Thursday, January 17, 2013


Okay peoples, as noted in a couple of previous messages, I have now closed shop on writing horror/science fiction/fantasy for the foreseeable future, perhaps permanent (not certain on that as of yet). Currently, I’m working on my 1970s road novel (still) and a few Noir stories. All published under a pen name (not Tangiers). I will say that the Noir stories are violent, and a few may have very VERY brief elements of the supernatural, but those elements are not integral to the plot. And that’s all I’ll say.

The page here will remain devoted (for the most part) to my interests in science fiction, fantasy, and horror with a slight deviation from time to time.

Nothing about the material I’m currently working on as noted in the first paragraph will be mentioned in this blog (mainly due to the content and byline) except for brief highly vague notes mostly to say that they are progressing. There’ll be no titles, no plots, no examples or excerpts, etc etc etc.

Wednesday, January 16, 2013


Lately I’ve taken to downloading and watching short films...mostly horror and science fiction. Most are student films, a lot of the horror dealing with escaped killers. Keeps the budget down, I suppose. Then there’s “88:88,” a blend of horror and science fiction with a very familiar theme.

Shackles and chains and locks and ratchet straps and reinforcing the door locks to the bedroom and using brackets to bolt the bed to the floor... At first I thought this lady had unpleasant special plans for her boyfriend, a film of violent revenge. But that wasn’t it at all. The chains and locks and ratchet straps are meant for her. Then an outdoor shot...a full moon. Okay, she’s a werewolf, chaining herself to the bed. No, that’s not it either...check it out. An exceptionally well done film.

Sunday, January 13, 2013


I just wrapped up Clarke’s EXPEDITION TO EARTH last night (12 Jan 2013). Now going back to Asimov’s Black Widowers with BANQUETS OF THE BLACK WIDOWERS.

Yes, I had just mentioned my start at a reread of Sagan’s BROCA’S BRAIN. I tend to have two or three books going at the same time.


On another website, a question was posed, asking what was our favorite STAR TREK film with the original cast members. My choice was quick and easy. THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY. I think Christopher Plummer as the Shakespeare quoting General Chang made that movie. Of course, that’s not to take away from the original cast members, I grew up watching the original show, and it’s still my favorite off all the STAR TREK series.

Here’s a clip in which General Chang meets his end, quoting Shakespeare to the last...

Saturday, January 12, 2013


My next re-read is Sagan’s BROCA’S BRAIN. I haven’t read this since October of 1980 (yes, I keep a list of books I read and when I read them, incomplete though it may be). As best as I can remember, it was entertaining.

The title invokes another book I read, something to actually do with the human brain. Paperback it was, late 70s. I have no surviving record or memory of the book title or its author, just a memory that it was exceptionally well done for a lengthy pop-science book for the layman to understand. It is one book I’d love to read again, but I don’t think that desire shall ever come to pass.


For a slight change of pace…

On Facebook I post climate change/global warming (whatever you wish to call it) articles from time to time for three principle reasons:

1. Having worked with climate scientists on a number of occasions, I have a vested interest on how climate change affects cultures, living and dead, and what the existant environment was for any given culture/civilization, living and dead.

2. I tend to post the “skeptical” side of the climate change argument; due to past research and experience, I tend to agree with the premise set forth by this side (of course, not all archaeologists agree with this sentiment which is to be expected; that’s how science is supposed to work).

3. There maybe those who have an interest in the debate due to its high political profile, but have formed no opinion either way. These articles may inspire them to take a closer look at both sides of the argument (yes, BOTH sides; again, that’s how science is supposed to work) with an open mind to make informed decisions on the subject.

A brief tangential commentary.

Twice above I made the statement “that’s how science is supposed to work.” Normally, that is true. Scientists have different ideas, different schools of thought, formulating different hypothesis that require data gathering and testing for validation through the scientific method. However, it’s increasingly apparently that proponents of CAGW don’t see it that way.

In the last few decades proponents of CAGW have taken it upon themselves to denigrate, ridicule, condemn, belittle, and/or dismiss out of hand everything dissenting skeptics say or publish. Further, dissenting climatologists risk suppression of their work, rejection of grant funding, rejection of paper and/or periodical/journal publications, and more.

Some CAGW alarmists call us “non-scientists” and some say that our skepticism doesn’t fit the mold of scientific methodology and inquiry (a point that had arisen some time ago in a discussion I had with two colleagues that I’ve worked with, one a paleoclimatologist [same as Mann] and the other a geophysicist; the point elicited laughter from both of them).

CAGW alarmist ridicule of dissenting skeptics is often accompanied by such terminology as “denier,” invoking the Holocaust or “heretic,” invoking the Inquisition. Some say we are diseased and need treatment; others say we have committed crimes against humanity and should be tried, jailed, and even executed.

Perhaps I should be offended by such accusations and proclamations, of having my integrity as a professional archaeologist (albeit, retired) called into question for having a dissenting opinion, but I’m not. If anything, I’m amused that CAGW alarmists have stooped to the level of witch hunts to silence dissent. They’ve only succeeded in making fools of themselves. People who use such tactics to silence dissent and utilize ridiculous terms such as “heretic” and/or “denier” deserve to be ignored. These people do not merit a response of any kind.