Some books I've read recently

Well, Ive been so very negligent in my dedication to this blog over the last few years, and I need to do some catch up. I've read quite a few books over the last few years; so many in fact, that I need to group them just to cover them all here in a short time. So, I'll start with some Science and Physics tomes, plus a really odd "classic"...

Six Easy Pieces

An interesting read from one of my fave physicists, Richard Feynman. This is a brief (140 pages)

summary of six basic themes from the Feynman Lectures on Physics (1200 larger pages) - Atoms, basic Physics, Physics vs other sciences, Conservation of energy, Gravitation, and Quantum mechanics. 

Concepts are covered in some detail, with diagrams, but very little mathematics. 

Not for the faint of heart, but suitable for the interested and motivated layman.

7/10

Astrophysics for People in a Hurry

A nice quick read on modern astrophysics, by Neil deGrasse Tyson. Is that actually possible? Well, Tyson managed it, and kudos to him for doing this - he’s truly the modern-day Carl Sagan - a qualified person able and willing to educate the masses (or those interested) in complex, larger-than-life (literally) concepts. I liked Tyson right from the start - in his Cosmos redux (re-do of Sagan’s 1980s TV series of the same name), he tells us that “for all we know about dark matter and dark energy, we might as well call them Fred and Barney.” I loved that. It has always bugged me that so many of today’s scientists talk about cutting-edge stuff like that as if it were a done deal - proven 100% and we’re moving on. When the truth is that we NEED those things to be true, or else our understanding is at least a little bit wrong. We THINK they’re real, and we NEED them to be real, but that doesn't mean that they ARE real. Anyway, Tyson gives the best, and most clear description of concepts like these, and the reader will come away much richer for reading it. 

Ok, now the bad part. While he does maintain that we don’t know enough about them, he takes his rhetoric too far in insisting that in fact dark matter is real. He says that gravitation probably doesn’t behave differently over great distances, even though it behaves differently over infinitesimally small distances (how can you just say that as if it’s a given?). Second, he says that dark matter and aether are not the same (in that we invented them out of necessity). Why? - because dark matter solves a problem with understanding observations, while aether solved a lack of understanding of the nature of electromagnetic wave propagation. Come on Neil! We invented both of them!! One was disproven, the other has yet to be proven/disproven. (And btw, you can’t look at a problem, invent something to help explain it, and then turn around and say that the solved problem proves the invention!)

And disappointingly, he takes a few jabs at religion. Honestly, I don’t care about an astrophysicist’s views on religion any more than I care about their views of what’s better- the 1969 Mustang vs the 1967 Camaro- or the taste of cheddar cheese vs peanut butter. 

Those things aside, I think this is a great book.

8/10

The End of Everything

(by Katie Mack)
Some things about physics bore me (like dark matter and dark energy being talked about like they’re 100% real), other things (like the Big Bang, how, why, evidence) excite me. This book covers some topics in cosmology that are cutting edge - inflation and expansion (how does it work??), whether the universe is open or closed (not all the evidence is 100% convincing), and more. 

Starts off with the author pooping on the religious aspects of “the end” - I get it, atheists hate religion. I get it, I said. But come on. Talk about what you’re qualified to talk about, and please just stick to that. PLEASE. Another thing that has always bugged me is scientists talking about dark matter and dark energy as if they were 100% real, and there is no doubt about it; they’re there, and we’ve proved it beyond any doubt. Please. She talked about the “discovery of dark energy” - sigh. But to be fair, later in the book she comes clean, saying “dark matter, the cosmological constant (dark energy) and inflation are completely mysterious…” and even better, “inflation (was) designed to solve … cosmological problems” - okay; that’s better. I really, really prefer honesty to arrogant hey-I’m-a-scientist assertions…

Anyway, other than that, interesting topics; among them:

Big Crunch: The closed universe - my fave even tho every physicist on the planet disagrees - not enough matter (apparently) to bring it all back. (And you’d need all the radiation back too, so all of space would somehow have to get sucked back. Hmmmm…)

Heat Death: Open universe. In this version, eventual evaporation of all matter in the universe due to entropy and heat radiation, and the universe achieves equilibrium at a very low temperature after a very long time. I don’t like it. Mostly because I think Hawking is wrong; I don’t think black holes can just go away. Either way, “Heat Death” feels real enough, even though I don’t like it.

Big Rip: If the equation of state variable of the universe (w) is -1, dark energy is the cosmological constant (apparently). If w is a variable, and it changes to less than -1, expansion goes out of control, and everything is eventually ripped apart. Doesn’t seem likely to me…

Vacuum Decay: The Higgs boson is also a field (just like light is both a wave and a particle), and if that field changes due to some powerful event, the Higgs boson could find a lower state of rest, causing particle bonds to be impossible (no atoms, molecules; just loose particles). Also doesn’t seem likely to me, but not as bad as the rip…

Bounce: The expanding existence of our universe bounces off the expanding existence of another universe, ending both in a minor multiverse incident. Yeah, no.

All in all, this book kept my attention from start to finish (with some bumps). Mostly, it made me think a lot about all these scenarios, and a lot more concepts beyond them. And I guess that means it was a pretty darn good book.

8/10

The Prince

(by Niccolo Machiavelli)
The author of the concept of “the end justifies the means” - Machiavelli tells us how a “prince” or the leader of a state can retain his place and govern well by any means. Modern thinking says that no, he never says that; well, that’s wrong. He pretty much does. 

He goes out of his way to say that a prince must destroy the family of a rival from whom he has seized a state - I think that means kill the whole family, men, women and children. He also says people should be either pampered or crushed, that a ruler should not be generous, should not obsess about keeping his word, should be fine with using cruelty, and so on. 

It is true that he writes about how a ruler needs to behave in order to ensure stable government. No doubt this arises from the precarious state of Italy during his time (late 1400s, early 1500s); in fact this whole book could be seen as his recommendations for a leader - any leader to unite Italy, as he discusses in the final chapter. For me, I was just interested in how he positioned his arguments; interesting enough, but not a terribly great read…

(Just have to say here, that the painting reminds me of my old buddy Pat Lakanen...)

3/10

Jim Raley

Since I started working again, I've been remiss about posting here.
First, the death of my good friend Jim Raley.

My good friend Jim Raley passed away on October 17 of last year - (has it really been that long??).

Friend, teammate, father, son, sibling.
He was kind, thoughtful, loyal, responsible, capable, strong, resilient, talented, and he was loved.
He was also tough, but you might never know that because he was never a bully, or even boastful – it was a quiet toughness.
Most of all, he had integrity.

As many who knew him know, Jim beat cancer about 20 years ago; he didn’t just beat it… he kicked its butt.

Around that time, maybe a bit before, he said something to me. I think he was considering the possibility of his mortality, and wanted to say things to some of the people in his life. For no good reason, he told me that he respected me. 

I’ve never forgotten that, that a man like Jim would respect me. I was honored.

But more than that, it was an honor to have known Jim for so long – since he was 18…
Jim, I hope you’re resting easy, and may God be with you.
I’ll never forget you.

https://www.barkerfh.com/obituary/JamesJim-Raley

Some photos:

 

 

Found a hat he gave me after he did some renos on our house. Now my go-to yardwork hat.

A photo of our early days on the team (1985).

A self portrait he posted years ago - I mocked him at the time because that is what buddies do - but it is a perfect encapsulation of what he was...

And the last time I saw him was playing golf - we had beers on that front porch afterwards..

DeepSeek Issues? That’s not all…

I tried China’s new DeepSeek AI tool, and it seems just as effective as OpenAI’s ChatGPT or Google’s Gemini AI offering.  However, others have conducted more extensive research of DeepSeek’s capabilities, and found that it apparently doesn’t know anything about Tiananmen Square, Taiwan or the failings of communist governments. (if that link is blocked, just Google Deepseek blocked for Tiananmen square). This should not come as a big surprise, after all secrecy, control, and censorship are typical and indispensable tools used by totalitarian regimes in the course of their government operations. We certainly don’t do that in the West; no way, no how.

But wait. Grok3, Elon Musk’s xAI model offering was found to be blocking suggestions related to disinformation from President Trump and his financial backer – and appointed government disassembler – Elon Musk! (If that link is blocked, just Google xAI blocked for negative trump musk.)  The good news? That “feature” has been reversed, and now Musk’s “maximally truth-seeking" AI is no longer censoring this type of query.  The bad news? It raises the lingering question – how could this happen in the first place?  Well, don’t worry; Musk reassured everyone that a lowly employee who previously worked at OpenAI "pushed the change without asking" and that it had since been "reverted."  Whew! Thank goodness for that.

The question is, do we believe that story, or was Musk just caught with his pants down, and forced into his version of damage control – blaming someone else, and reacting heroically? Skeptics like me will certainly lean one way on that question. Others will take his word as gospel. And that divisiveness parallels the line between the political left and right in the US. Worse still, the question of AI censorship tweaking is just the tip of the iceberg.

If secrecy, control, and censorship become normalized in the West, then perhaps we need to ask – just how bad is China, really? If Western governments adopt the same tactics as China’s government, then how different are we? Sure, China has a lead in political and ideological imprisonment, but the US actually leads the world in per capita incarceration. Further, one could easily imagine that the gap is closing rapidly, as Trump plans to deport large numbers of people working in the US (and presumably put their children back into cages), and even suspend birthright citizenship.  If Trump and Musk follow the Project 2025 blueprint, what other horrors are coming down the pike?

Christianity and Abortion

This is a very painful issue for me. It hurts me to paint some of my Christian brothers and sisters in this way, but there is more truth to it than unfair criticism.

I am a Christian, and I am not an anti-abortionist. I am not a "pro-life" advocate, as the anti-abortionist camp prefers to be called. Don't get me wrong—I believe abortion is a sin. But it's not the only one; here are a few more: keeping the poor in their place, imposing political will on others, failing to love our neighbors as we love ourselves, snd many other hypocrisies that we see everywhere around us.

The truth is that abortion is not the only thing in the world that matters. The Apostle Paul told us to lift others up, to do everything that we can to help them, and to be good Christians by example. The Lord Himself has demanded that we treat the poor and the outsiders well. In fact, twice He brought ancient Israelite civilization down in direct response to their disdain for their own poor.

Many Christians here in North America focus on abortion first and foremost, turning a blind eye to most everything else. Pastor David Barnhart puts it well: focusing on abortion above all else is misguided. We Christians should carefully consider his words, rather than ignoring him, or dismissing him as some kind of traitor.

We should also recognize that he isn't alone - Evangelical Minister Rob Schenck shares his perspective, and a quick Google search will reveal many other Christian leaders who feel the same way.

Stopping Abortion

We Christians shout that abortion violates the sixth commandment - that it's murder. We are determined to stop it at any cost, regardless of who is affected or what the consequences may be. And when we succeed, we will consider the job done. We seem to think that by just ending legalized abortion, the problem is solved, we can forget about it, and get on with our lives. That's probably not the way...

Who are these people getting abortions?

The truth is those who go to the abortion clinics are for the most part, very desperate people. The majority of them are poor. Single mothers fearing that they'll be unable to make ends meet with another child, or won't be able to support their family without working; frightened teenage girls unable to tell their parents; poor or financially strained married women with families. But it’s not just the poor—women with money and careers might also be in a state of desperation when faced with an unplanned pregnancy. These are the people who go to the abortion clinics; many of them reluctantly, and almost all of them desperate to the point of panic.

What do we think about these people?

How do we Christians respond to these desperate people? At best, we ignore their plight; at worst we vilify them and despise them. How is this Christ-like behavior? Remember this: Jesus' second commandment tells us that we are to love our neighbors as much as we love ourselves. There are no caveats for this commandment—it doesn't say "unless your neighbor is poor," or "unless your neighbor has different politics," or even "unless your neighbor is planning to have an abortion." It doesn’t even say, “unless your neighbor is a criminal or a murderer.”  We are to love others as we love ourselves. Period. No exceptions.

And let’s be clear: obeying the Savior’s first commandment isn’t enough. We need to love The Father with all our hearts, and love our neighbors as much as we love ourselves. Both. Not just the first one, for it is written that whoever loves God must also love his brother.

If we ignore our neighbor's desperation, how can we claim that we love them as we love ourselves? If we're being honest, we can't say that we do. We can put on our blinders and insist that our behavior is justified because we're trying to prevent murder. Does that make ignoring our neighbor’s plight okay? Does it make failing to love them acceptable? Does it make it okay to disregard Jesus' second commandment? These are tough questions. We don't actually have the authority to add caveats to Jesus' second commandment, do we?

So how should we respond to abortion?

How about meeting our neighbor's desperation by acting like responsible members of a free society, and engage in dialog to find solutions that seek compromise? If not that, how about acting in a Christ-like manner with compassion, character, and concern?

Wouldn’t that be better than ignoring our neighbor's desperation, and worse, forcing our ideas of morality on others? If we're so dead against abortion, why can't we try doing something positive? We should do more than just talk the talk; we should be real Christians, and walk the walk. If we are truly passionate about this issue, maybe we should put some skin in the game.

Walk the walk

What if we were to give our energy and give our money to the abortion clinics? For our time and money, we could afford an office at the front, ensuring that everybody who comes in gets an interview with a caring and understanding Christian. In that interview we wouldn’t criticize, scold, or speak in an accusatory manner. We would not even mention “murder.” Instead, we’d be there to help.

We can tell the woman that she doesn't have to go through with an abortion. We could give her options. What about adoption? We could help with that. Too poor to have the child and be off work? We'd provide financial aid. Too afraid to discuss with your family? We'd help you with that, or even find you a safe place to stay. Can't afford to support the unborn child? We'd give you financial aid to raise, feed and educate your child. And if that doesn't change her mind, that's okay—we did our best.

Now what?

So now, how willing are we to walk the walk? We have shown that we can be judgmental and angry, and indifferent to our neighbor's desperation. Can we do a complete 180, and show compassion? Can we demonstrate understanding? Can we say that we are willing to help another in need? 

Well, I hope so. Because if we can't, then we are sorry Christians indeed, and we don't measure up very well.

Stuart Duncan

Another one gone. Getting tired of friends dropping like leaves in the fall...

Another friend of mine. Frig, what’s going on here. I guess it’s that time of life. Stu was one of the funniest guys I ever met. There were very few discussions with Stu that didn’t end with uproarious laughter. He was big and fat, and a smoker, but full of joviality and self confidence, and he was smart. But mostly he liked to have fun.

I met Stu at Mitel, a company that I worked for in the 1980s and 1990s. We became fast pals, going for after-work beers and laughs on a regular basis. Among other things, he was a genius at making up uncomplimentary nicknames for people. A rotund colleague named Corkie was labeled Porkie; a colleague known for exaggeration named Arnie was labeled Blarney; a large colleague named Teena was labeled Tuna; another colleague named Duffis was labeled Doofus, and there had to be half a dozen more that I can no longer remember.

We were old guys (late 20s, early 30s) who still wanted to play hockey, so in the winters we played outdoor hockey when we could. His best friends in those days were Peter Young and Ronny Finn. We both liked dogs - his first one I remember was Brewster, who he called Brewer - that dog lasted through his first two marriages. While at Mitel, he ended his first marriage (it was difficult for him), and remarried - at that time he lost a lot of weight, and looked fit.

At some point in 1988(?), I had a job interview at Telesat Canada, got an offer, but decided against it - I told Stu about it, he applied and got the job. He was a writer there for a short while, then got into sales, learned what he needed there (in various ways :-) and went out on his own, in competition with Telesat. He made his first million that way with his company, which became 5DTV.

He was two years older than me, and when he turned 30, I told him that after the age of 30, a man thinks of his mortality every day for the rest of his life - he often later cursed me for that.

We didn’t see much of each other after that; he had his son with his second wife, and I started a family at about the same time. Still managed to get together occasionally for beers, though.

When he was running 5DTV, in 2001, we reconnected. I had been laid off from my tech job, and he offered me office space and seed money to start my own company - a very generous thing to do for a friend in a spot. I ended up getting a few offers at the same time, so I went in another direction. But I’d never forgotten his generosity and kindness.

In 2010(?), he invited my wife and kids to a Senator’s game in the owner’s box. We had a nice time with him and his third wife. He was back in town in 2015 or 2016, and he called me up to go to a Leafs game here in Ottawa - of course he managed to get tickets right beside the Leafs’ bench. They were terrible that year, and he wore a blue-and-white Mexican zippered wrestling mask, and our pictures were in the Ottawa Sun the next day. I wish I could find that (one of many times he was in the paper)! Never a dull moment with Stu.

He soon went out to California, and we lost touch again, that is until we started our war on Facebook. I was a liberal, and he was a liberal-turned-far-right-conservative (he had a big problem with Justin Trudeau; understandable, I guess). He came back to Ottawa, so we had brunch, and there was that big smile on his face, laughing at our online war. We had some laughs that day, but that was the last time I saw him. The online war continued on and off until he went quiet in early 2022. Some time later, I reached out again, and found that he had passed away several months earlier. Stu left a hole in many lives to be sure, and the world is quieter without him - far less laughter.

https://www.hpmcgarry.ca/memorials/stuart-duncan/4937663/

More catching up on books...

The Whole Bible Story

Marty, W., Dr.

Dr. Marty does what Josephus did some 2000+ years ago - he writes a chronological historical account (not a secular one) of the Bible. While Josephus’ work was just the Old Testament - which was all there was in his time - Marty includes both Testaments. Marty’s account is therefore more complete, as the lines between the prophecies of the coming of the Messiah, and his actual appearance, can be drawn between the two Testaments. Both writers include plentiful accounts of God’s role in the Old Testament, and of course borrow heavily from it (it is their only source material). Dr. Marty’s account reads well, but there’s something about Josephus’ account that I found more intriguing, based on his other self-serving writings. A good chronological reference, but no substitute for the Bible.
5/10

Beyond the Frontier - Dreadnaught

Campbell, J.

7th book in the series (enough already?)
The government brings Black Jack back to investigate the aliens (the enigma race). The odd part is that they aren’t telling him everything, and neither are the gov’t emissaries. They go deep into alien space to force a dialog, but they won’t communicate. They rescue some prisoners, and begin their jump away, right into the face of a different group of powerful, hostile aliens. How will they ever get away? If I want to find out, I have to get the next book…
6/10

HMS Surprise

O’Brian, P.

Third book in the series.
Aubrey returns from his huge success in the Atlantic, only to find that the Admiralty that the prize for taking enemy Indiamen (worth millions) was the property of the Crown, and he would get minimal prize money. This winds him in debtor’s prison until a partial payment could be made. After that, he finds out that Maturin has been captured, and is being tortured. He is ordered to disrupt enemy commerce in the Mediterranean, while in temporary command of Lively, and captures a French gunboat. He uses it to gain access to the harbor close to where Maturin is being held, and accomplishes a daring rescue. On Maturin’s return, he fanangles a new ship for Aubrey, HMS Surprise, this time a keeper, and off they go to India. There, Maturin is reunited with Valliers, but it ends badly with her going off to America to marry someone else. Aubrey then mounts a heroic rescue of the China Fleet, and its precious cargo. He is financially rewarded, and looks forward to his marriage to the lovely Sophie. Meanwhile, Marurin kills Canning in a duel, operates on himself to remove Canning’s shot from his own chest(!)
7/10

In The Heart of the Sea

(The Tragedy of the Whaleship Essex)
Philbrick, N.

An interesting tale about the loss of the Nantucket Whaleship Essex - by ramming by a whale! That’s right; a large bull sperm whale actually rammed this ship - twice! The second assault cracked a gaping hole in the hull near the bow, causing it to rapidly take on water, capsize, and eventually sink - in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. There were 5 survivors...

The loss of the ship stranded 20-odd crew in three flimsy 30-foot, 6-man whaleboats - overloaded with as much water, food and equipment that they could manage to rescue from their sinking whaleship. After the sinking, the Captain and officers decided to make for South America - against headwinds - a voyage of 3000 miles or more. This, rather than the preferably shorter voyage (with tailwinds) to one of many south Pacific islands - for fear of encountering hostile cannibals. Unfortunately, the Captain and officers were unaware that they were very unlikely to encounter anything like that, as Whaleships were making regular stops on many of those islands by that time…

As they neared the end of their water supply, and still far from South America, the happened upon Henderson Island, a lump of rock, where they were able to find food, and a limited source of water. After exhausting the island’s resources, they set out again for South America, leaving 3 behind. Soon, one of the boats was lost. The other two were soon separated, and still too far from their destination, ran out of food, and eventually water. Their starvation was gradual (over 3 months), as they rationed both food and water. The first men to succumb were buried at sea. After that, they had little choice but to eat the dead. Interestingly (and perhaps suspiciously), the first eaten were the black sailors hailing from the mainland. Then the non-Nantucketers, and finally the Nantuketers.

The book gives a lot of back-info on the closed, Quaker-based nature of Nantucket society in the early 1800s. There were originally Indigenous people on the island, and they were commonly used to fill out crews on the early Whaleships. However, they eventually died out from disease, and were gradually replaced by poor, white mainlanders, and African Americans from Massetussets and New York. Interesting to note that ships bringing black sailors to Nantucket from the mainland were called “slavers”...

A lot of background info provided as well on the Whaleship technology, the crew makeup and life aboard in the early 1800s.

The book wraps up with some info on the story of the survivors after their ordeal. The captain managed to lose his next ship as well, and never again had a chance to go to sea. The first mate, who may be responsible for the survival of the crew, had a prosperous career in the whaling business, but died of complications related to the Essex ordeal. (Interesting to note that he had a chance to kill the giant whale before the fatal blow, but didn’t for some reason). The cabin boy managed to survive, continued with whaling, and then retired as a hotel owner. He is credited with some key information on what happened during the ordeal.

Great read.
7/10

Chris Sunter

Another friend has passed away.

Chris was a good friend in highschool. We stayed in touch for a while as we drifted in different directions in college and university. Some great memories of playing and watching hockey, cutting class, enjoying a beer or two. We wrote to each other while he went to Australia and I worked in northern Ontario. I have good memories of Chris, I wish that we could have remained in touch all these years, but that’s on me.

Unknown to me at the time in the 70s and 80s, Chris was a gay man. He hid it well, as most gay men felt they had to, in the extremely hostile non-inclusive society we lived in back then. As a member of our slightly nerdy but still athletic social class, we played a lot of hockey, drank beer and had vulgar conversations until the wee hours. He seemed to fit in well, and enjoyed our company. He talked about girls with us, and we suspected nothing. After high school Chris and I kept in touch, meeting for the occasional after-school drink in our university/college days. I’m embarrassed to say that in one such discussion, I made some anti-gay remarks, which upset him (truth be told, I was not very open-minded in my youth). I sloughed it off as just 2 guys talking in a bar, and that seemed to settle him. 

Some time after that, my dad mentioned that Chris had some articles published in the Ottawa Citizen, in which he argued for improved gay rights - my dad said that he thought that Chris was gay. I laughed it off - no way, not my friend Chris; he’s just writing topical articles. My last conversation with Chris was on the phone - I tried relentlessly to get him to come to a mutual friend’s party, but he steadfastly refused to come, much to my disappointment. Years later, as I became less blind, and more tolerant of others different from me, I realized that my dad was right, and that I had made a terrible mistake in my assumptions and indeed, my attitudes in my friendship with Chris. Years later, I looked him up on social media (he was not very visible), and found that he taught in China, later was on the market for another teaching gig, and finally was working in Africa. I didn’t try to connect, as I feared that might still hold a grudge - not that I could blame him.

I’m sorry that he is gone, and I hope that he had a full life. I’m more sorry that I ruined our friendship, and lost something because of it.

The photo shows Chris making a save against my team in the senior hockey playoffs -- he was an exceptional goalie.

https://ottawacitizen.remembering.ca/obituary/christopher-sunter-1088583276