The story of two homes. One is owned by a true environmentalist. The other by a selfish busy-body. Who owns what? The answer is here.

The four-bedroom home was planned so that “every room has a relationship with something in the landscape that’s different from the room next door. Each of the rooms feels like a slightly different place.” The resulting single-story house is a paragon of environmental planning.

The passive-solar house is built of honey-colored native limestone and positioned to absorb winter sunlight, warming the interior walkways and walls of the 4,000-square-foot residence.

Geothermal heat pumps circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground. These waters pass through a heat exchange system that keeps the home warm in winter and cool in summer. A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof urns; wastewater from sinks, toilets, and showers cascades into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is then used to irrigate the landscaping around the four-bedroom home, (which) uses indigenous grasses, shrubs, and flowers to complete the exterior treatment of the home. ... This house consumes 25% of the energy of an average American home.

That homeowner must really care about the environment. What about this one?

This 20-room, 8-bathroom house consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year. The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, this house devoured nearly 221,000 kWh, more than 20 times the national average. ... Also, natural gas bills for this house and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year. In total, this house had nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for 2006.

What an Energy Hog! Would anyone listen to this homeowner pontificate on environmental matters? Uh... sadly, yes, people would not only listen to this pig, but they'd give him awards praising his work on the behalf of the environment.


Maybe we should heed this sage advice, eh?

I  am not surprised by the Main Scream Media's antipathy toward the American military. By in large, reporters are products of their environment; indoctrinated educated by anti-military instructors, from Grade School to Graduate School, they carry an anti-military bias into the working world. I'm not surprised, but I am greatly dismayed.

A perfect example of a reporters anti-military bias is a Fox News story that greeted me when I opened my  internet home page this morning. The headline screamed "Ex-Husband: Army Said Pregnant Soldier Found Dead in Hotel Was AWOL". The story concerns the tragic case of an Army Spc. Megan Lynn Touma, who was discovered dead in a hotel room. The story's second and third paragraphs are completely groundless charges by the Specialist's ex-husband implicating the US Army in the death and in some kind of cover-up.

"She was left in the room for two days, and the Army said she was AWOL. They didn't even bother to go check on her in the motel where she stayed. I mean the Army knows that she stayed in that hotel," El Sayed Touma [the ex-husband] said."

Other than inflaming anti-military (and anti-American) emotion, what is the purpose of this quote? It adds nothing to the story. Any soldier that does not report when so ordered is noted in personnel records as "Absent Without Leave", or AWOL. Including in this report a quote from an ex-husband that implies the Army "left" Spc. Touma for two days is a mendacious lie. Reporting the soldier AWOL is standard procedure; it'd 'dog bites man' portion of this story. Including the ex-husbands quote, however, puts a very different spin on the events.

I'm very sorry that Spc. Touma's family lost a loved one. I'm also very sorry that Fox News has decided to turn the tragedy into an attack against the America's military. This is utterly disgraceful.

There I was standing a Barnes & Noble, browsing the Science Fiction & Fantasy section, wondering if there was anything worth my hard earned dollars. From off to my left a guy asks me how to get the interstate. Before my brain kicks into gear and I can give a witty New Englander type, “Ya cahn’t get theh from heah.” answer, the directions spill from my mouth. He thanks me, then, after a few moments he asks me where my SF&F tastes lie.

 

It’s not often someone asks me what authors I enjoy reading. And it’s not often that I give this question much more than a passing thought. I pause for a few moments and tell the gentleman that I tend toward the likes of Neil Gaiman, Tim Powers and James Blaylock among many others. I explain that my tastes these days run toward Dark Fantasy, which probably arise from my interest in the Horror genre.

All this is in way of introduction to what I’m currently reading, which is Caitlan R. Kiernan’s novel, Threshold, a compelling blend of Southern Gothic and H.P. Lovecraft.

Kiernan has a fascinating way with language. There is a bit of Hemingway in her work, combined with an ability to mash words for color together that moves her description from a bland palate to something new and intriguing. Kiernan’s skill with the written word draws readers into her story’s setting and sets her head and shoulders above others working in the horror genre.

As much as I’ve enjoyed Threshold, I couldn’t help but get irritated when I hit the following passage. It comes as one of our characters drives from Alabama to Florida. He’s on a two lane highway on his way to an unincorporated part of Okaloosa County in the Florida panhandle.

“There’s country music blaring from the radio, nothing but country and gospel stations this far south, and so he’s going with the lesser of two evils, a twangy stream of Garth Brooks and Trisha Yearwood, but at least it’s something to keep him company.” (emphasis added)

 

Country music is the “lesser" and Gospel is, by definition, the "greater" of two evils? Is this the character’s viewpoint or the writer’s? Does it matter? Do Kiernan’s fans think she doesn’t harbor this perspective toward things Southern and Christian? I’d be surprised if they didn’t, especially given her ‘let’s kill Republican meteorologists because of hot weather’ attempt at humor on her blog:

“When I went to bed at about 2:25 am, the thermostat was still hovering stubbornly in the high 80s. This sort of heat can drive you to murder your beloved. Or cut off another toe. Or alphabetize all your CDs in reverse order, Z-A.  … They say this is the last day of the heatwave. But they were wrong yesterday, and I say meteorologists are going to have to bleed and suffer and die, in vast numbers, to appease Helios. We'll take the meteorologists who don't plan to vote Obama first.” (emphasis added)

 

Hmmm....

Was no other way to write the novel’s passage, quoted above, that would not have involved insulting probably more than 75% of the American population? Maybe not. Did this convey the sense that this character despised the part of America he grew up in (Birmingham, AL) and those he grew up with? Absolutely. So on that score Ms. Kiernan succeeded in her chosen profession. However, the passage left me with a bad taste in my mouth, wondering whether or not Ms. Kiernan liked growing up on Athens, GA, and how much she respects folks like me as her reader.

 

And finally, I hope that guy found his way to the interstate. I usually have a pretty good sense of direction; I’m just not always the best on giving directions.

 

Libertas has posted an appeal for contributors, and one of their criteria is that you cannot post anonymously. That got me thinking about how I post at this blog as well as posting comments at other websites. I have decided that I will no longer hide behind a pseudonym when I share my opinion online.

If you have tried to post comments at various blogs, you may have found that you need to register and with registration comes selection of the ubiquitous "User Name". Most folks get clever, or attempts cleverness, at this point. A lot of other folks simply choose some mixture of name and zip code or area code or some combination of name and number. It is the rare individual who actually chooses to use their given name when leaving comments online. I'm beginning to think that this is not a healthy thing for the body politic.

A lot of folks post some very nasty, to say  the least, comments online. Many people are downright foulmouth louts in comment boxes. This is something, I would be willing to bet, that these same people would never do in a face to face conversation. For one thing, vulgar insults among strangers might be confused for "fighting words", and when it comes down to it, most people don't want to get in a fight. This leads me to the question, if you would not insult a stranger's intelligence face to face, why do it anonymously online?

Are folks afraid that their employers will find out that they have some unsavory opinions? That may be the case. To which I respond: So what if they do? Are non-politically correct opinions now the equivalent of unsavory adult material, aka, porn?

I may  have more to write on this, but I have decided that I will no longer post online anonymously. If nothing else it will force me to be more articulate, I hope, in my arguments, as I don't want to be associated with the belligerent loudmouth yelling from the bleachers.

Liberals in the courts are going to do everything they can unleash the Guantanamo detainees on the public. The SCOTUS made it possible for the Gitmo prisoners to have their day anywhere in America in a civilian court.

Now we get one of the first shots in this decision that will undoubtedly leave Americans less safe. The Washington D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered the immediate release of a Chinese Muslim captured in an Afghanistan terrorist training camp.

This case will be trumpeted as a civil liberties success. I've heard it reported at each news break during the Dennis Prager radio show. What will not be widely reported is that the military has been trying to get this particular person released for years, but has not found a nation that will accept him. The American military will not send him back to China because he would face persecution in that Communist dictatorship.

So where, exactly is the military supposed to send the man?

I have an idea. Let him go live with one of the D.C. Circuit Court judges.

One of the best writers, who also happens to be a staunch conservative, working in the thriller genre has a new book out and it's driving the Left-wing media bonkers.

Andew Klavan's Empire of Lies, is being savaged by Bruce DeSilva in this Associated Press review.

"... what finally does this [novel] in are several long, tedious passages in which Harrow [the main character] — serving as Klavan's surrogate — lectures the reader on politics and current affairs."

OK, so the reviewer doesn't like conservative "diatribes" in his novels. No big deal. I don't like liberal diatribes in the novels I read. What puts this AP review over the top and into official Loony Left-wing La-La Land is the ad hominem attacks against Klavan.

"Klavan occupies the portion of the political spectrum commonly known as right-wing crackpot. Through Harrow he tells us, among other things, that the entire media is a left-wing conspiracy, that taxes steal from the rich to give to the poor, that America is in a holy war with Islam, that the truth about darned near everything in the United States is obscured by a blizzard of politically correct lies and that anyone who disagrees with him is deluded."

I would really  like to know if DeSilva, in his long career as a book review, has ever referred to a Liberal writer, who are Legion, as a "left-wing crackpot". According to Google, the answer to that question is a resounding NO.

So you think your differences with Sen. Obama were in the areas of public policy and experience. You say you don't want America's most liberal Senator sitting in the White House with a Democrat House and Senate just waiting to do his bidding.

According to the Catholic priest Fr. Andrew Greeley, you, my friend, are a liar.

"Certainly there are solid political and personal reasons that some Americans might have had for voting against the senator that would not be in principle racist. He is one of the most "liberal" members of Congress. He stole the election from a woman who was entitled to it. He is one of the "boys" beating up on the female candidate. He is a not a patriot dedicated to final victory in Iraq. He is weak on national security. He lacks experience. He supports abortion. Yet behind these arguments, might racism lurk?

"The point is that racism permeates American society and hides itself under many different disguises. The nomination of an African-American candidate was a near-miracle. Only the innocent and the naive think that the November election will not be about race."

You had to know that this was coming. A John McCain presidency is evidence that America is a lousy, racist nation.

Count me among the innocent and naive. I think this election hinges on whether you want a radical Leftist White House marching hand in hand with a Congress run by radical Leftists.

The Incredible Hulk is back on the big screen, smashing everything in his path to tiny bits and pieces. If you were in the Marvel Movie-verse and lived in some city or town this lunk-head wandered into you better have your property insurance paid up. Otherwise, you'd be looking at piles of rubble with nothing to show for it.

I came away from The Incredible Hulk on the down side of a mixed reaction. I just didn’t care all that much for the protaganist, and cared too much for the antagonist.

… OK, I’ll write it … some may take what I write as spoilers … be “warned” …

Norton’s Banner is based on Bixby’s Banner from the television show. He’s wandering the world trying to find a cure for his ‘problem’ while doing his best to not get angry and to stay away from the guys trying to capture him and learn the secrets of the Hulk, i.e., the American military. Honestly if you were trying to find a cure for a ‘disease’ you suffered from and were being sought by a group who wanted to ‘cure’ you of this problem, wouldn’t you at some point just say, “Hey, what exactly am I running from?”

But not Banner. Like the Energizer Bunnie he just keeps going & going & going & …

It seems odd that one of the smartest men in the world (the world being Marvel’s Movie-verse, where Banner’s competition was the super-genius Mr. Fantastic, Reed Richards) couldn’t figure out that doing R&D for the American military might lead to weapons development. For a genius he’s pretty dumb. But there in lies Banner’s problem with the military; he’s afraid that his work will be made into a weapon. And so you'd know for certain why Banner hates the military he gives you the same line, "They want to use it [the Hulk] as a weapon!", twice.

So we’re supposed to believe that Banner doesn’t like weapons, eh?. But while in South America he trains himself in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, which, in addition to helping him control his emotions, turns him into a walking weapon. In this new movie Banner acts like any other liberal, weapons are good for me, but not for thee.

And there is no mistaking that the American military is the bad guy. Gen. “Thunderbolt” Ross is the protaganist in this movie. Tim Roth, who becomes the Abomination, is just one of Gen. Ross’s tools.

In a time of war I have a real problem with the American Army being turned into the bad guys on the big screen. I do not think this movie will go over well with men and women currently serving in harms way in the Army, Navy, Marines or Air Force.

So there I was rooting for the “bad” guys, thinking that the “good” guy is a whiny wimp who is too stupid to recognize what’s right in front of him (granted, if he did there either would be no movie at all, or it would be a very different movie).

The more I think about it the less I liked this version of the Hulk. The two best things in this movie: Stark’s (Downey’s) cameo appearance and the fact that you don’t have to sit through the credits for any special scene. When the credits start to roll feel free to get up and go home.

What religious problem could a magazine started by a faithful Catholic possibly have? Two words: John Derbyshire.

John Derbyshire really doesn't like those conservative Christian zealots who make up a significant part of the GOP base. The 'Derb', as some call him, relentlessly attacked Ben Stein here, here, and here over Stein's excellent documentary Expelled. Stein was equated to, among other things, Islamo-Nazis and Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Now 'the Derb' has set his anti-religious gunsights on Louisiana Gov. and rising conservative spokesman Bobby Jindal. Why? Gov. Jindal has the audacity to believe that there is such a thing as evil in world.

Thankfully, we have Kathryn Jean Lopez on the scene to set the ignorant Derb straight.

"Bobby Jindal wrote that article years ago, in a totally appropriate forum. News flash: There's evil in the world. We already learned long ago that Jindal has committed the sin of being, like most of America, a believer. Considering you gotta have a high dose of faith to have a shot at cleaning up Louisiana, I'd say his past experiences provide good armor."

Dean Koontz tried to bring his take on Frankenstein to the small screen. Creative differences with screenwriters and producers, however, ended that project. Thankfully Koontz retained enough rights and was able to pull it back before it was destroyed by small minded Hollywood types. Now he is working with Dabel Brothers, adapting the project to comics. A brief interview with Koontz is available from WizardUniverse.com. Here are some gems:

"For a novelist, comic books have a tremendous advantage over other visual media: you don't have to deal with megalomaniacal film directors, insane studio executives and screenwriters whose sense of story structure makes "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" seem like a classic on a par with Shakespeare."
...
"My two-hour screenplay brought a subversive kind of humor to the Frankenstein legend and juxtaposed the healthy relationship of the two police detectives with the deeply sick relationships that Victor has with everyone in his life. The cable network didn't have the guts to play the humor, to include a genuine love story in the mix, or to confront the serious issues of cloning, interspecies genetic recombination and other genetic experimentation based on utopian visions. They morphed the show into a grungy mess of horror clichés."
...
'Some ineffable quality of manga just seems in sympathy with the character of Odd Thomas, especially the black and white format, which is in sync with Odd's clear-eyed view of good and evil."

I've read the Frankenstein books, the first Odd Thomas, and a book titled False Memory, the latter of which goes after the psychiatric industry and the implanting of false memories in clients. Based on this very small sample of Dean Koontz's canon, his writing strikes me as carrying some deeply conservative themes. I haven't read The Good Guy  or The Husband, but I would expect these books to reinforce my perception rather than refute it. I'm glad to see his work coming to comics.

My problem with the Dabel Brothers Frankenstein adaptation is the artist they've chosen for the project. I've never been that impressed with the art in Laurel Hamilton "Anita Blake: Vampire Hunter" books, and the cover art to Frankenstein #1 is just a bit much. Clothing that is painted onto the body?!? Puhleeze.

An early review is up at Newsarama.com and the overall take is on the positive side of mixed. Or, what seems to me to be about a 7.5 out of 10. Here are some clips that I don't think contain any spoilers.

"The Incredible Hulk is a wildly flawed, wildly entertaining comic book action romp that should restore the faith of the fanboy faithful who saw their emerald-skinned hero let down so badly five years ago."

Claiming that comic geeks, fanboys, what-have-you, will have their faith restored should not be taken as a positive. Especially given these qualifications:

"The film does sacrifice character development for the sake of pacing. And considering how much was made of the fact that Norton rewrote most of the script, the dialogue in many scenes is unremarkable and predictable."

Yikes. That the star will add or modify dialogue as he or she thinks would fit the character does not surprise me. That Norton would rewrite most of the script and the director would let it fly gives me great pause.

If we fanboys and fangirls are looking forward to a reboot of the Hulk franchise, then a movie that only satisfies our sensibilities will not do it. I hope this movie does more than satisfy the Comic Con crowd.

I'm one of the few who actually enjoyed the first Hulk movie. Call it one of my guilty pleasures. This weekend its a toss up for me: Go see Iron Man again or check out The Incredible Hulk.