The only criteria for inclusion on this list is that I actually read the book in 2004. This explains why a book by Isaac Asimov is included. The only order that this list is in is the order in which I read the books.
This movie is an adaptation of Andrew Lloyd Webber's long running Broadway musical "The Phantom of the Opera". I imagine that most people have at least heard of the musical and that it has something to do with a phantom, and an opera, and that there is singing. To be perfectly honest, that is the extent of my knowledge and experience of the stage musical. Because of this lack of experience with the stage version, I had no preconceived notions of what "Phantom" should look like, or sound like, but only that it is supposed to be good and it has been wildly successful. Andrew Lloyd Webber himself was involved in the casting of this project, especially in regards to Emmy Rossum as Christine.
"The Phantom of the Opera" begins with an auction in an old opera house where there is a chandelier which the auctioneer tells us featured prominently in the famous fracas with a "phantom of the opera" and that perhaps time will finally exorcise the phantom. When the enormous chandelier is revealed we are greeted with a powerful blast of music as the dust and cobwebs and decay of the opera house are blown back and we see the opera house return to its former glory of years past. The movie now takes us back to the time where the Phantom did, in fact, haunt the opera house. When the resident diva of the opera, Carlotta (Minne Driver) is nearly hurt in an accident, a young girl from the chorus, Christine (Emmy Rossum) takes the lead with little time to rehearse or prepare. She is a success and the new talk of the opera world and Raoul (Patrick Wilson), the patron of the new owners of the opera house is smitten with her. It also seems that Christine and Raoul knew each other as children.
Something strange happens next. Christine is reluctant to dine with Raoul because her mysterious teacher wouldn't be happy, but we don't know who the teacher is (though we can guess). When Raoul leaves her dressing room, the door locks, the candles blow out and we hear a voice sing out to Christine. It is her teacher. It is the Phantom (Gerard Butler). Christine finally meets the Phantom, her teacher, and they spend some time together as he admonishes her about being faithful to him and his music and sings about "the music of the night". Except for Christine, everybody else wants to be rid of the Phantom and thus begins the heart of the movie where Raoul and the Phantom both want Christine, Christine is initially unsure of her desires, and the Phantom continues to haunt and attack the opera if things do not go exactly the way he demands (and they don't).
It seems unfair to criticize a movie based on a Broadway musical/rock opera of being "too theatrical". Considering the origins of this movie, it only makes sense for it to be "theatrical". Still, Gerard Butler flaps his cape at the camera more than one too many times. It is as if he were trying out for the role of Count Dracula in some campy remake where he isn't supposed to be serious. Except that he is supposed to be serious. Which brings me to my next point: Butler as The Phantom isn't terribly menacing. He is too pretty. His mask seems more of a fashion accessory than something that is just covering up being disfigured. Only when he is in the shadows and attacking people in secrecy do we truly get menace from Butler. It is the unseen that brings the most tension to the character. Butler has a nice voice and on some songs he sounds impressive, but much of his work here is absolutely ordinary. Patrick Wilson, on the other hand, is no better. He doesn't seem the sort of man who would impress Christine and there is no scene, no chemistry that shows us why they are interested in each other except that they knew each other as children. The looming face off between Raoul and the Phantom just doesn't work for me. The movie seemed long, a bit dull, and repetitive.
There is much to praise in this movie, however. The first thing that must be pointed out is that this is a beautiful looking movie. It looks incredible. The sets are fantastic, the costume design, the use of colors, all of it is just perfect. Every scene change brings another fantastic image to the screen. This is a gorgeous movie to look at. The second praiseworthy part of this film is Emmy Rossum as Christine. I don't know what Christine is supposed to look like or act like on stage, but here she radiates such an innocence that it is easy to see why the Phantom wants Christine for himself and why Raoul would be physically attracted to her. Christine is pure. Rossum can also sing quite well. Her voice is what carries the movie as far as it can be carried. The final bit of praise goes to the rest of the cast (excluding Butler and Wilson). They are all excellent, including Minnie Driver as the diva Carlotta. Perfectly overplayed (which is an odd thing for me to say considering my problems with Butler).
"The Phantom of the Opera" has quite a few things going for it, and I am quite sure that fans of the stage musical will be equally happy with this movie. I wasn't quite so happy. I am giving "Phantom" a very generous B- for the performance of Emmy Rossum and the look of the movie.
When Flor's (Paz Vega) husband leaves her she is forced to emigrate from Mexico to America to find work so she can support herself and her daughter Cristina (Shelbie Bruce). After initially finding a lower paying job in a Mexican enclave within Las Angeles, Flor finds work as a housekeeper for Deborah (Tea Leoni). Deborah is a wealthy, self-absorbed society woman who doesn't really think of the feelings of other people. She is also absolutely crazy in a manic sort of a way. Her husband, John (Adam Sandler) is the normal one. He is a very successful chef and will soon be an even more successful chef when a top critic gives him a fantastic review. But, he is a committed family man who deeply loves his daughter Bernie (Sarah Steele) and while he must love his wife for some reason, he is very frustrated with her because her callous disregard for the feelings of Bernie even though Deborah thinks she is doing the right thing.
Into this strange, messed up family comes Flor. She is gentle, and kind, and she doesn't speak a lick of English. Translation and communication comes through Cristina, stuck between the excitement of a new way of life provided by Deborah (she treats Cristina better than she does her own daughter) and the steady tranquil traditions of her mother. The conflict of "Spanglish" comes in the form of Deborah. Deborah will whisk Cristina away for a day long excursion without asking permission from Flor. Her hurtful comments towards Bernie is upsetting John almost as much as Bernie. Deborah is paying little attention to her own husband or to her family except as they might relate towards her and her wishes. It is no wonder that we see a budding friendship (could it be more?) between John and Flor. John, like Flor, is gentle and kind and loving and is being hurt by his wife far more than he deserves.
There is no true narrative here in the sense that "Spanglish" does not directly follow a storyline. What we have is a movie about the relationships between these characters, most of whom are very likeable. The crazy thing is that we want John to leave his wife because we know that he would be very happy with Flor and that they would treat each other well. We want their children to get the love and attention they deserve. We know that Flor's presence has been nothing but a good thing to John's family and that she is a positive influence with how steady and responsible she is. If there is a villain here it is Deborah because she is just so unlikeable, yet at heart she must be a good person for John to have married her in the first place. We only barely see glimpses of her heart, though.
"Spanglish" has quite a bit going for it. The movie has a stellar cast which also includes Cloris Leachman has Deborah's alcoholic mother Evelyn. Leachman has all the best lines in the movie and I will be surprised if she doesn't pick up an Oscar nomination for her work here. She steals every scene she is in. The idea of an alcoholic mother could be a very harsh character, but in "Spanglish" Evelyn is so good natured that one could almost believe that it was Deborah that drove her mother towards the bottle. Another highlight in this movie is Cristina's translations of conversations between her mother and John. Not only does Cristina translate the words and the passion of Flor, but also the gestures and so we get a bit of perfect physical comedy with a younger girl saying very adult things.
"Sylvia" is a film about the life of the American poet Sylvia Plath (Gwyneth Paltrow). The film begins with Plath in college and being all upset about the review of her poetry in a magazine (it might have been a university magazine, but that is never made clear). Soon after she is told about another young poet named Ted Hughes (Daniel Craig). They meet and fall in lust, and despite the title of the movie being "Sylvia" the movie quickly becomes about Sylvia and Ted. Perhaps this is my greatest problem with "Sylvia", that we don't see Sylvia Plath as her own woman. Instead we see Sylvia Plath only in relation to Ted Hughes. I do not know too much about the life of Plath, but since her journals were posthumously published, and she is the author of "The Bell Jar", "Ariel" and won the Pulitzer Prize (also posthumously) for her collected poetry, surely she was a strong enough personality to actually be the subject of a movie which is supposedly about her. But, perhaps I'm wrong about that.
This is a depressing movie. Sylvia Plath was fairly depressive in her own life, and "Sylvia" gets this right. She is manic and unstable and emotionally beat down by Ted Hughes. Her marriage of ups and downs is mostly downs and apparently she is never able to find her focus in writing, though she does manage to publish a couple of books of poetry. She is still overshadowed by her more successful husband. At this point, I think "I" want to stick my head in an oven. It feels like Plath gets yanked around from place to place and is her own emotional rollercoaster and gets no emotional support from her husband who ends up cheating on her anyway.
We never really get to see Sylvia writing her poetry, or speaking her poetry, or using any of her intellectual talents other than in one early scene which sets up the lust between Plath and Hughes. The reason for this is probably because Sylvia Plath's daughter would not permit the filmmakers to use any of her mother's poetry, which meant that only whatever could be legally used outside of that permission was used. This left us with only a couple of brief lines of poetry from a very famous poet. This unquestionably harms the movie because we have no sense in why Plath is famous and remembered. All we have is what we see and hear in the movie and that is a depressed poet who doesn't write is having an unhappy life. Let me see "that" movie!
While the myth and legend of King Arthur and His Knights of the Round Table have been around in one form or another for centuries, there is little solid historical evidence that there was an actual King named Arthur or what his exploits may or may not have been, or even what century he may or may not have lived in. The title cards at the start of the movie makes a new claim of accuracy with historical basis, but from watching documentaries on the History Channel before "King Arthur" was released theatrically, it seems that this movie offers one of many possible interpretations on the Arthur Legend. No retelling of the legend is going to be completely accurate, assuming there was an Arthur, so take this movie with a grain of salt and as entertainment.
Many of the other movies about Arthur deal with a magic sword being pulled out of a stone, and powerful magic being wielded by Merlin (John Boorman's "Exaclibur"), and there is even a musical "Camelot", not to mention the rather bad but strangely enjoyable "First Knight". Forget every other Arthurian movie that you have seen thus far because "King Arthur" is nothing like those movies. There is no magic, no knights bursting into song, and no Richard Gere. This is a darker, more realistic movie from the director of "Training Day".
"King Arthur" is set in the fifth century. Rome is the de facto ruler of Britain, though via proxy. Roman Knights hold sway in Britain, enforcing the law for Citizens and keeping the "barbarians" away. In this movie, the Knights that are in Britain were originally from Sarmatia, a tribe far to the East. These Sarmatians, having lost their battle against Rome have accepted as a term of their surrender that all of their male children will serve in the Roman Army. These men are serving under Lucius Artorius Castus, or Arthur (Clive Owen). Along with Arthur are the other "legendary" knights and Sarmatians Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd), Gawain (Joel Edgerton), Galahad (Hugh Dancy), and Bors (Ray Winstone). Together, with other unnamed knights, the Sarmatians protect their corner of Britain and their tour of duty will be over with the arrival of the Bishop Germanius (Ivano Marescotti). The Bishop has other ideas. He will only release the knights after they fulfill one more task. They must ride north, into territory occupied by the Woads (native Britons) where there is a Saxon Army on the brink of invasion, and rescue a young man whom the Pope in Rome is grooming as his successor. Only then with Arthur and his men be free to return to Sarmatia. They argue, the grumble, the get angry, and they submit.
On the way they encounter Merlin (Stephen Dillane), no longer a sorcerer, but a leader of a tribe of Woads. Upon rescuing the boy, Arthur also rescues a young woman named Guinevere (Keira Knightley). Guinevere is not the refined princess who's beauty ruined Camelot, but a Woad prisoner who is starving and abused. She is freed by Arthur, befriended even though she is a barbarian, and through their discussions Arthur begins to question his place as a Roman. Arthur is part Briton, part Sarmatian, so his world is not the same as that of Bors or Lancelot. Guinevere also is a warrior, able to shoot her bow with great skill and once, late in the movie, she charges into battle with sword drawn (her scenes with the swords are the least convincing when she tries to match power and strength with men. Keira Knightley is a small woman).
The battle scenes are done more in the style of "Braveheart", though with a surprisingly lack of blood and visible brutality. Clive Owen's Arthur is a solid leader, though one lacking in charisma. He seems the leader who has earned the trust of his men over a long period of time by being a strong warrior, brave, intelligent, and always faithful, but not with this force of his personality. That is good for a leader, bad for a leading man. Owen was fantastic in "Closer", but his powerful personality is pushed to the side here. Everybody else in the movie is acceptable and believable in their roles, and Keira Knightley was just fine as a different sort of Guinevere right up until the part where she parried a sword swung by a much larger man. She was best when using the bow and when using her agility in battle. She lost me when she used strength to win in battle.
This Director's Cut Edition restored scenes that needed to be cut from the theatrical release and reportedly adds a bit more brutality to the battles. This was evident near the end, but not so much early on in the movie. Not having seen the theatrical release, I am not able to comment on the differences between the two versions of "King Arthur".
This isn't a bad movie. It is "Braveheart" light with some of the actors from "Braveheart". After "Training Day" I honestly expected something more from Antoine Fuqua, but it was nice that he did not provide a conventional Arthur movie. If reports of his struggle with the studio to make "his" movie are to believed, "King Arthur" had the potential to be something better than it turned out to be, even with a Director's Cut. While not a bad movie, "King Arthur" should not get a grade of much above a C+. It is decent enough, but nothing special.
Roger Ebert had a great idea. He is tracking the winners of all the major critical awards here. This way we can try to see which movies have been voted best picture and make Oscar predictions from the list. It's a really good idea, especially for the acting categories. We see that a movie like Sideways has been cleaning up, but Million Dollar Baby is making a strong showing. I'll be checking in on this one periodically.
Roger Ebert has written a beautiful review of Million Dollar Baby. It is writing like this that reminds me why he is considered one of the top film reviewers in America and one of the most respected. It is an example why he won the Pulitzer Prize for his film criticism. Ebert's review only deepens my desire to see this movie, which was already the #1 movie I wanted to see (now that i've seen Closer).
If everything I have heard about Million Dollar Baby is right, and Ebert seems to agree, you are looking at the movie that is going to get an abundance of Oscar Nominations in every category it possibly can. And it may very well win a whole bunch, too.
J.M Barrie (Johnny Depp) is something of a failed playwright. His latest play has just flopped on opening night. The audience was bored and left the theatre saying how dreadful it was. His relationship with his wife, Mary (Radha Mitchell) is chilly and loveless. But James Barrie still has an incredibly fertile imagination, turning the mundane into something more spectacular and wondrous, if only in his mind. While writing in a park James encounters the Davies family with one of the boys lying under the bench Barrie is sitting on. This boy is pretending to have been imprisoned by the king, George (Nick Roud), who is really just his older brother. Barrie, unlike what most adults would do, plays right along with the scene and tries to bargain young Michael (Luke Spill) out of jail. Immediately Barrie seems to form a friendship with the family, performing a little play with his dog for the family, which includes the mother Sylvia Llewelyn Davies (Kate Winslet) and her other two sons Peter (Freddie Highmore) and Jack (Joe Prospero). Barrie spends more and more time with the Davies, befriending Sylvia and playing make believe with the children. From this relationship we see instances of Barrie's imagination taking hold and the creation of aspects of "Peter Pan".
Three of the boys join in and play every game with James Barrie, but young Peter does not. Still grieving and resentful at the death of his father, Peter will not play. In talking with James, however, Peter starts to come out of his shell. It is clear that this friendship, which is entirely innocent of anything romantic (in the case of Sylvia) or otherwise is of great comfort both to the Davies family as well as to James Barrie. There is conflict, of course. Sylvia's mother, Mrs Emma Du Maurier (Julie Christie) disapproves because of Barrie's behavior but also because she feels that the friendship will only cause a scandal and ruin any chance of Sylvia's being able to remarry into "Society". Barrie, of course, is married. This is the other major conflict. Mary is resentful of the time Barrie spends away from her, but it is also clear that their relationship is not working even before he met Sylvia and her family. They were already sleeping in separate bedrooms (though that may have been a cultural thing, I am not sure).
While all of this is happening, the producer of Barrie's plays, Charles Frohman (Dustin Hoffman) is trying to get Barrie's new play financed and is very worried when he sees what it is. It is a play about fairies and children with an alligator and a grown man who must dress up in a dog costume. Since these plays are shown to the "High Society", it is a play destined to flop. Coming from the twenty first century, we also know it is destined to become a classic in "Peter Pan".
Rated PG, "Finding Neverland" is a wonderful family film. In fact, that is the exact word that came to mind as I walked out of the theatre: Wonderful. There is truly a sense of wonder about J.M. Barrie and his imagination which created Neverland. His friendship with the Davies comes off as genuine and heartfelt and entirely natural. Johnny Depp's performance carries the movie, though Winslet and the four children are also to be commended for how well "Finding Neverland" has turned out. Depp is much more restrained here than in most of his other movie, but he still is able to shine through with a quirkly personality that feels appropriate to Barrie. "Finding Neverland" is a very imaginative movie, beautifully shot, with enough scenes of Barrie's imagination to override what could have otherwise been a drab London. This is clearly one of the best movies of the year.
"Ray" is a biopic about the defining period in the life of musician Ray Charles. While there are flashbacks to Ray's childhood, "Ray" mostly deals with the time between when Ray Robinson (Jamie Foxx) was first starting out in the late 1940's through the 1960's when he became a huge success with "Georgia on my Mind" and was the first black artist to refuse to play a venue if it was segregated. With a ringing admonishment to never let the world treat him like a cripple, "Ray" begins with Ray Robinson getting onto a bus bound to Seattle from Florida and meeting up with a very young Quincy Jones (Larenz Tate). If it didn't happen, I wouldn't believe it. Ray Robinson gets himself an audition at a club and is immediately a hit. The club's owner becomes his manager for a time and begins to cheat him out of his money from the start. Time passes until Ray wises up to what is going on and leaves to strike out on his own where he can play and be more in control of his future.
"Ray" features a series of successes where Ray Charles (Charles is the middle name of Ray Robinson, he changed his stage name because there was already a "Sugar" Ray Robinson who was a boxer) becomes bigger and bigger and his songs become hits and makes the record company, Atlantic, a lot of money. Ray finds a home with his wife Della Bea (Kerry Washington) and they have a child, but Ray has demons of his own. He keeps flashing back to his childhood where he watched his younger brother drown. "Ray" does not sugarcoat the life of Ray Charles. It chronicles how Ray got deeper and deeper into drug dependency and addiction and how he was constantly cheating on his wife when he was on the road. "Ray" also gives the beautiful songs of Ray Charles a chance to shine. I never knew that Ray had recorded "The Mess Around" and hearing "Georgia on my Mind" is sublime. "Ray" follows Ray Charles through his addiction and through his rehab and we get to see him clean himself up.
To be perfectly honest, "Ray" runs a little long at 2 hours and 45 minutes. I don't know what could have been cut or what scene trimmed down, but it started to feel long sometime after 2 hours but before the end. Despite this, however, Jamie Foxx completely disappears in his role as Ray Charles. From the first scene to the last, with the exception of one dream sequence, we are not watching Jamie Foxx doing an impersonation. We are watching Ray Charles. He is that good. Everybody else in the film also does an excellent job, but Foxx is the standout and rightfully so. He carries "Ray" on his shoulders and he carries it well. What best serves this movie is the combination of Jamie Foxx's performance as well as the knowledge that the real Ray Charles had died before this film could be released in the theatres. It is that knowing the man has only recently died that adds to the appeal and the power of "Ray". Perhaps that is sad or unfair, but it is also reality. This is not to say that "Ray" is not an extremely powerful movie and very well acted and well made. It is. But when a film is made about real life, real life affects how the film is perceived.
Pulitzer Prize winning author Michael Chabon ("The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay") takes a shot at writing a classic Sherlock Holmes mystery. Holmes, never explicitly named, is nearing the end of his life. He has retired to Sussex, England, to keep bees. This is all that he wants to do for the remainder of his life, but the mystery of a mute boy and a stolen parrot comes into his life and calls on his skills of observation one last time.
A young boy walks into town. He is mute and he owns a parrot. The only thing the parrot seems to say is a list of numbers in German. When the parrot disappears there is suspicion of a darker motive. The police call Holmes to investigate, and though he is reluctant, he does agree to help. But Holmes' motivation is only to return the parrot to the child and not to solve the riddle of the German numbers.
There is a certain amount of wistfulness in "The Final Solution." It may be, as the title suggests, the last Sherlock Holmes mystery, and the specter of the aging Holmes does give rise to this air of sadness and remembering what has come before. So, in that manner it is a treat to get to see Sherlock one last time. But as a mystery story there isn't much to it. There is no true feeling that Chabon is giving all of the clues necessary to grasp the mystery (the twist at the end is nice and clever, though). Perhaps the problem is that the stakes here (a missing parrot) do not seem to be sufficiently large to have involved Sherlock Holmes, despite the mystery of the German numbers. "The Final Solution" is interesting for fans of Chabon, Sherlock Holmes, and as a little curio of a novella, but nothing deeper than that. It is well written, of course, being Chabon, but it feels too light. Too insubstantial.
"Flight of the Navigator" is a wonderful movie that is good for the entire family. It is the story of 12 year old David (Joey Cramer). David is sent by his parents to look for his younger brother who is late coming home. David searches in the woods, and after finding his brother, David falls off the edge of a small cliff into the valley below. When he comes to, shortly after, he returns home only to find that someone else is living there and has no idea who he is. David soon learns, from the police, that he was presumed dead 8 years prior. After being reunited with his family we see that while everyone else has aged during the missing time, David remains the same age he was when he fell. Meanwhile, NASA has located a spaceship which has crashed and they want to examine David to find out what he may know.
David manages to escape in the spaceship and with the help of the robot Max (Paul Reubens), evades being recaptured by NASA scientists. On the craft, David learns of what happened to him, why, and how he can rejoin his family. Along the way he meets Carolyn (a young Sarah Jessica Parker), an intern at NASA and various alien creatures that look like Muppets.
"Flight of the Navigator" is cute, funny, and an enjoyable movie. It is appropriate for children of all ages. Plus, it has muppet aliens. How can you beat that?
"Closer" is a film about beginnings and endings. We are given a look into how relationships begin, and how they end. Very little of what happens in between is ever seen on screen. Because of this, there are time gaps in the story of up to a year, but after the first gap and you figure out just what the structure is, it is barely noticeable. "Closer" begins (appropriately enough) with the meeting of Alice (Natalie Portman) and Dan (Jude Law). Alice is walking down a London sidewalk. Dan is following her, observing. It isn't clear if he is stalking her, or just admiring her beauty. When Alice looks the wrong way when crossing the road, she is American, she is struck by a car. Dan is right there to get her help and this begins a flirtation and their relationship.
Dan meets Alice. Dan meets Anna. Anna meets Larry. Dan leaves Alice. Anna leaves Larry. Larry meets Alice. To call "Closer" a romantic triangle would be to do the film a disservice, not to mention that there are four people involved in this "triangle". The romantic pairings up and hooking up is the method these characters use to try to fulfill something that is lacking in their lives. But the real point here is the conversation that comes about because of it. The conversation that happens at the beginning and the ending of a relationship is the most interesting, and the most intense because the emotions are heightened and more focused, both with joy and with pain. The dialogue is sharp, incredibly intelligent (I've never come across conversation like this before in my life), it feels realistic, flirtatious, and very sexual. In particular, the dialogue at the endings of relationships is quite graphic.
"Closer" is all about character and humanity, and not so much about giving a traditional plot. The four main actors here do a fantastic job in "Closer" and collectively give the performance of the year. Natalie Portman is likely going to pick up a Best Supporting Actress Nomination (if not win) for her portrayal of Alice, the all grown up but still somewhat childish waif of a stripper. Clive Owen, however, steals the show (as does Portman) with every scene he is in. He is passionate, intense, and perfect. As is, I would suggest, this movie. It is not an upbeat movie, but it has such a warmth to it even as the characters are all treating each other really badly. This is a very impressive movie and one which I sincerely hope gets a Best Picture nomination come Oscar time.
"Republic Commando: Hard Contact" is a video game tie-in novel which is set in the Star Wars Universe during the Clone Wars. While other Clone Wars novels have given us glimpses into the lives of the clone troopers, none have given us this level of detail, though "The Cestus Deception" comes close at times. This is a novel completely about clone troopers and even though there is a Jedi Padawan in the novel it is a reversal of the norm as she is dependent on the clones.
Four clone commandos, an elite fighting force, are sent to a planet controlled by the Separatists. The mission is to attack a chemical weapons facility which is making a virus which targets and kills only the Clones. If used, it would turn the tide of the Clone Wars against the Republic. "Republic Commando: Hard Contact" is a covert mission of the Clone Wars and one that features almost entirely clone commandos (the Jedi are secondary and far less important than the commandos). We are given the opportunity to see how the clones relate to each other and how they truly are individuals. They are just bred to fight and serve the Republic, but they have hopes and fears and distinct personalities despite the fact they are genetically identical.
Karen Traviss is an exciting new author. As a Star Wars author, one the strength of one book, she is already one of the best. There is a level of authenticity that runs through "Republic Commando: Hard Contact" that just feels right. Traviss gives us an intelligent, exciting story of one small squadron of elite clone commandos and she succeeds in humanizing them both to the reader as well as the Jedi apprentice in the story. Karen Traviss is one of the few Star Wars authors who did such a good job that I want to read her non-Star Wars work. This is a story which does not feature any of the main Star Wars characters, but it is easy to relate to Traviss's characters and fit them into our picture of the greater Star Wars universe.
"An Emperor for the Legion" is the second of four volumes in the Videssos Cycle. At the end of "The Misplaced Legion", the Emperor had been killed by the Sorcerer of Yezda and the Videssan army had been routed due to the failure of Ortaias Sphrantzes to hold his section of the line. The army has been split into several parts, each with no contact with the others. Ortaias has one part, the Thorisin Gavras has another. Gavras is viewed by many as the rightful heir to Videssos. The rest of the army is under the command of Marcus Scaurus, the misplaced Roman Legionary. The plot of the first book in the series took a Roman Legion and through an accident of magic transported the legion to another world. They hired on with the Empire of Videssos as a mercenary company and with the murder of the emperor, Marcus is seeking the one man he is willing to follow: Thorisin Gavras.
Much of "An Emperor for the Legion" is one long march. Marcus and his Romans, plus the rest of the army, is on the march through lands controlled by the Yezda and have to deal with random attacks. After finally meeting up with Thorisin, they return to the capital city of Videssos only to find it occupied by Ortaias, claiming to be the new Emperor. Marcus and Thorisin need to decide if they can accept the rule of Ortaias, or if attempting to assault the nearly impenetrable fortress city is worth the cost.
This book is the logical extension of the story after "The Misplaced Legion". We do not see much character development of the Romans (or anyone else), but by spending more time with the Romans we get a better sense of who the men are. Call it "character explanation". The initial intrigue of sticking a Roman legion in a completely alien world in which magic is fairly commonplace has worn off by this point, but Turtledove is able to tell an interesting story with these characters. After this novel, the focus seems to be on the politics of Videssos seen through the filter of the Roman Legion. It's good, and very detail orientated. "An Emperor for the Legion" is a slower moving tale, but the series is an interesting one.
"Empire of Unreason" is the third book in the four book "Age of Unreason" series by Greg Keyes. It takes place approximately 10 years after the events of "A Calculus of Angels". Ben Franklin is living back in the American Colonies, in Charleston. He is a founding member of some sort of secret scientific organization called the Junto. The Junto are leaders in the community and they are working to continue to advance science as well as figure out exactly how to stop and kill the malakim, the "demons" that were discovered through Isaac Newton's alchemy and are the ultimate cause of all of the destruction of the past twelve years. The exiled pretender King James has come to the colonies (since London was utterly destroyed twelve years prior) to claim his throne, but Franklin sees the hand of the malakim behind King James.
Adrienne, the woman scientist who has been the driving force behind much of the innovation and destruction of the past decade, is in the court of the Tsar of Russia. She knows there are forces of the malakim aligned against humanity, but she owes so much to others of the malakim who claim obedience to her. She continues to search for her lost son, who would be twelve years old by the events of "Empire of Unreason". While she continues to search for her son, and evade her own enemies in Russia, there is a new force in America. A boy called the Sun King, who has come out of the West. He seems to be a prophet, and leads forces from China. But, he may also be Adrienne's son.
There is so much going on in "Empire of Unreason" that if one hasn't read the first two volumes of this series ("Newton's Cannon", and "A Calculus of Angels") the reader will be completely lost. This book suffers from the middle book syndrome in that it works to continue a story and set up a conclusion, but it cannot stand alone. The reader is thrust right into the story and has to play catch-up figuring out exactly how much time has passed since the second book in the series. While this is a "middle book", it is also a fast paced, exciting story. Greg Keyes no longer has to engage in world building, but can now give us an adventure story that drives to an ending. "Empire of Unreason" seemed to end in a hurry, and was a little confusing, but the "Age of Unreason" series is proving to be an excellent one in the fantasy genre, as well as being an alternate history. Keyes is a very good writer, and he is working with a very broad canvas here. Read the first two books, and then continue on with the series. It is worthwhile reading for the fantasy reader.


The Question is 94 - 64.
We have 4 - 4 = 0, so write 0 at the bottom of the units column.
We have 9 - 6 = 3, so write 3 at the bottom of the tens column.


American Geriatrics Society and the AMA: Time to Part Ways?
There is very eloquent letter from Richard Stefanacci and colleagues in the June edition of the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society about the relationship between the AMA and the AGS. (Stefanacci RG; Wasserman MR; Beers MH. Moving Beyond the American Medical Association. JAGS;2009:1117-1118).
The context is as follows. The AMA sponsors the resouce-based relative value scale updates committee (RUC). This very obscure sounding body is VERY important. It advises CMS on updates to the system that determines how physicians will be paid for their services. This is the system that ultimately results in much greater payments for procedural care than for services based primarily on talking to or examining patients. The reason the RUC is so important is that CMS accepts the vast majority of its recommendations. One way of looking at this: The CMS essentially relies on the AMA (via the RUC) to determine the relative value of physician services. The current approach to payment for these services is one of the most important factors limiting the development of Geriatrics and Palliative Care.
The AGS has been pushing its members to join the AMA. The AMA gives specialty societies a seat in its house of delegates (its primary policy making body) based on the number of specialty society members in the AMA. Without a seat in the house of delegates, the AGS will not have a representative on the panel which revises the billing codes considered by the RUC. The AGS is in danger of losing its seat in the House of delegates because relatively few of its members have joined the AMA.
It would be a mistake to believe that low AMA membership rates in the AGS reflect just an oversite or avoidance of membership dues by AGS members. Many AGS members have made an active decision not to join the AMA. There are many reasons for this, but most revolve around a belief that many of the actions the AMA takes do not reflect our values. Some feel the AMA has sometimes acted more as a trade organization than a professional organization. In fact, only a minority of US physicians are members of the AMA. Despite common misperceptions, the AMA should not be viewed as the voice of US physicians.
I agree with the letter writers that the AGS is pursuing the wrong strategy by encouraging its members to join the AMA. Rather than begging for a seat at this very broken table that is stacked against primary care, geriatrics, and palliative care, the AGS should be actively lobbying for a new table. The AGS should collaborate with partners such as SGIM and the AAFP to encourage CMS and congress to end the RUC, as it is currently structured. Our lobbying efforts and lobbying dollars should push for a new process that is independent of the AMA.
"The AGS is seeking a seat at a table we have no business dining at. The time has come for the AGS and its members to step away and forge a new path so we can fulfill our vision of assuring that every older American receives high-quality patient-centered care. Membership in the AMA works against this goal. Furthermore, by participating in the present system, the AGS only lends credence to CMS's view that the RUC represents all physicians"
Many thanks to Drs. Stefanacci, Wasserman, and Beers.
Welcome to the blogosphere. And especially the Palliative Medicine Blogging world. We have a great community already and are always looking for more good bloggers.
It would be nice to see some more information about the bloggers and the mission for the blog.
We hope to see some great things from your writings. Keep it up!
It took me a while this year to decide whether to renew my AMA membership. Why? I don't feel like my dues are focused on ways we can improve the care of my patients. Rather, it feels that my membership dues are used to protect interests of specialists - propping up a system that encourages procedures and interventions. The RUC is just one example of this with most of it’s members being from specialty societies (I count maybe 4-5 primary care focused members – is that right?). Other examples include the last AMA meeting debate about heath system reform, reminding me of all the other times the AMA has stymied health reform plans.
I agree with the sentiment of the Stefanacci, Wasserman, and Beers article, but I also don't see a way true change can happen with only a small group of physicians breaking away from the pack. How do we then create momentum for change?
As it turns out I did renew my membership – but it is of little surprise to me that AMA membership is declining as we are not alone in our fields to question the agenda of "our" association.
primary care. In 2007, an additional primary care seat on the RUC was proposed, but the existing RUC members voted down this proposal."
The RUC appears to be a vehicle for specialist self-interest, and as transformation from within seems unlikely (as apparent from Mark and Ken's description), perhaps it's time to lobby for a new solution.
And to Christian Sinclair...we are huge fans of pallimed.org! Thank you for noticing our nascent blog. We appreciate any feedback you have as we develop this blog. Our purpose is to be a forum for networking between clinicians interested in the intersection of geriatrics and palliative care, a forum for discussing recent and important clinical and policy news in these fields, and providing critical commentary from leaders positioned at the intersection of geriatrics and palliative care. I'm going to update our site description with this blurb.
I think this piece nicely points out the futility of hoping for meaningful reform within the existing RUC format. As Mark points out, it is very concerning that CMS is relying on the RUC to define the Medicare Medical Home (perhaps alarming is a better word).
It seems the best course of action is to lobby CMS, Congress, and the press for a new structure that will replace the RUC. We need to make it clear that the RUC does not represent the larger physician community. I'd be interested in knowing if others agree with this proposition, and what the organizations like the AGS and SGIM can do to effect this change.


How Can I Tell Which Home Improvement Promotions Are Good Deals?
Window dealers are always trying to get your name and number so they can call, make an appointment, and sell you windows. The best way for them to get through to you are typically ads and promotions. Some of the most popular offers are for free windows and financing. So how do you know if you're actually getting a good deal? Let's break it down.
To start, do you really know what a replacement window costs a dealer? A window's cost to a dealer runs from about $150 to as high as $800. Usually they are somewhere in between. $250 works as an average window cost for our example, but do some research into your own area. We'll say each window costs $500 dollars.
With these numbers in mind, let's consider a promotion that says you get one free window for each window purchase. But the fine print on that ad says that a certain model must be purchased, and you must buy a minimum of five windows. Remember, each window has a dealer cost of $250. Let's say the dealer then bills you $4500 for the package. Is this a good deal?
In a word? Yes. Here's how we know: The dealer's total window cost was $2500 ($250 per window times 10 windows), so they've made $2000 total once those costs are removed. But you get a good deal, too. If each window costs $500 dollars, and you pay $4,500 for the entire project, then you've actually knocked that down to $450 dollars for each window, which winds up saving you an entire $500 on the project. It may not work out to be quite the deal you thought, but it's a good deal nonetheless.
Now let's look at another popular ad: no-interest financing. I saw an ad last week saying that if you "bought now," you wouldn't pay interest for five years. But as you probably know from other "interest-free financing" deals you've seen, if miss a payment, then you get interest for the entire amount, and it is usually around 30%. Not great. However, if you need to finance and can make the payments, or even pay the loan early, it is a good deal. Just be sure you'll have enough to pay every month for the duration of the financing period so you don't wind up with interest you can't afford.
One other way you'll want to make sure you're getting a good deal? Make sure you know absolutely everything you're going to be charged for. At least one major window dealer prices everything in an a la carte fashion. That means they can advertise a window at a sub-$200 price then adds items like moving furniture, caulking, taking down window coverings, etc. These are items covered in the cost of installation by most other window dealers. But if you are willing to take care of all the small line items yourself and get a contract written up reflecting that, you can get a great deal.
Most of all, when you're shopping for windows, be aware of what you're buying. Does the fine print force you to buy the lowest quality window the dealer sells? Will the job be completed before you make the final payment? Armed with information and solid numbers, you can make these promotions work for you.


Why have a face lift when you could have a subtle tweakment?
We've all wondered how some celebrities stay looking so young without looking like they've had 'work' done; now it seems that it could be down to the rise of the 'tweakment' – a new range of subtle, 'has she or hasn't she?' cosmetic procedures.
'Tweaked, not tucked' is today's hottest beauty trend, with lots of subtle new non-surgical ways to look younger – and no one will ever know!
Today's anti ageing ideal is fresh not frozen, say industry experts.
'Gone are the days of taking extreme measures in the search of beauty,' says aesthetic doctor Dr Jonquille Chantrey, a pioneer in what have been dubbed 'tweakments'.
This new wave of non-surgical cosmetic work is quick, hi-tech and leaves everyone guessing. That means no more immobile Botoxed foreheads, trout pouts and chipmunk cheeks, says Dr Chantrey.
So what is the best age to have these cosmetic 'tweakments'?
'The mid-40s are a time when most women start to notice the tell-tale signs of ageing such as fine lines, loss of volume and irregular pigmentation,' says Dr Chantrey.
In the past, trying to discreetly turn back the hands of time was difficult - and even celebrities with access to the best doctors and latest treatments often got things disastrously wrong.
'These days it's all about improving your natural look,' says Dr Tracy Mountford, from The Cosmetic Skin Clinic, one of the UK's leading anti ageing experts and a firm supporter of the natural look.
'The secret of a youthful face is radiant skin. Clear+Brilliant is a light-laser treatment which refreshes skin from the inside out by stimulating collagen and replacing damaged tissue with newer skin. It improves texture, tone and boosts luminosity. From £350.
'For anyone over 40 who feels their skin lacks firmness, I would recommend this be accompanied by non-surgical skin tightening using Thermage, a focused radio frequency energy, to remodel and tighten collagen, the protein needed for healthy skin. It can achieve beautiful results with no risk of looking overdone.' This is our signature 'Tight+Bright' treatment. £1200.
'The key is for the lower face to be in keeping with the rest; you can't put 25-year-old lips on a 55- year-old. I would use a little Restylane or Juvederm hyaluronic acid filler injected into the corners of the mouth for a gentle lift. Then Restylane Skinboosters or Juvederm Hydrate, a lightweight skin rejuvenator, to tidy up fine lines around the mouth, and finally some Restylane Vital Light into the pink of the lip to hydrate and gently plump the lips in a subtle way. The result is soft shapely lips with a gentle upward curve that gets rid of that glum look, and hydrated skin all around with no trout pout.' From £450.
'A firm favourite of celebrities because there is no downtime and the results last up to two years, Ultherapy can be used on anyone over 30, but the best results tend to be on those aged 40 to 60 who are starting to see some laxity around the jawline, neck or décolletage and the beginning of jowls. The décolletage is an area where a lot of women are having Ultherapy because it firms and tightens very quickly as this area is a notorious giveaway of age and can often prematurely age. From £1200.
'It's a big hit among women over 40 because of its natural, understated and successful results. Using innovative non-invasive, procedures including jowl-lift, temple-lift, neck-lift, brow-lift and skin tightening, it treats common problems associated with ageing; loss of cheek volume, sunken temples, hollow sunken cheeks and dropping jawline. Patients love this because of the lack of downtime, and they look the best possible version of themselves.' From £700.
'My newest treatment aims to lighten under-eye dark circles, softens crow's feet and highlights the cheekbone with tiny Juvederm injections. A perfect refresher, it's hugely popular as the eye area is the first to show the signs of ageing.' From £700.
Choose your practitioner with care; these techniques must only be performed by experienced and highly trained specialists in aesthetic medicine and surgery. Find a trained, qualified healthcare professional through the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons (BAAPS) and British College of Aesthetic Medicine (BCAM). They will be registered with the General Medical Council and have ongoing training. Patient safety will be paramount.


Which of the ridiculous options at his disposal will Didier Deschamps use, and will it be the right ones? Those are the questions as France open their Fifa World Cup 2018 campaign against Australia in Group C on Saturday.
Owing to the incredible talent at Deschamps' disposal, France have been rightly termed as one of the favourites for the World Cup title. Well, there is no better way to enhance that feeling than by getting off to a flying start, with a smashing win over the Socceroos.
France have talent from back to front, and while some of the players pick themselves, Deschamps does have a few important decisions to make, chief of them being who will play up front with Antoine Griezmann.
Kylian Mbappe looks certain to join Griezmann, who recently made headlines with a nonsense "decision" video over his future, with Deschamps then left with one more player to choose.
It could be Thomas Lemar or Olivier Giroud, who will come in handy against a team that likes to defend deep, or maybe even Nabil Fekir could be given a job out wide, with Mbappe playing down the middle and Griezmann on the left.
However, going by the training sessions, it does look like Deschamps has given the starting XI nod to Ousmane Dembele, the winger who did not have the greatest of seasons with Barcelona, but has the talent to set this Fifa World Cup in Russia alight.
In midfield, Paul Pogba will be tasked with making France tick. Too much has been written about the midfielder, too much has been talked about the midfielder, now it is that "walk the walk" time, and Pogba really cannot have any more excuses. He needs to show he has what it takes to do it on the world stage.
Australia will look at this game as a free hit; one that nobody expects them to win. With new manager Bert Van Marwijk still feeling himself into his new role, it remains to be seen what sort of lineup he goes with against France.
Van Marwijk is known for his pragmatic approach, so don't be surprised if he goes in with a conservative starting XI, one that will allow him to pack the midfield and defend deep against this dangerous France side.
Mbappe picked up a slight knock in training earlier this week, but the forward is expected to be fine for this match in Kazan.
Right-back Djibril Sidibe is a major doubt for France's opener, with Benjamin Pavard, more comfortable at centre-back, expected to take his place in the starting XI.
Striker Tomi Juric has been given the all-clear from a knee injury, but Van Marwijk might not take a risk, with Andrew Nabbout, Tim Cahill and Jamie Maclaren the other options.
Captain Mile Jedinak, whose goals got Australia into this World Cup, is likely to be left on the bench, with the manager expected to go with Aaron Mooy, Tom Rogic and Massimo Luongo in midfield.
Lloris; Pavard, Varane, Umtiti, Mendy; Matuidi, Kante, Pogba; Dembele, Mbappe, Griezmann.
Ryan; Risdon, Milligan, Sainsbury, Behich; Mooy, Luongo, Rogic; Leckie, Kruse; Nabbout.


In a Computer language the defination of safe mode is: " Safe Mode is a special way for Windows to load when there is a system-critical problem that interferes with the normal operation of Windows. The purpose of Safe Mode is to allow you to troubleshoot Windows and try to determine what is causing it to not function correctly."
In the same way Safe Mode in the terms of Online Betting refers to: Betting Online in a situation where the betting is illegal in a country as per the Govt. and still we can do online betting with the help of e-wallets such as Neteller and Skrill and online betting websites such as bet365.com, 888sport.com and betfair.com.
In the above case no one can hold us liable for betting online since we are not using our Bank Account directly to any betting websites, but using an e-wallet to transfer funds to online betting websites. Below I have illustrated the process of uploading the funds from India to any online betting sites via an e-wallet.
While chatting with a guy on the Facebook he asked me how to do online betting, he had never done online betting before as he was stick with his local bookie, I asked him to try betting online and you will forget your local bookie as its not good to bet using any local bookie becouse betting is illegal in India. I told him that if you would like to bet online in safe mode then you just need to follow some precautions.
Betting in safe mode refers to betting online on the sportsbook which are not registerd in India and without the knowledge of your banker, this is only possible only when you tranfer money to a betting site using using an e-wallet such as Neteller or Skrill. If you bet using your local bank account then all the transactions you will make will reflect in your bank statement and anyone who checks your bank statements will come to know that you have done online betting.
Since betting online in India is a grey area and it can't be done openly, a proper privacy is needed to do so, therefore I ask to all Indian Punters to open an ewallet account (Electronic Wallet) such as Neteller and Skrill so that you can bet in safe mode. I am going to explain both the ewallets in details like how to open neteller, How to open Moneybookers, How to fund to neteller using your indian bank account, how to make withdrawals etc etc.
If you are Interested in Opening Neteller Account then click here : Open Neteller Account.
To start betting from India you just need to follow 4 steps.
Free to sign up - Just need to fill correct details while filling the forms and uplaod your documents (Driving Licence/PAN Card/ Passport) for verifying your account which take 3-5 working days.
I Highly recommend to sign up at bet365.com and betfair.com for online betting purpose. After signing up at these websites you need to verify your accounts by uploading your documents in which your Date of Birth and your resedential address is mentioned. (A person can sign up only when he/she is over the age of 18).
You need a Bank for uploading funds to your e-wallet account. I highly recommend to use ICICI bank, ABN Amro or HDFC bank for such purpose.
Once your fund is available at your e-wallet account then you can easily transfer the funds to your betting website. You just need to login to you betting website then the go to the deposit options then fill the neteller account ID and then confirm it. Once the funds arrives to your online betting website you are ready to play.


How does an artificial hip joint work?
The surgeon will decide which materials to use depending on the patient's anatomy.
If the cartilage layer in the acetabulum is in good condition (for example after a femoral neck fracture), this does not need to be replaced. In such cases, only the femoral head and the femoral neck are replaced with an artificial femoral head on a prosthesis stem. Following the operation, the artificial femoral head sits in the natural acetabulum. This is referred to as partial endoprosthesis, or hemi-endoprosthesis.
In the majority of cases, the complete diseased hip joint is replaced. An artificial acetabular cup replaces the damaged acetabulum. The deformed femoral head together with the femoral neck are exchanged for an artificial femoral head which sits on the prosthesis stem. This is referred to as a total endoprosthesis.
With this method, only the damaged joint surface is replaced and lined with a metal spherical cup. The prosthesis thus comprises an artificial acetabular cup and a cup for the natural femoral head. Both components are made of metal and fit perfectly into each other. This is referred to as a cup prosthesis. This complex technique has only been around for a few years and to date only limited findings are available as to the longevity and tolerance of this type of prosthesis.


I have previously highlighted my disdain for "mystical" interpretations of the internal martial arts. In my view all martial arts function within the bounds of known physics; there is simply nothing metaphysical - nothing that is left wanting for a "paranormal" explanation.
"My view of internal martial arts is when the strike's power is so refined and seemingly defies physical laws. Where there is a transfer of energy enough to lift someone off their feet yet have very little to no body momentum to justify the result of the strike."
What I want to know is, why do so many people who see themselves as "internal artists" think that pushing is a good measure of martial skill - or applied force, for that matter?
A fairly typical "pushing" demonstration intended to evidence the "power" of the internal arts - but do you really want to push anyone?
My experience with the internal arts is that pushing does not really feature in the "xing" (forms). It is used in taiji push hands contests, but it really about as indicative of true taiji skill as board/brick breaking in karate; once you know a few basic things about balance and grounding, you can do pushing without any other knowledge. And being good at taiji push hands doesn't necessarily equate to a good performance of the taiji forms.
I am reasonably good at pushing (if I could be bothered doing it) - but I have yet to meet someone who can push me like in the above video if I actively resist. The best they manage is to upset my balance in the context of push hands - and the latter is about timing, not "qi". If I have ever been sent sprawling, it was because my partner used my own push against me, catching me at just the right moment. Again, this is timing. Timing is not an issue in the above video.
Videos such as the one above are evidence only of very agreeable, non-resistant students.
Impulse is, as I explain, the momentum you transfer. When you push (rather than hit), you might transfer the same momentum as you would if you had hit, but you do so by applying a smaller force over a longer time. In my article "Visible force vs. applied force" I discuss how a pushing blow might look more spectacular than a "shocking" (ie. forceful) blow simply because you see a bigger "result" in terms of the displacement of your target - but the former is necessarily less effective in terms of destructive force applied. Quite simply you have applied less force. Less force = not hitting as hard.
Boxing champion Roy Jones Jnr in action against Glen Kelly. Note how Kelly drops on the spot - he doesn't get "pushed" by the knockout blow.
"I once saw a taiji practitioner who was very good at push hands beaten up. He managed to push this guy quite far, but the guy just came back and hit him."
You will note from my article "Understanding the internal arts" that I believe the internal arts specialise not in pushing, but in hydrostatic blows that cause minimal displacement. In other words, pushing is the exact opposite of what the internal arts are mostly about.
Indeed, "pushing" demonstrations bear little resemblance to the rich tapestry of applications in the internal arts forms. Such applications include deflections and counters, locking, throwing... but they very rarely involve pushing your opponent.
So why are there so many Youtube videos of "taiji pushing"?
It has been argued to me that they are an "example" or "test" of internal arts skill. As I've foreshadowed, I can't see how this could be the case.
Rather, I believe that such pushing demonstrations appeal to the Western "mystical" concept of what the internal arts are/should be. In my experience this doesn't match the Chinese day to day practice of the internal arts - at least in places like Taiwan (where pragmatic schools like Hong Yi Xiang's Tang Shao Dao put their arts to the test in full contact tournaments). Instead, push hands demonstrations are typically dragged out only occasionally as crowd-pleasers: like spears in the throat and standing on eggs and breaking things, they are used to entertain, not train. The real fighting methods of the internal arts (and their related skills such as "silk-reeling" in bagua or the relaxed, almost resistance-free, movement in taiji) don't have any connection to these "crowd-pleasers".
So if these "pushing tests" don't evidence or exemplify "internal" skill, what does? What differentiates an internal Chinese martial art from an external one?
The internal arts are a label properly applied to a particular school of Chinese martial arts that share a similar pedagogic and technical base. These arts (neijiaquan or the Wudang school) include taijiquan, baguazhang, xingyiquan and related arts such as liu he ba fa and yi quan. The other Chinese arts are confusingly lumped under the umbrella "external" (waijiaquan). Arguably the label "external" can also be applied to arts like karate and taekwondo since they are either directly descended from, or have been greatly influenced by, the Chinese external arts.
Features that distinguish the internal arts school from the external include optimal use of weight transfer to ensure efficient transfer of momentum - something which is not emphasised to the same extent in the external arts - except perhaps in long fist (taizu) which is said by some (I think quite persuasively) to be the progenitor of taiji.
There are many more distinguishing features, but I'm afraid none of what I say is likely to accord with the "mystical" viewpoint. The traditional theories/paradigms/jargon commonly referred to by the "mystical" internal artists ("qi", "jin", "6 harmonies" etc.) are, to my mind, a mere obfuscation: They obscure a more profound and intricate insight into how internal martial arts techniques can be applied against resistant partners (not willing students, eager to please their teacher), replacing real insight with amorphous, esoteric labels that promise "deeper knowledge" through seemingly profound, paradoxical statements, but which ultimately disappear in vague fog of unscientific dogma.
Just ask prominent internal artists (who also happen to be full contact champions) like Tim Cartmell, Luo De Xiu or Su Dong Chen (all of whom were champions in 'no rules' contests in Taiwan - Tim is also a BJJ champion in his class).
Tim spent more than a decade in Taiwan training with some of the most notable masters. He still credits his internal arts as his major source of skill. But, as he will tell you, you can practice internal arts without once mentioning "qi". Indeed, in all my long hours with Chen Shifu, he has never mentioned "qi" once.
Karate using xingyiquan momentum transfer principles - note the momentum behind every technique.
Karate using taijiquan momentum transfer principles.
Neither of the above videos highlights "pushing". Indeed, neither is especially "impressive". That's because the demonstrations aren't meant to be "crowd pleasers" - they are demonstrations of pedagogic and technical difference.
And just because you take the internal arts out of the realm of mysticism, doesn't mean that they can't fill you with wonder. To my mind, the subtle use of efficient body mechanics can be just as wonderful as any purported magic. Maybe even more so.
The shifts in timing and the use of the "dragon body" (the ability to move the body in a weaving, pliable, ribbon-like way) in some internal arts practitioners I've met have filled me with great awe and respect. I saw such a demonstration from a Chen taiji master when I was in Taiwan earlier this year. My own teacher Chen Yun Ching Shifu, while understated and modest, never ceases to fill me with admiration. But the "magic" is in the detailed knowledge and the complete awareness of the body and the environment. It has nothing to do with the paranormal (which is a very unsatisfactory label that just proclaims something to be unanswerable rather than give you greater understanding).
Recent feedback (see the comments) have made me aware that I've been too harsh in relation to pushing. As Angelo and Ignatius point out, the ability to tranfer momentum efficiently in a push is an important part of taiji or any art. It's just that I feel it is a small part (which contrasts with the fact that it is often touted as a true "test" of taiji skill).
Yes, the ability to "push" is important; you have to know how to transfer momentum from your body into your opponent efficiently. However a pushing exercise is just the start of the process of learning efficient momentum transfer. The better you are at "pushing" (ie. the less brute force you have to use) the more you will be able to apply this principle in sparring.
Accordingly I see taiji pushing as essentially an exercise in isolation; learning basic principles of efficient momentum transfer. In this regard it is like the exercise "kokyu ho" in aikido. While aikidoka will practice such exercises, it is important to note that they are only the beginning of learning to throw/project/unbalance; in aikido the principles inherent in kokyu ho are applied in throws like irimi nage. It is the technique (eg. irimi nage) - not the isolation exercise (kokyu ho) - that is normally used as a measure of aikido skill.
Similarly, taiji pushing is not a good test of taiji skill. It is an basic, isolation exercise that pertains to throws/projections. And in any event, it is my view that throws/projections are not the primary focus of the internal arts. They contain grappling moves, but they are, like karate, counter-striking arts in the main (see my article "Is karate a striking art?").
In my experience of Tai Chi, 'long' and 'short' jins are both included in the overall strategy of combat. 'Long' jin, or pushing skill can be very useful in a combative encounter. For instance, pushing or throwing an opponent into environmental obstacles or over changes of terrain or into others in the case of multiple opponents. A strong push kick can also be quite effective in this regard; imagine push kicking someone into a wall, or through a window, or down a flight of steps. Throwing also relies on 'long' jin rather than the 'short' jin of striking which causes internal damage. I think a complete martial artist needs sufficient skill in both and should be able to dynamically combine and interchange them according to the variables of combat.
There is room for pushing in any martial art - for sure. It is just a very small portion of any such art.
As for the use of the term "jin" - as I've said, this is a pre-scientific term that I don't use.
In taiji the term "jin" usually means "qi li" - or muscular use supported by qi. Now "qi" is a term that I don't use; it can mean "intention", it can mean "flow of momentum", it can mean... many things and a combination of many things. It is a prescientific term that is used in a "fuzzy logic" way.
So I don't subscribe to using the terms "short jin" or "long jin" or any other "jin". I think the term "jin" is (a) inaccurate; and (b) obfuscatory.
For that matter, a "long jin" is just where the time is greater in the equation Force = impulse / time. A "short jin" is where time is shorter.
As I've said "jin" makes it sound like you are harnessing some kind of supernatural power. I can understand how and why this term was used in China of old and I have a lot of time for it in Chinese masters who have grown up with it.
But here in the West, "jin" and "qi" etc. seem to me to be used as part of the "new age" trend (like "chakhra", "kundalini" etc.
I'm an old skeptic, I'm afraid.
But this doesn't lessen my regard for the internal arts! As I've said, they are wonderful enough on their own.
In response to your replies: sorry to aggravate you by using the term 'jin.' I only use the term as it is part of the traditional scholarship on internal arts and based on my study and practice of tai chi it has become natural and comfortable for me to do so. I don't think usage of the term necessarily brings in any mystical or fuzzy presuppositions anymore than 'kime' raises up the specter of some magical ki force. It is just part of the traditional language associated with the arts and actually comes quite in handy sometimes. You should see by the examples I gave that I had no such mystical notions in mind, only force applied over greater time to displace the person in space, and force applied over shorter time to cause localised damage or injury. In fact, I quite agree with your assessment of long and short as you've described it.
The main purpose of my comment was to point out that, in my mind, you seemed to give short shrift to pushing skill or long jins in the overall scheme of combat. You say that pushing is not given much attention in the traditional forms of the internal arts, but I disagree. In tai chi, specifically Yang style tai chi which is the style with which I am personally familiar, push is one of the four main components of 'Grasp the Sparrow's Tail,' a set of movements which is repeated over and over in the traditional form. Moreover, it is held to be one of the fundamental energies, or skills, or jins, however you want to call it, which contributes to the makeup of many postures included in the form. My point is that force applied over a longer time is equally important as the opposite, especially in arts which rely heavily on throws and projections, including the internal arts of tai chi and bagua. I think a more nuanced and balanced approach would include this perspective.
Pushing skill is a part of any martial art in the context of projections and throws.
I'm downplaying its role unfairly - but only as a reaction to it being brought to the forefront of purported demonstrations of taiji skill. As I've said, these demonstrations are as representative of taiji as breaking boards is representative of karate; learning to focus through an object (eg. the knee) is a valid part of karate, but it is not illustrative of the art.
By the same token I accept that "long jins" are a part of taiji. And I accept that I am being a bit harsh on the use of the term "jin"!
Thanks for contributing (and balancing) the debate Angelo.
"Jin" roughly translates to "strength", but more specifically refers to a refined kind of strength (that is not "qi" itself, but part of the broad spectrum of "qi" skills), as opposed to "normal" (muscular) strength/power which is "li".
The point of the pushing demos is more to demonstrate jin skills - i.e. the ability to transfer momentum from the feet through the legs to the waist and expressed in the hands/fingers.
So, if you can push, you can throw. And if you can throw, you can hit. But, as with such demos, why would you hurt a complicit partner to demonstrate a relatively simple skill?
Yes - "jin" seems to equate to "efficient use of strength" (eg. through directing you "qi" while you push etc.).
I think the pushing demonstrations are indeed indicative of your ability to transfer momentum; but they are indicative of a "pushing" ability. I don't think pushing and hitting have the same dynamics.
And I'm not suggesting that people should hit each other. I'm merely noting that pushing skill does not equate to hitting skill.
My instructor was able to hit me without injuring me, but this is not something I think is necessary in training; I merely add it by way of contrast to exhibitions of pushing strength (however intelligent).
I have downplayed pushing, however I do agree that it is part of any martial art. Pushing in taiji push hands is akin to kokyu ho exercises in aikido - ie. exercises in isolation.
These serve as a mere exercise for real technical practice - you take away the principle and apply it in a throw (eg. irimi nage). The throw is where the real magic is.
Furthermore, it is important to remember that taiji is not primarily an art about projection/throwing.
I think "push hands" should be a platform for applying technique in a semi-free style environment - one where you have contact with your partner and learn sensitivity.
In this context, focusing on a very basic element (the ability to transfer momentum in a push) at the expense of other techniques (which might, but more often in taiji do not, utilise a push) seems very narrow and does not constitute a meaningful exhibition of overall taiji skill (as is often implied in the numerous "pushing" videos on the net).
"Refined" as in more sophisticated, not more efficient - although it *may* be in some ways.
Push or hit, as you said before, the difference is one of duration in which momentum is transferred.
It actually is possible to bounce someone who is fully resistant. It's even easy. In my Taiji class, there's this guy who used to play rugby and swim competitively - a very strong chap - who often tries his best to shove back or otherwise resist the teacher. The usual result is that he goes flying very far and very painfully.
Likewise, I've tossed fully resisting people from other schools of martial arts. They don't go all that far, but then I'm not all that good.
Bouncing someone who goes completely limp is much more difficult in my opinion.
That said, you're probably right to say that pushing is not very effective in self-defence except perhaps when standing on the edge of a cliff.
I hope you don't mind me sharing a video. In it, my Bagua teacher gives his take on the purpose of push hands. Essentially, it is not an end goal but a training method for free fighting.
You know, I've probably expressed my view too strongly here, but the blog is intended to provoke discussion!
My seniors in Chen Pan Ling bounce me quite effectively despite my resistance and despite my best attempts I can't bounce them.
What such pushing is good for is that it teaches you timing and the ability to remain stable while destabilising. So pushing is really quite useful as a training aid. However I do feel it is overplayed by many in the internal arts as a kind of "be all and end all".
Ah, your stance becomes clear. Yeah, the main body of the post seems to suggest (to me, at least) that you don't believe that "bouncing" is possible.
It looks like you're just saying that being able to push is categorically different from being able to fight, which is of course patently sensible.
"Dropped diaphragms" and "internal power"


Page speed is often relegated to an afterthought in marketing strategies.
When there are so many other pressing concerns – conversion optimization, content creation, information architecture, lead generation, etc. – why would anyone spend precious hours trying to trim seconds or milliseconds off their average page load time?
The answer to that rhetorical question is simple: according to research, a 1 second delay could affect conversion rate by as much as 7%.
If you have 10,000 visits per month, an average order value of $100 and a conversion rate of 1%, you’ll make $10,000 revenue per month.
If we stick a 1 second delay into the equation, your revenue could drop to $9,300 per month; and that’s assuming a 1 second delay, never mind the impact of delays of 2 or 3 seconds.
In fact, when Google performed a test on a sample size of 900,000 websites, it found the average mobile page takes 22 seconds to load.
Page speed shouldn’t be an afterthought; it should be a number one priority.
Then there’s the page speed ranking debate and mobile-first indexing. Google has recently stated (January 2018) that page speed will become a mobile ranking factor for prohibitively slow websites.
It has also been working on rolling out a mobile-first index, which means it will increasingly come to rely on the mobile version rather than the desktop version of a page when assigning rankings in search.
Google’s AMP and Facebook’s Instant Articles have also come to the fore in the last few years as potential solutions, however both have faced criticism from publishers eager to own the media they publish, maximize monetization and avoid diluting marketing and technical resource between multiple web properties.
AMP in particular is a viable, and increasingly popular, solution to improving page load time, however it’s not a panacea.
If publishers want better conversion rates and more engagement, they need to look to how they manage content and the technologies they utilize.
There are a number of ways to test page load speed.
Windows users using Chrome can simply hit ctrl + shift + I on their keyboard to bring up developer tools (other browsers also offer developer tools).
Click through to the ‘network’ tab then do a hard refresh (ctrl + f5) of the page to load all of the page’s assets (you can view the request and response headers by clicking on a URL and navigating to the headers tab).
Look at the bottom corner of the network tab for your page load speed (make sure you check the size column to ensure files aren’t being served from the browser’s cache).
It’s important to remember proximity can play a significant part in page load speed. The closer a user is to your server, the faster data will transfer (this is where a content delivery network comes in).
If you want to test page load speed across multiple locations then try Pingdom.
Image optimization is often the best way to improve page load speed.
In January 2018, according to HTTP Archive, images make up 51% of total page size. That’s a lot. The average total size of all images required to render a page is 1,808Kb (the average total size of a page and all linked-to assets is, according to HTTP Archive, 3,545Kb).
Reducing the size of an image is a balance between preserving quality and optimizing performance, however before you get started it’s important to know what you’re optimizing.
Raster images are made of pixels, while vector images are made up of paths. Vector images scale with the size of the viewport, raster images will typically pixelate when scaled upwards in size. Raster images have more of a ‘real feel’ and continuous tone.
JPEG, PNG and GIF images are raster images – JPEG is, on average, the most popular file format for serving photographs, while PNG is typically preferred for serving logos (it accepts transparency) or images that will be frequently edited.
When it comes to image compression, JPEG uses ‘lossy’ compression, which relies on permanently deleting data in the image to reduce its size (this means JPEGs can lose quality each time they’re saved). GIF and PNG on the other hand use lossless compression, which preserves the quality of the image even after its compressed.
The problem with GIFs is they’re limited to 256 colours (JPEGs and PNGs can store millions of colours). An advantage of GIF is that it accepts animation.
There are a number of approaches to optimizing image size, however a popular option is to use image editing software (Photoshop is a popular premium option, Gimp.org is a popular open source option).
When saving a JPEG, Photoshop will allow you to determine its output quality on a scale of 1 to 12 (alternatively you can use the “save for web” feature which allows a scale of 0 to 100); modifying the output quality can reduce an image size by hundreds of kBs.
Alternatively, WordPress users can install a plugin called imagify which will automatically optimize up to 25MB of images per month (it will also optimize all preexisting images).
A further advantage to WordPress is it utilizes srcset automatically (it will vary the image served dependent on the width of the viewport).
HTTP/2 is the first update to the HTTP protocol in nearly twenty years. One of the biggest advantages to HTTP/2 over HTTP/1.1 is that it introduces something called multiplexing.
If you want to see if your website is HTTP/2 enabled, as above simply go to the network tab in developer tools, perform a hard refresh and look for ‘h2’.
HTTP/1.1 is synchronous, which means, under HTTP/1.1, that files are delivered in the order they’re requested (we don’t have space to tell the whole story, however a way around this under HTTP/1.1 was for the browser to open numerous connections to a server).
With HTTP/2 a browser can make multiple requests over the same connection and the server can respond asynchronously, thus averting a common problem with HTTP/1.1 called head of line blocking (where subsequent requests can’t be made because of the size of the initial request).
For more information on HTTP/2 read this article from Google.
Some web hosts support HTTP/2, some don’t (it can require web server configuration), and fewer still refer to it on their websites (when they don’t).
While HTTPS isn’t an official requirement within the HTTP/2 specification, all major browsers require an HTTPS connection before they’ll transfer data across HTTP/2 (thus it’s a de facto requirement).
Some web hosts also offer free SSL, while others don’t. It’s worth contacting your web host to find out, or using a web hosting comparison tool if you want to compare providers.
When a browser requests a page it will send a header stipulating whether it will accept Gzip compression. If it does, the server will search for a file which has been compressed and, if it finds one, will serve it to the browser. The browser will then unzip the file.
Gzip can reduce filesizes by upwards of 70%. Dependent on your web host you may be able to implement Gzip in a single click via cPanel. Alternatively, contact your web host or search their help pages for information on amending your .htaccess file.
Minification involves removing redundant text from a file (eg. white space, comments or characters) which aren’t necessary for the file to function. After you minify a file a developer won’t be able to read it (it will still contain the same code but without indentation) – minification is only for production environments.
Minification will typically reduce a file size by about 10%. There are a number of tools you can use to minify files, eg JS Compress, however if you have WordPress you can also install W3 Total Cache (always make sure you preview any changes before deploying).
A slight problem with W3 Total Cache is that it’s quite complicated if you’ve never used it before. Minification can also potentially cause problems if poor coding practices have been applied.
The problem with page speed is it’s a never-ending topic and I feel we’ve barely scratched the surface. While looking at everything above, you’ve got a lot to be getting on with, once you’re done I highly recommend learning how to configure browser caching with HTTP headers as well as looking at content delivery networks.
On the latter point, one of the more popular options is CloudFlare – it’s a free ‘CDN’ which distributes a cached version of your page to hundreds of local servers. Your content will no longer be served from your web host’s IP address, but CloudFlare’s.
CloudFlare also offers ‘security scanning’ services to mitigate the threats posed from malicious traffic (eg before routing a request to one of their servers they’ll check to see whether a client’s IP address has been identified as malicious).
If you have any questions just drop them into the comments below, otherwise onwards and upwards to a speedier web!
Thanks for posting this article. Yeah, page speed is very important factor now. I was struggling a lot at the start but I’ve learnt a lot about this topic from articles like this and it helped my website a lot. My favorite tool to find errors or things that slow down my website is google insights I think. But I use pingdom, gtmetrics pretty often too. Really reliable tools.
Thanks for a great post Jason. Clearly some hard research work went into this one. I had a few load speed problems, learned quite a bit (I didn’t know about) with your article. Didn’t know that a single second can have such a huge impact.


Given how derivative it is, Divergent, by all rights, should be a less effective thriller than either The Hunger Games or The Hunger Games: Catching Fire. I, however, liked it more than both, and for a basic reason: The heroine is allowed to show fear. Through most of the movie, there’s a pungent sense that Tris, as played by the petite, forlorn Shailene Woodley, is in over her head and knows it. In my review, I called her “intensely vulnerable and relatable,” and that’s a way of saying that when Woodley is on screen, showing us everything that Tris is going through, she approaches each moment as if its outcome weren’t preordained. The possibility of failure hangs there, with dramatic anxiety. That’s why it’s easy to feel at one with her even if you don’t happen to be part of the film’s market-tested fan-base demo. You don’t have to know the book or care, particularly, about the material; the fretful, cunning tick-tock of Shailene Woodley’s presence is enough. Whereas Jennifer Lawrence in the Hunger Games films, while ferociously spirited and forceful (I think she’s an unabashedly great actress), makes Katniss a kind of regal WASP Amazon who is, without fail, tough, fierce, strong, Olympian, implacable. And, to me, that’s not nearly as interesting as Woodley’s woeful, life-size grrrl-goddess.
The critics, in general, have not been kind to Divergent, and the fact that it borrows so much from The Hunger Games is at the core of their complaints. In a way, that makes sense. Movies are supposed to be original — at least, that’s what we go in hoping for. Yet if it is fair, in theory, to compare Divergent to The Hunger Games, and to find Divergent coming up short, you don’t have to read too far between the lines to see that a lot of critics are really griping about something else. They’re using Divergent to vent their frustration (which is to say, their very adult exhaustion) with the whole YA-movie phenomenon. You could practically hear a lot of them saying, in essence: Another one of these damn things? Enough already! And that, in a word, is unfair. It is also, to me, a little disingenuous in light of the ecstatic reviews that the second Hunger Games film received. Yes, it was far superior to the first one, but it was also a little too close to being the same movie — and so, for most of its two-and-a-half hours, it lacked that crucial element of surprise. These movies are all derivative, and so what matters, really, is how well they play. To beat up on Divergent because it’s too much like The Hunger Games is, in a sense, to penalize it for arriving second, especially in light of the quiet triumph of Woodley’s performance, which is to bridge the two mythical sides of the YA heroine: the crumpled-flower, ordinary-girl side and the elevated, seize-your-destiny side.
When you come right down to it, both the Hunger Games and Divergent series are designed as outsize, action-thriller projections of the agony and ecstasy of teenage life, and both are engineered to flatter their audience. But one of the things I enjoyed about Divergent as a movie is that the high-school allegory is just under the surface; I didn’t have to pretend that I was watching a drama of genuine adult intrigue. The whole division of the society into factions, based on whether you’re smart, or kind, or self-sacrificing, or, you know, a slightly sociopathic train-jumping badass musclehead, is a thinly veiled version of the high-school caste system — the brains and wallflowers and star athletes. And getting to choose which faction you want to belong to is a version of every teen’s perpetual identity crisis: Which group am I in? Which group do I wish I were in? Who am I? The fact that Tris is “divergent” – i.e., self-sacrificial, brilliant, and strong, all at the same time — is, on one level, a hilariously naked attempt by the series’ author, Veronica Roth, to appeal to the closet vanity of her readers. Yet it also speaks to something genuinely touching in the conflicts faced by young adults today: What if you’re searching for an identity but don’t want to be pigeonholed? Divergent serves up the nightmare version of a society in which you’re a demo before you’re a human being.
Speaking of individuality, I’d be a lot more accepting of the largely negative critical reaction to Divergent if I didn’t feel as if youth-movie franchises were now being singled out as either teachers’ pets or lowly delinquents. For a decade, the films in the Harry Potter series, grandly charming as they sometimes were, could do no wrong (even when nothing much was at stake in them); then, for about four years, the films in the Twilight series, even when they summoned a neo-’50s teen-romantic swoon of urgency, could do no right. The Hunger Games franchise, with its second installment, feels like it’s been locked and loaded into mainstream-critical-darling status; whereas Divergent, for all the solid virtues (at least, to me) of this first installment, is the official latecomer that we’re already tired of. If I didn’t know better, I’d say that movie critics were now acting like members of factions, and that when it comes to youth movies that are as colorfully commercial — and ultimately unimportant — as these, there ought to be a little more divergence in what people think.
So how do you believe the movie version of Divergent stacks up to the Hunger Games films? And were the critics too hard on it?


Is heavy water safe to drink?
You need ordinary water to live, but you may have wondered whether you can you drink heavy water? Is it radioactive? Is it safe? Heavy water has the same chemical formula as any other water, H2O, except one or both of the hydrogen atoms are the deuterium isotope of hydrogen instead of the regular protium isotope. It is also known as deuterated water or D2O. While the nucleus of a protium atom consists of a solitary proton, the nucleus of deuterium atom contains both a proton and a neutron. This makes deuterium about twice as heavy as protium, but it is not radioactive. Thus, heavy water is not radioactive.
So, if you drink heavy water, you don't need to worry about radiation poisoning. It's not completely safe to drink, though, because the biochemical reactions in your cells are affected by the difference in the mass of the hydrogen atoms and how well they form hydrogen bonds.
You could drink a glass of heavy water without suffering any major ill effects. If you drank an appreciable volume of the water, you might feel dizzy because the density difference between regular water and heavy water would change the density of the fluid in your inner ear. It's unlikely you could drink enough heavy water to really harm yourself.
The hydrogen bonds formed by deuterium are stronger than those formed by protium. One critical system affected by this change is mitosis, which is cellular division used to repair and multiply cells. Too much heavy water in cells disrupts the ability of mitotic spindles to equally separate dividing cells. If you could replace 25-50% of the regular hydrogen in your body with deuterium, you would experience problems.
For mammals, replacing 20% of your water with heavy water is survivable (although not recommended); 25% causes sterilization, and about 50% replacement is lethal. Other species tolerate heavy water better. For example, algae and bacteria can live using 100% heavy water (no regular water).
You don't need to worry about heavy water poisoning because only about 1 water molecule in 20 million naturally contains deuterium. This adds up to about 5 grams of natural heavy water in your body. It's harmless. Even if you drink heavy water, you would get regular water from food, plus deuterium wouldn't instantly replace every molecule of ordinary water. You'd need to drink it for several days to see a negative result.
The Bottom Line: As long as you don't drink it longterm, it's okay to drink heavy water.
Bonus Fact: If you did drink too much heavy water, the symptoms of heavy water resemble radiation poisoning, even though heavy water is not radioactive. This is because both radiation and heavy water damage the ability of cells to repair their DNA and replicate.
Another Bonus Fact: Tritiated water (water containing the tritium isotope of hydrogen) is also a form of heavy water. This type of heavy water is radioactive. It's also much rarer and more expensive. It is produced naturally (very rarely) by cosmic rays and by man in nuclear reactors.


Inspiration for life-long learning comes from all kinds of places. Recently my teen got tickets to a music concert by the French artist, Jain. I knew nothing of her or her music, but played my role as the transportation provider for this event. The show, it turned out, was great—Jain’s music reflects her diverse background and incorporates rap, pop, and African and Arabic influences. One of her unique songs is entitled “Makeba” and it’s a catchy one (it was also featured in a recent Levi’s commercial).
Curious to know more about this song, I did a bit of research to find out it’s about Miriam Makeba, who was a singer and activist from South Africa. I read about her colorful history in Biography In Context: She spoke out through her songs, was exiled from her homeland for decades, she married (and later divorced) Black Panther Stokely Carmichael/Kwame Ture, she spoke at the United Nations against apartheid, and she toured with Paul Simon, among many other things. She was the first African music superstar, the first African woman to win a Grammy, and she inspired people around the globe (pre-internet age).
I listened to some clips of her singing in audio articles in Global Issues In Context, and her voice is a powerhouse indeed. I read many tributes to “Mama Africa” and her work that followed her death in 2008, including the one where Toronto filmmaker Calvin Butler notes, “She was the catalyst for what became the black consciousness movement … especially for black women, whose idea of beauty, at the time, was based on Eurocentric concepts” (“‘Mama Africa’ will truly be missed; Songstress Miriam Makeba was seen around the globe as a political icon,” The Spectator, November 20, 2008). In our eBook platform, GVRL, there are over 200 matches for a search on Makeba, so there’s much to be gleaned from those ebook sources.
Then I logged into my public library account and requested a few more resources: one of Makeba’s albums on CD, her autobiography, and a beautifully illustrated biography for children that’s complete with a timeline of her life as well as further reading. I plan on learning even more about this wonderful woman (and sharing it with my kid) and the legacy she’s left behind through her foundation mariammakeba.org.
So I’m pleased to report that my transportation gig not only opened my eyes to some new music, but to an important bit of history I would have missed otherwise. And to me, this is what life-long learning and the critical role of libraries in those efforts is all about. THANK YOU, PUBLIC LIBRARIES!
What learning have you experienced from your library lately?


Below are some useful questions to ask the dealer.
1. Is the car still available for sale? Don't waste your time driving to the dealership when the car you want is no longer on the market.
2. Ask to confirm the mileage.
3. Ask to confirm the price.
4. Ask if the price is negotiable.
5. Make sure the car has the options that you are looking for: air conditioner, automatic or manual, ABS, cruise control, etc.
6. Ask about any additional fees that may not be outlined so clearly. Some dealers add additional 'administration' fees later.
7. Ask if the car is covered by any kind of warranty.
8. Ask if the car had any accidents or major repairs.
9. Ask if any service records available. Try only buying a car that has a service history.
10. Ask if the dealer can arrange the car be brought for an inspection to your mechanic.
11. Ask for the VIN number.