Category Archives: Blogs' Archive

Water on the moon makes a lovely headline. It would make a nice title for a film or name for a band, too. But, then you read the article and the success is a bit more qualified.
Sure, there’s water on the moon, or in the moon rather. Under the surface of the lunar ground. The news is that it might be more abundant and widespread than they thought, but they are still talking about drilling, and then maybe – we still haven’t given it the old taste test yet, nor tested it for purity (we can’t drink most of the water on Earth without special treatment) – we can get enough to service a lunar colony.
I’m all for it, though. If we can excavate the water on the moon and use it, for drinking, for washing, for crops even, then we can probably do the same on Mars, and the science we’ll learn on the way will help us here on Earth.
If we can make the moon and Mars habitable, we should be able to restore the Earth to its pristine, pre-industrial condition. Which would be awesome.

Everybody’s out of town but me so yesterday was a day of smoking way too much pot and binge watching two entire mini-series, along with one pretty bad sci-fi movie about the evils of body stealing, but I’m not even going to talk about that one.
I highly recommend “Barbarians” and “Queen’s Gambit” which is only called Queen’s Gambit because it was about a woman chess player. As far as chess strategies go, the Sicilian Defense was a much more significant part of the plot.
It was entirely fictional, of course. There have been very few women in the world of chess, and this wasn’t one of them, but the story is convincing. Raised as an orphan after her mother’s suicide, which seems to have been intended as a murder suicide, in a truly horrible, but likely typical, christian orphanage, where she kept getting sent down to the basement to clean erasers because she was too quick at math, and there she learned chess from the janitor.
A gawky, socially awkward girl, she grows into a neurotic, drug dependent, alcoholic adult who is a stone cold fox. Her Russian driver (unaware she speaks the language) says she looks like Ann Margaret, and the comparison is not unjustified.
The last episode drags a bit, at her triumph, there are a few two many scenes of all her friends, and crowds of adoring Russians, cheering for her, but it’s expected of this kind of film.
As far as the treatment of chess goes, it’s one of the best things I’ve ever seen. If you love chess, you’ll love this film. If you just like films about the underdog beating everybody, you’ll probably like it O.K., too.
The other one I watched straight through yesterday was “Barbarians.” Good, because it covers a moment in history that I don’t think gets covered enough, the Battle of the Teutoborg Forest in 9 a.d. Now, anything going back to 9 a.d. is speculative history at best. They say history is written by the winners, but almost none of the winners could read and write. Although the site of the battle, and other specific details, are still matters of speculation, the history as presented in the film is consistent with the historical account I just read in Wikipedia this second.
Very much like “Queen’s Gambit”, it works on two levels. If you are an aficionado of either German or Roman history, you will be pleased with the film. If you just like to watch bloody fights with swords, spears, and bare hands, you’ll probably like it, too.

Once again, due to time zones and a lack of interest, I did not watch the debate last night, so those of you who are better informed than I feel free to yell at me all you want, but here are my observations, filtered through the keyboards of random people who did see it.
Contrary to my expectations, Biden did not blow it. One person said he had a senior moment when he referred to the Proud Boys as the Poor Boys, but that’s not nearly as bad as forgetting what the constitution is called, what state he was in (multiple times), or the name of the person who was president from 2009 to 2016, and he got away with all of those. Also, poor boys rather works, as a descriptive phrase.
Trump, also, managed to deal with the new mute rule without bursting into flames. Saying he’s the ‘least racist person in the room’ is obviously untrue, but it’s something his fans don’t mind hearing him say, because sometimes they say it, too (immediately followed by “If you ast me, it’s the n****rs who are the racist ones.”
So, that was it. I didn’t hear anybody complaining about the two minute and mute rule, so that, by default, is a success.

Of all the politicians in America who you might have suspected to be the next one with a sex scandal, Rudy Giuliani is right up there near the top.
Like with Jeffrey Toobin, I’m not really sure how big a scandal it will be. No laws were broken (The girl was not actually Borat’s 15 year old daughter, she was a 20 something actress playing Borat’s 15 year old daughter) and Rudy says that he was just tucking his shirt back in after taking off his recording equipment, and not actually pulling his dick out in preparation for sex. He could be telling the truth, I suppose. The fact that he was lying back on his bed, in a hotel room, certainly could have been construed as an invitation for the young lady to join him, but there’s no law against that.
But also like with Jeffrey Toobin, it’s funny as hell and Rudy’s self-righteous denials just make it funnier.
Besides, a politician ought to feel a bit foolish if they are fooled by Borat. It’s not exactly a new routine any more.

I no longer have a dog in this fight. I’ve already voted and I voted Green. Nonetheless, I am looking forward to tomorrow’s debates, and I hope that the winner is the new format.
There are two things they are doing differently. They are dividing the debate into four sections, each one covering an issue. I hope the environment is one of those issues, but I’m not holding my breath. Anyway, I think it’s a good idea because it gives focus, and it probably would be a good idea during the primary debates, in future.
The most significant change, though, is that each mike (no, I’m not spelling it mic, sue me) will be muted after two minutes. So, in a 90 minute debate, take away 15 or 20 minutes for introductions and opening statements, and assuming the moderators keep their questions under a minute or so, you will have several questions, and several answers. That’s good for the voters, in case there are any who haven’t made up their mind. And the answers will be clear and audible.
It could go either way. It could hurt Trump, because he does not know when to stop talking, and will keep on mouthing words silently and looking stupid. He may eventually grow frustrated with the format and start screaming or, even, storm off the stage, as he has been known to do.
On the other hand, it could hurt Biden, because if he has to speak, uninterrupted, for multiple two minute segments, there is a good chance that he will lose the thread, forget what state he’s in, what year it is, who he is married to, or how to speak English.
But, I think the rule will prove itself. I’m looking forward to that.