
<entry>
    <title>Response to an Editorial by Pat Boone</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/2011/11/response_to_an_editorial_by_pa.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=464" title="Response to an Editorial by Pat Boone" />
    <id>tag:www.jefflewis.net,2011:/blog//1.464</id>
    
    <published>2011-11-17T01:00:19Z</published>
    <updated>2011-11-18T19:06:23Z</updated>
    
    <summary>I&apos;ve received yet another erroneous right wing e-mail forward. This one was a copy of an editorial by Pat Boone, that was originally published in World Net Daily. I wrote a response to the e-mail, which I&apos;m adapting for this...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Jeff</name>
        
    </author>
            <category term="Politics" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/">
        <![CDATA[<p><img src="/graphics/blog/pat_boone_sm.jpg" width=125 height=156 alt="Pat Boone" align="right">I've received yet another erroneous right wing e-mail forward.  This one was a copy of an editorial by Pat Boone, that was originally published in World Net Daily.  I wrote a response to the e-mail, which I'm adapting for this blog entry.</p>

<p>Since this entry started as a response to an e-mail, it started with the assumption that the person I was writing it to was familiar with Boone's editorial.  So, I'm not going to quote all of his editorial.  If you go to the Snopes link below, you can find a link to the full version.</p>

<p>To get the easy error checking out of the way, Snopes confirmed that this was written by Boone.<br />
<a href="http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/patboone.asp">http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/patboone.asp</a></p>

<p><br />
<b><u>Accuracy of Quotes</u></b></p>

<p>The editorial started off with 4 supposed quotes from Obama.</p>

<blockquote>"We're no longer a Christian nation." - President Barack Obama, June 2009

<p>" America has been arrogant." - President Barack Obama</p>

<p>"After 9/11, America didn't always live up to her ideals."- President Barack Obama</p>

<p>"You might say that America is a Muslim nation."- President Barack Obama, Egypt 2009</blockquote></p>

<p>As far as the accuracy of those quotes, this article on UrbanLegends at About.com covers all four of them pretty well:<br />
<a href="http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/president_without_a_country.htm">http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/president_without_a_country.htm</a></p>

<p>None of the four is an accurate quote.  The first cut short what Obama said, changing the meaning.  Here’s the full quote:</p>

<blockquote>Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation — at least, not just; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.</blockquote>

<p>If Boone had included the full quote, he’d have realized that it said almost exactly what he wrote near the end of his article about what Obama should have said.</p>

<p>BTW, the awkward wording on that was due to Obama misspeaking.  The originally prepared written copy of the speech put ‘just’ right in the middle of the first sentence, not tacked on at the end.</p>

<p>The second and third quotes are paraphrased, though not changing the meaning too much.  However, it’s always best to read quotes in full context, which you can do at that UrbanLegends at About.com link.</p>

<p>The fourth quote doesn’t appear to even be a paraphrase.  The closest Obama came to saying anything like that was in an interview with a reporter.  Here’s the section of the interview where that probably came from:</p>

<blockquote>Now, the flip side is I think that the United States and the West generally, we have to educate ourselves more effectively on Islam. And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world. And so there's got to be a better dialogue and a better understanding between the two peoples.</blockquote>

<p><br />
<b><u>Christian Nation?  Founders Intentions</b></u></p>

<p>Okay, moving past Boone’s inaccuracy in the quotes, let’s look at some of his other points.</p>

<p>Let’s start at the whole notion of the U.S. being a Christian nation, and being founded by Christians.  In fact, this is a bit of a complicated issue.  The Founding Fathers were no more uniform than any group of politicians.  Some were definitely Christians.  Some definitely weren’t.  Some called themselves Christians, but were outside what would be considered mainstream Christianity today.  And some probably changed their views throughout their lives.</p>

<p>Thomas Jefferson is probably the most famous example.  He called himself a Christian, but for all intents and purposes, he was a deist.  He didn’t believe in the divinity of Christ, and went so far as to make his own version of the Bible where he removed all the miracles.  In letters, he wrote that he disagreed with some of Jesus' teachings.  Jefferson certainly disliked organized religion and churches. He wrote “History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government,” as well as, “In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.”</p>

<p>Boone, for some reason, dismissed Jefferson’s statement about a ‘wall of separation between Church and State’.  I think Jefferson was quite clear in what he wrote:</p>

<blockquote>Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State.</blockquote>

<p>Elsewhere, Jefferson wrote statements that confirmed this, such as:</p>

<blockquote>The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.</blockquote>

<p>More Info:</p>

<ul>
  <li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_religion#Anti-clericalism.2C_anti-mysticism.2C_and_anti-Calvinism">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_religion#Anti-clericalism.2C_anti-mysticism.2C_and_anti-Calvinism</a>
  <li><a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/chapter_2.html">http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/chapter_2.html</a>
</ul>

<p>George Washington didn’t discuss religion much at all.  However, it’s interesting to consider the story of him and Communion.  He never took Communion.  On those Sundays at which Communion was served, he would leave the church early.  After the pastor warned him that he might be setting a bad example by leaving early and not taking Communion, Washington quit going to church on Communion Sundays altogether.  Many people have used this example (among others) to argue that Washington only went to church for social reasons, and wasn’t very religious himself.</p>

<p>More Info:</p>

<ul>
  <li><a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/chapter_3.html">http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/chapter_3.html</a>
</ul>

<p>You can look beyond statements from individuals.  The Treaty of Tripoli had wording that I can hardly imagine being passed in today’s political climate, but which didn’t seem to faze the Founders.  Article 11 of the treaty states:</p>

<blockquote>As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.</blockquote>

<p>This wasn’t something that just slipped by.  It had unanimous Senate support.  To quote from the link below:</p>

<blockquote>[The treaty] was, according to the official record, read aloud (the whole treaty was only a page or two long), including the famous words, on the floor of the senate and copies were printed for every Senator. (It should be noted that the controversy about the Arabic version is irrelevant here: all official treaty collections from 1797 on contain the English version, and all include the famous words of Article XI.) A committee considered the treaty and recommended ratification. Twenty-three Senators voted to ratify: …  The vote was recorded only because at least a fifth of the Senators present voted to require a recorded vote. This was the 339th time … that a recorded vote was required. It was only the third time that a vote was recorded when the vote was unanimous! (The next time was to honor George Washington.) There is no record of any debate or dissension on the treaty.

<p>President Adams signed the treaty and proclaimed it to the nation on 10 June 1797. His statement on it was a bit unusual: "Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all other citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof."</blockquote></p>

<p>More Info:</p>

<ul>
  <li><a href="http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/buckner_tripoli.html">http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/buckner_tripoli.html</a>
</ul>

<p>While the Declaration does mention a ‘Creator’, that could be taken as a deistic stance as easily as a Christian one (in Jefferson’s original draft, there was no mention of a creator at all).  But, that’s somewhat beside the point since the Declaration was a statement of war against the British, not a founding document of our nation, and it doesn’t carry any weight in current U.S. law.  The Constitution itself never makes mention of a god or a creator at all, except for listing the date as “Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven”, which is no more explicitly Christian than using the convention of B.C./A.D.</p>

<p>More Info:<br />
<ul><br />
  <li><a href="http://candst.tripod.com/doitj.htm">http://candst.tripod.com/doitj.htm</a><br />
  <li><a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#god">http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#god</a><br />
</ul></p>

<p>It’s also worth noting that the first de facto motto of the U.S. was ‘E. Pluribus Unum’ (from many, one), and that ‘In God We Trust’ wasn’t made the official motto until the Red Scare and McCarthyism.  ‘In God We Trust’ didn’t even start appearing on coins until the Civil War.  Similarly, even though it’s from a later period than the founding of the nation, the original version of the pledge of allegiance (written by a socialist, by the way) made no mention of the divine, and it was also during the McCarthy era that the pledge was altered.</p>

<p>More Info:</p>

<ul>
  <li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_Pluribus_Unum">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_Pluribus_Unum</a>
  <li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance#Changes">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance#Changes</a>
  <li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bellamy">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bellamy</a>
</ul>

<p>However, like I wrote above, the issue of religion in the founding of our country was complicated.  There were numerous Christians among the Founders, and many people who did want religion to be more prevalent.  When it came to state constitutions, many did include language about God and Christianity, and many states even had religious tests to hold office.  (Keep in mind that the Bill of Rights originally applied only to the federal government, so state governments could violate those Amendments).</p>

<p>So, the short answer is that people were divided on the role of religion in government even at the start of the country, but it appears that the federal government, at least, was primarily secular.</p>

<p><br />
<b><u>Judeo-Christian Values?</b></u></p>

<p>But even if our government wasn’t explicitly religious, was it still founded on Judeo-Christian religious principles?  Not really.  At least, not values that are exclusively Judeo-Christian.</p>

<p>Many laws are so basic that they’re present in practically all societies, regardless of religion.  Any laws against murder, theft, etc., are pretty much common to all civilizations, not just Judeo-Christian ones.  The golden rule, for example, was present in many ancient societies, from the Egyptians to the Chinese.</p>

<p>The structure of our government certainly is not based on Christianity.  It’s a democratic republic, which dates back to the Greeks & Romans (who worshipped a pantheon of gods).  Enshrining laws in a written code dates back at least to the Code of Hammurabi.</p>

<p>One aspect of our government that’s actually in direct contradiction to Judeo-Christian values is the religious freedom part of the 1st Amendment.  Compare it to the first few Commandments (either 1-3 or 1-4 depending on how you count them).  Giving people the freedom to worship whichever gods they want to, or none at all, is not a Judeo-Christian value.  (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 is another passage from the Bible going against the 1st Amendment).</p>

<p>I think it could be argued that our government was based more on Enlightenment values than any particular religion.  That’s not to say that many Founding Fathers and citizens didn’t have Judeo-Christian values, but rather that those values were applied more to their personal lives, not politics.</p>

<p>More Info:</p>

<ul>
  <li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi</a>
  <li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule</a>
  <li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enlightenment">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enlightenment</a>
</ul>

<p><br />
<b><u>Last Remarks on Religion</b></u></p>

<p>As one last part of this discussion on religion vs. government, above I was only correcting Boone’s factual errors.  Moving to the subjective realm, another point is to question the importance of the Founding Fathers’ original intentions.  They weren’t infallible, or guided from on high.  They were simply men doing their best.  Remember, these are men who (as a group, at least) agreed that slavery should have been legal and that women didn’t deserve the right to vote.  And like I wrote above, they originally only applied the Bill of Rights to the federal government, so states could infringe on liberties as much as their citizenry allowed.  So if we want to change things about the country that we no longer like, we shouldn’t feel like slaves to the Founders.</p>

<p>As far as the current makeup of the country, it’s still majority Christian, but the trend is away from that.  In 1990, around 86% of the population was Christian.  In 2008, it was down to 76%.  In 1990, 3.3% of people were of non-Christian religions.  In 2008 it was 3.9%.  The biggest change was in people of no religion.  In 1990, they were 8.2% of the U.S. population.  In 2008 they were 15%.  (Those numbers don’t add up to 100% partly due to rounding, but mainly due to the people who refused to respond to the question on religious affiliation in the survey.)</p>

<p>If that trend continues, it will only be a few more decades until Christians are a minority in the U.S. (according to some surveys, this point has already been reached in the UK).  But do you want a new majority to be able to push their religious beliefs through government?  I don’t.  That’s the whole point of Jefferson’s ‘wall of separation’.  It ensures that no matter what your religious beliefs, you’ll always be free to practice them without government interference (so long as they don’t break any other laws, of course).  </p>

<p>More Info:</p>

<ul>
  <li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#ARIS_findings_regarding_self-identification">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#ARIS_findings_regarding_self-identification</a>
  <li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#United_Kingdom">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#United_Kingdom</a>
</ul>

<p><br />
<b><u>Not Living Up to Ideals</b></u></p>

<p>Honestly, I’m not sure why anyone would disagree with this statement unless they were blinded by irrationally extreme nationalism.  I have yet to talk to a single person I know personally who likes the Patriot Act, or who doesn’t think that it’s a gross violation of our liberty.  Or the TSA - every time I fly, I’m annoyed at the pointless hoops I have to jump through, knowing that they’re little more than show, which would do practically nothing to stop a determined terrorist, but which violate the 4th Amendment.</p>

<p>Or consider the detainees in Guantanamo, who are being held without trial, on suspicion of having committed a crime.  Granted, those detainees are not citizens, but have we become so cowardly that we’re willing to deny 6th Amendment rights to human beings over a technicality?  (Especially for the people who put so much stock in the Declaration.  It says ‘<b>ALL</b> men are created equal’, not just ‘all men born on American soil or to American parents’.)</p>

<p>And what about using a method of torture which, during WWII, was considered sufficiently horrendous to justify the hanging of Japanese soldiers who had employed it against our troops?  And the present day torture is not an isolated case of some rogue soldiers, but a decree that came from the White House.</p>

<p>To quote another of the Founding Fathers, it was Benjamin Franklin who wrote, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”</p>

<p>More Info:</p>

<ul>
  <li><a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/04/pew-poll-public-support-for-torture-at-five-year-high/">http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/04/pew-poll-public-support-for-torture-at-five-year-high/</a>
  <li><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/guantanamo-detainees-see-legal-progress-reversed/2011/06/21/AGr71ljH_story.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/guantanamo-detainees-see-legal-progress-reversed/2011/06/21/AGr71ljH_story.html</a>
  <li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#World_War_II">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#World_War_II</a>
  <li><a href="http://civilliberty.about.com/od/waronterror/ig/War-on-Terror-101/Rights-of-Guantanamo-Detainees.htm">http://civilliberty.about.com/od/waronterror/ig/War-on-Terror-101/Rights-of-Guantanamo-Detainees.htm</a>
</ul>

<p><br />
<b><u>Closing</b></u></p>

<p>I guess that’s most of it.  My e-mail response, and hence this blog entry, grew a lot longer than I’d originally intended, but Boone just said so many untrue things that I wanted to respond to.  But the summary is that Boone misquoted Obama and went off on some ranting from that false base, while adding in a bit of a distorted history of the nation, as well.</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>
<entry>
    <title>Earthquake Followup</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/2011/11/earthquake_followup.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=463" title="Earthquake Followup" />
    <id>tag:www.jefflewis.net,2011:/blog//1.463</id>
    
    <published>2011-11-11T14:08:09Z</published>
    <updated>2011-11-11T14:08:32Z</updated>
    
    <summary>I recently wrote about the Oklahoma earthquake we felt here in Wichita Falls last Saturday night. Of course, there are people claiming it&apos;s a sign of the end times, which is a little silly, but this is the Bible Belt,...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Jeff</name>
        
    </author>
            <category term="General" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/">
        <![CDATA[<p><img src="/graphics/blog/earthquake_sm.gif" width=125 height=125 alt="Earthquake" align="right">I recently <a href="/blog/2011/11/shake_up_in_wichita_falls.html">wrote</a> about the Oklahoma earthquake we felt here in Wichita Falls last Saturday night.  Of course, there are people <a href="http://global.christianpost.com/news/oklahoma-earthquakes-today-are-a-sign-of-the-end-says-pastor-paul-begley-video-60644/">claiming</a> it's a sign of the end times, which is a little silly, but this is the Bible Belt, after all.</p>

<p>The quake's been a topic of quite a few conversations here in Wichita Falls.  Earlier this week, I had a dentist appointment.  My dentist is pretty friendly, and we usually talk a bit about non-teeth related topics.  He's never brought up religion with me before since that would be unprofessional, and given my views and the region I live in, I never make it a point to bring up religion myself.  However, when we got to talking about the quake, he told me about the mental checklist he went through trying to figure out what was happening.</p>

<p>I can't remember his exact words, but he said that at first he thought it might have been the Rapture.  Now, he wasn't exactly sure if was going to be taken, but he was pretty sure his wife was going to make the cut.  So, when he looked over and saw her still sitting there, he knew that that couldn't have been it.</p>

<p>Anyway, I have no commentary.  I just thought it was funny.</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

</feed> 


