This and that...

Robert Heinlein's first novel, written in the late 1930s, never made it into print. That shortcoming will soon be remedied (15 years posthumously) when said novel is published for the first time this coming November. An announcement on the pages of the Heinlein Society web site notes the following:

"For Us, the Living" was written by Heinlein about 1938-9, before he wrote his first sf short, "Lifeline." The novel, "For Us, the Living," was deemed unpublishable, mainly for the racy content. So racy is/was the content that in the 1930s the book could not even have been legally shipped through the US mail! For this reason, after a few publisher rejections, the novel was tabled by Heinlein, but the content was mined for his later stories and novels.

Of course, if "racy" is to be taken in the same sense as the material that had been dropped from another Heinlein novel (the initial appearance of Stranger in a Strange Land), then I doubt the new tome will even register on the raciness radar of anyone in these times (except for the usual bunch of crazies).

In any event, there's an ordering link on the Heinlein Society page, which notes that profits from sales will be used to promote space exploration. Racy or otherwise, I look forward to the publication.

* * *When I arrive for my shift tomorrow night, I shall likely have my luggage in the trunk of the car, since I'll have little time to dawdle between JSC and IAH once my shift ends tomorrow. I figure if Natalie is up to breakfast, I might have enough time to break bread with her.

Natalie came up with an interesting theory as to why I was able to get some good sleep time in yesterday and the day before: the rain. Today, I managed to sleep for 4.5 hours, after which environmental noise basically hammered me awake, one small hammer blow at a time (siren, generator engine, lawn mower, honking horns). The two previous days, the overriding sound in my environment - with the exception of the occasional clap of thunder - was the steady drumming of near-torrential rain. It's an idea.

The plus side of getting shorted on my sleep was being able to spend the evening in an almost normal fashion with Natalie. We cooked a roast and some buckwheat kasha and drank some Greek wine while watching a DVD of Amélie that Natalie bought for herself. I have to admit the movie seems as charming as it did the first time I saw it, not to mention majorly off-the-wall (although in a good way).

* * *In a comment to my previous post, LJ friend bandicoot despairs at my having become a wardriver, which is apparently what I've become, with my fearsome arsenal of a WiFi-equipped Zaurus running an application called Kismet. In fact, I was tempted to change the subject line of my previous post to "The Accidental Wardriver," but thought better of it.

Instead, I figure "The Accidental Wardriver" would make a great movie title, so I've decided to go out and solicit a screenplay for the title, raise a modest amount of money (say, $50 million), and then hire the best talent available... maybe Sly Stallone in the lead role?

It's something to think about. (Not!)

Cheers...

No duh...

From Ron Paul (R-TX), who seems more libertarian than mainstream Republican:

Mr. Ashcroft is an administrator, not a legislator. It is not his job to write laws or say what the law should be. His job is to execute the laws passed by Congress. It is not his place to chide Congress or the American people for not supporting his viewpoint. He certainly should not be spending taxpayer money to lobby for his political positions.

Mr. Ashcroft complains that the Patriot Act is misunderstood. But it’s not the American public’s fault nobody knows exactly what the Patriot Act does. The Act contains over 500 pages of detailed legalese, the full text of which was neither read nor made available to Congress before it was voted on- which by itself should have convinced members to vote against it. Many of the surveillance powers authorized in the Act are not clearly defined and have not yet been tested. When they are tested, court challenges are sure to follow. The Act’s complexity is even more troubling when we consider how powers given to the Justice department today might be abused by future administrations.

It is clear, however, that the Patriot Act expands the government’s ability to monitor us. The Act eases federal rules for search warrants in some cases; allows expanded wiretaps and internet monitoring; allows secret "sneak and peek" searches; and even permits federal agents to examine library and bookstore records. On these grounds alone it should be soundly rejected.

Fat chance. Once power is granted to the government, it's not easy to get it back. Moreover, the ability to use such power is not limited to those who "won" it; political tides will turn, and different oxen will be gored.

I do find it interesting that Rep. Paul quotes an article Alan Greenspan wrote, in 1966 in The Objectivist, in a recent speech on Paper Money and Tyrrany.

Cheers...