Fall Of Angels - L. E. Modesitt, Jr.

Not too often does a book have my heart pounding, my eyes racing across the text, concerned for the fate of the protagonists, eager yet fearful to find out how the story will unfold. Fall of Angels is one of those books – a gripping story about the fate of a ship-wrecked crew on an unknown planet.

Unlike so many in the genre, however, the crew encounters not some alien race, but a human civilization that was the result of some previous colonization – a civilization cut off from the colonizers for generations that has evolved back into a relatively low-tech society.

The story becomes one of survival. The crew must use what they have to construct a sustainable outpost, learn the local customs, trade with the people to gain the supplies they need, using their technology at first to create the things they will need when their technology (and battery-stored power) wears out.

Modesitt doesn't wave his hands and expect us to just accept that the crew will survive. He outlines the struggles as they plant crops, learn to harvest the variety of local food, build their shelter, determine where to obtain their heat, encounter problems with sanitation, and even struggle with their sometimes strained relationships as they adapt to a lifestyle none knew before. Through the efforts of Nylan, the ship's engineer, Modesitt takes us on a tour of the sorts if problems that plagued human civilization for generations, nay, thousands of years prior to our own period.

Although the survival efforts wind throughout the story, this story is not about survival or aliens or even magic: It is a classic tale of Good versus Evil, but told in a new and compelling manner.

For the Evil that the crew (Angels to the locals) encounter is not that of some malevolent individual bent on world destruction or domination. Instead, the evil arises as a result of fear, tradition, and subjugation.

The local civilization resembles many in our past: Tradition-bound, xenophobic, and built upon male dominance and female subjugation. Women are property, to be used, abused, and cast off when no longer needed. The ship-wrecked crew represents an affront to all three elements: They lack the traditions, they are new, and most profoundly, they are egalitarian (both the ship's captain and the head of the marine contingent are women.) When the first marauding group of locals stops by to raid their women and is wiped out, word spreads of the 'evil' Angels amongst the locals, and the seeds for a show-down confrontation are sown.

As the story unfolds, we get insights into both groups. The antagonist is revealed to be thoughtful, against the wars he feels compelled to wage, a family man: I started wishing a different fate for him than what I expected might be. He ends up being driven, again, not by evil desires, but by the evil that exists in the society he is in.

Fall Of Angels is a tragedy – a tragedy born of the fears of individuals. Modesitt shines a light on the evil that arises when society values conformity over progress, devalues some individuals (or entire classes of individuals), and wages war to 'hold' something they have no use for.

This becomes the real value of the story. Through elegant story-telling that sweeps us along, Modesitt encourages us to think about our position in society and our society's traditions and values: He clearly drives us to consider that a society that values all individuals will be stronger than one that discounts or abuses significant portions; and that those abuses and lines of thinking will drive us to acts that are both detrimental and evil.

The Deficit, Part Two...

One of the things that drives me nuts about politicians and politics is that they rarely are required to keep even a superficially consistent story. It would make so much more sense if we had on the one side those who believe that less should be privately controlled and more publicly controlled, offset by those who wish for stronger protections for private property, both balanced by the conservatives who just want to slow the pace of change and keep the status quo (and let's face it, changing for change's sake is not usually a good policy!). But instead, we get this:


In August we were treated to the spectacle of the deficit ceiling colliding with the rising deficit, and the hand-wringing of that singular (okay, so it turns out it wasn't that singular!) event: We were going to drive the country into ruin! We must cut the deficit! We must, must, must! One party in particular was driving the debate as the #1 issue facing the nation, now and into the future. We may disagree about the seriousness of the event, but they certainly can take a stand on it...

So, I would expect (especially after the collapse of the Deficit Reduction Commission - DRC) that any Republican candidate for the Presidency would continue to campaign on that idea - that the current policies followed by the current administration continue to increase the deficit and take us towards ruin. But, I am wrong.

Turns out that now candidates feel the best way to win the White House is to campaign on a promise to increase the deficit - on average by the amount the DRC was targeted to reduce: $1 trillion dollars. Say it with me: ONE TRILLION DOLLARS!

I am speechless. I'll let James Kwak tell the story:

The Times has a story out today: Surprise, all the Republican candidates’ tax plans increase the national deficit! The numbers (reduction in 2015 tax revenues, from the Tax Policy Center):

• Romney: $600 billion
• Gingrich: $1.3 trillion
• (Late lamented) Perry: $1.0 trillion
• Santorum: $1.3 trillion

*Paul is excluded, see fn1.

If I were an Independent or Democrat candidate for the Presidency, I would jump all over this (heck, if I were just an average journalist, I'd be all over this!) "Mr Candidate: Why isn't the deficit an issue any more and you feel that you are free to accelerate it's growth over the four years of your presidency if you were to be elected?" 

I have an idea why, though: Tax cuts are always popular - cutting programs is not. Sadly, though, all four candidates plans cut taxes for the rich and then wait for the resulting deficit to materialize so that they are 'forced' to cut government programss: Which usually are programs that aid the middle and lower class. You don't still doubt that we are governed by an oligarchy of the rich now, do you?

fn1: Mr Paul doesn't have a specific plan - other than to eliminate the IRS and wave his hands and hope that the reduction will be offset somehow - which leaves his plan well north of $1 trillion in deficit increase. But, he hasn't published specifics, so the Tax Policy Center can't run specifics...

Ridiculous Statements

As I'm listening to the evening news, a story came on about the Keystone XL Pipeline project, and the fact that the President had denied the application for permit. Angry Republicans retorted that the President was choosing the environment over the economy.

In what alternate universe would that be an epithet? The President chose long term over short term, the health of our aquifers and rivers and lands over a few jobs. I've got to side with our President on this one: Killing a project of dubious benefit due to real environmental concerns is a good choice.

Making the claim even more preposterous is the relatively few number of jobs the pipeline would create: 6-10,000. Let's put that into perspective: It takes the creation of 200,000 new jobs each month to keep up with our growth (that's 2,400,000 new jobs per year) - and that's just to stay even! We need more if we are to bring down our current unemployment. So, the killing of one 6,000 job project does not deter the economy (it's a literal drop in the bucket!) Sure, if our government was killing the equivalent every week, that would have a real impact, but once? That reduces the President's decision to choosing the Environment (something we all own and share) over the benefit of a few at a particular corporation.

My Nebraska friends have fought long and hard to prevent the construction of this pipeline across the fragile sandhills region and above/through the valuable Ogallala Aquifer (an enormous sandstone underground water storage formation that provides the drinking and irrigation water for a substantial number of people, ranches, and farms from S. Dakota to Nebraska to Kansas).

Perhaps someone can explain to me why building the pipeline is a good idea, because it sure doesn't appear so from the surface. It's objective is to move oil from the tar sands of Canada to Oil Refineries on the Gulf Coast.

It is projected that the cost of the pipeline is over $6 billion dollars. According to what I can find, it would only cost $2-$4 billion dollars to build a refinery - Why not build a refinery next to the tar sands, and transport the finished product (gasoline, kerosene, diesel) - which is worth approximately 50% more per gallon?

Since it is reported that our current refineries are running at near capacity, a new refinery would be a benefit to both the Canadian and US populations. Besides -since the refined products would be solely for domestic use (we wouldn't be shipping the oil from Canada for processing in the Gulf Coast to be loaded onto tankers to export, would we? Not since dependence on foreign oil is a major concern of our population and elected officials (not to mention the military which sees a potential threat to their abilities if an oil producer decides to shut off our supply at a critical time)).

Let's face it: Technology breaks. No matter how well the pipeline is designed and built, it will break and spill thousands (if not millions) of gallons of oil during its lifetime. Transporting oil and gas via rail and tanker through well known and hardened corridors is already a risk, but one we at least have a handle on. Adding new risk to the system doesn't seem beneficial - especially in this case.

Kudos to the President for once standing firm and choosing the public over the few!