Ten Laws of the Universe

Here are some laws of the universe. I post them here, gentle reader, so that you don't have to find them out for yourself:


1. He who tries to be loved by everyone will have the friendship of no one.

2. Rearrange a brick wall with your head, and then you will know how to change another man.

3. Tyrants change the world; Saints change themselves.

4. Here is the truest test of a wife: paddle a canoe with her for twenty miles.

5. There is nothing more hateful than a forced laugh.

6. Any man who claims to know himself is a liar; any man who tries to explain himself is a bore.

7. The grasshopper did only what he wanted, and died of cold; the ant stored up for the
winter, and died surrounded by seeds. Now find the happier of the two.

8. There is such a thing as being too decisive.

9. The only way to deal with anxieties is to ignore them to death.

10. Live simply, and you'll live free.

Dinosaurs are Awesome

Woo-hoo! Just finished the first rough images for our (mine and Jay's) new dinosaur comic book, currently called Redtooth. Working with dinosaurs as subject matter is a walk down memory lane for me; I used to be absolutely obsessed with the beasts, before adolescence came along and said "grow up". Well, now I'm back at it, and it's nice to know the skills haven't gone away.

I'm reluctant to show the comic book roughs here; firstly, they're messy (all my roughs are - half the time I'm the only one who can figure them out). Secondly, I'd like Jay to decide whether or not he wants them posted yet; maybe he wants to keep it under wraps. I dunno. I'll ask him.

At any rate, this is less of a "show me" blog and more of a "let's talk about it till our brains explode" blog. And that's exactly what we'll do. We'll talk about dinosaurs.

Firstly, let me clear up something that's been a perpetual headache for a long time: yes, the Velociraptors in Jurassic Park are too big - but there is a valid explanation for this.

Let's go over the basics: the original Velociraptor (Velociraptor mongoliensis, formally speaking) is a small, narrow-jawed predator about the size of a turkey, known for the nasty sickle-shaped claw on its first toe. Velociraptor itself means, "Quick thief", although personally I think "Raptor" has more to do with predatory birds (called "raptors" for their habit of stealing meat from other birds). Velociraptor hailed from central Asia, and one of the most famous fossils from Mongolia features a Velociraptor locked in mortal combat with a Protoceratops; the 'raptor has its claw lodged in the proto's sternum, and the proto has the raptor's arm clenched firmly in its massive beak.

Raptor versus Protoceratops (replica)

Raptor's arm clutched in Protoceratops' beak

So much for the rather small Velociraptor.

Now Velociraptor had a much larger cousin called Deinonychus antirrhopus. Deinonychus means, "Terrible Claw", and it was indeed as well-endowed in this sense as Velociraptor - more so, in fact; the claw in question was six inches long, and would have been longer in life (due to the keratin sheath - like on a buffalo horn). Deinonychus was about the size of a tiger, and came up to a man's shoulder when standing.

Now, here comes the tricky part.

When Michael Crichton wrote Jurassic Park, he was relying upon the most current dinosaur data, circa 1989. At that time, there was a movement in certain circles to call Deinonychus and Velociraptor by the same name, since the two species were so similar. Thus, Velociraptor mongoliensis (the small one) remained the same, while Deinonychus antirrhopus (the big one) became "Velociraptor antirrhopus".

Confused yet? It gets a little worse. See, in the original book, the two Velociraptors occur at the same time, although the big ones get the most print; in the movie, understandably, the little guys were left out, making the larger predators the sole Velociraptors in the movie. Problem was, by the time the movie came out (at least from what I've seen), "Deinonychus" had again become the sole name of the little Velociraptor's large cousin; thus, as soon as the movie came out, amateur paleontologists, having never read the book version of Jurassic Park and hoping to seem smarter than they were, jumped on the so-called "scientific inaccuracy" with relish. Thus the situation we have today.

Personally, I like Velociraptor antirrhopus better than Deinonychus antirrhopus. "Velociraptor" just has such a...ring to it, you know?

There were, by the way, many kinds of 'Raptors (or Dromaeosaurs, as they are more technically known). Here's a quick rundown, with short description:

Velociraptor mongoliensis - (see above)
Deinonychus (Velociraptor) antirrhopus - (also see above)
Dromaeosaurus sp. ("Running reptile") - The generic "raptor", if you will; about wolf-size, with a smallish head.
Utahraptor ("Utah's raptor") - a very big 'raptor; about the size of a horse. Largest of the Dromaeosaurids.
Achillobator ("Achilles' warrior") - another Mongolian export. Between Utahraptor and Deinonychus in size.
Adasaurus ("Ada [Mongolian evil spirit]'s reptile") - may or may not have been a raptor at all; had a smaller sickle claw and slender hands.
Buitreraptor gonzalezorum ("Vulture raider found by Gonzalez") - a rooster-sized, bizarre-looking 'raptor from Argentina, of all places. Had a long, skinny snout, and long arms with short fingers.
Rahonavis ostromi - no one's sure if it's a bird or a 'raptor; those who are sure, at least, tend to get rather heated in their insistences. Its back legs and hips lean toward Dromaeosaurian, but its arms show "quill nobs" (where large feathers would attach), as in birds. Go figure.
Neuquenraptor argentinus ("Thief of Neuquen, Argentina") - the first 'raptor found in South America. Looks a little like Buitreraptor, and a little like regular Dromaeosaurs; about four feet tall.
Unenlagia ("Half-bird"; Latinized Mapuche) - another weird birdie-'raptor from South America; about six feet long.

Before I go, I have a little something to say about all these bird-dinosaurs flying around these days.

Time was, I had no patience with feathered dinosaurs - the closest thing anyone had found to a "feathered dinosaur" was Archaeopteryx and its relatives, and those were - for all intents and purposes - just weird birds. Now that they've found many real, actual feathered dinosaurs (that is to say, dinosaur fossils with obvious feather imprints), I've come to accept it. So far around thirty species or so have been found, and the list keeps growing; they're coming out of China, Mongolia, and South America in numbers that seem to rule out fakery, unless there is some kind of widespread conspiracy - which I doubt (although here's an interesting anecdote involving a fake fossil and the National Geographic).

Poster, showing 25 species of feathered dinosaur (2007)

That being said, I take issue with the practice of covering every dinosaur with feathers - even those for whom there is no fossil evidence of the fact. Thus far, I have seen compsognathids, dromaeosaurs of all kinds, tyrannosaurs(!), iguanadontids(!), and even prosauropods(!) decked out in gaudy plumage. Only a few select dinosaurs have shown actual fossil feather imprints; the rest of them simply don't seem to have feathers. Maybe it's just a matter of taste, but personally, I don't like my favorite theropods tarted up and paraded around like show-pigeons if their fossils never showed a single bit of fluff. I find it irritating in the extreme. Mostly these artists are (a) ignorant of scientific detail and (b) going for some kind of "cool" effect that will make kids pick up their book (also filled with inaccuracies). I work at a library, so I see the kinds of dinosaur dreck they come out with. I think dinosaurs deserve a little more respect - you couldn't get away with doing the same thing with, say, lions and tigers.

But hey, they're dead! We can make 'em look like whatever we want.

One of the worst Deinonychus interpretations I've ever seen.

That's my major beef with current dinosaur trends.

Of course some renderings are better than others - I'd just like to mention Gregory S. Paul as being one of the best dinosaur artists I've seen; his Predatory Dinosaurs of the World (1988 Simon and Schuster, New York; out of print) is simply awesome. I use it as a reference whenever possible.

To wrap up this wandering, bloated epic of a post, here's some size comparisons of the biggest predatory dinosaurs you probably didn't know about:

Size comparison of the largest theropods.

Yeah, see that guy in the blue? That's T. rex. Go figure.

Rick Out.

Delerium Tremens

My hands are shaking uncontrollably right now. Spent all last night at Gone Wired Cafe, hashing out the upcoming comic book project with Jay (Dinosaurs!), and then all of this morning finishing up my final project for my Design and Communications class. So no sleep last night. Usually I do pretty well with it - a little loopy, but none the worse for wear (the trick is to say to yourself, "Oh, you just went to bed at 1 am, so that's why you're tuckered out this morning...you did get some sleep." Not especially convincing, but to a sleep-deprived mind it's better than nothing). The problem here is that I have to drive from Howell to Lansing - an hour's drive, on a good morning; ergo, the necessity of a bite of the bitter bean, otherwise I'd spend my morning wrapped lovingly around an unyielding object, like a tree or a concrete median barrier, due to a mid-commute snooze. The problem with one cup of coffee is that it necessitates another to get over the subsequent caffeine crash, and then another, and then another...

Ah, le cycles vicious, or however the hell you say it in French.

So much for sophistication. At any rate, my final project was a success, and - more importantly in my mind - installment 1 of Redtooth (that's the unofficial official title for the comic right now) has been verbalized, and is awaiting the concept treatment. Oh Lord was it an epic struggle...you should have seen me, fighting bravely (read: petulantly) over every last detail of the concept. Jay and Kurt even had to call a half-time for a cigarette break. I suppose that would have happened anyway, but we'll conveniently disregard that fact. The fact is, I held on to the bitter end. And at the bitter end, of course, I collapsed in a broken, weeping heap and agreed to all the changes they suggested.

I jest. It was truly a team effort. I think it's going to turn out fantastic. And you know what? I don't have to worry about dialogue. Jay's going to handle it all. I just have to do the pictures. And that's okay in my book, let me tell you...

Rick out.

The Futility of Ideology

All lies and jest, still the man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest.

-The Boxer, Paul Simon

I'll just ponder as I wander here for a minute.

We as humans - well, perhaps I should keep it local - we as 21st-century Americans seem to love being validated in what we think. What I mean is, we love to hear our own ideas repeated to us, especially by someone with "authority" (read: a PhD), in order that we may again repeat the same idea to someone else who holds the same ideas that we do.

This is understandable. It's not easy to give an opposing worldview a fair shake, especially if that worldview is pumped out with a lot of aggressive rhetoric and propaganda. Each side will only choose to report that data which makes itself look good, and its opponent look bad. Thus, if you are on the same side, you'll cheer and clap; if you're on the other side, you'll fume and change the channel - and hopefully find some rhetoric you can cheer for.

All this seems incredibly obvious (a no-brainer, in fact), but at the same time I find it a little eerie to think about. Imagine that in this open-minded day and age, when quite a few people claim to hold any number of contradictory views in their heads at once, that there exist unbridgeable gulfs between minds - ideologies that have spawned whole industries, whose sole purpose is to validate themselves and to villify the opposing team. These industries produce periodicals, essays, media programs, studies, statistic-mills, and PhD's, all for the consumption of their adherants, all for the confirmation of a single line of thought.

What do you have here? What you have, essentially, is a titanic choir, and the preacher is preaching to it - the same sermon being fed to the same people who already believe it, who then proceed to repeat it amongst themselves. It's a closed circuit: nothing new gets in, nothing old gets out. It's mind-boggling, if you think about it.

"Now Rick," you protest (too much, methinks); "there are always new ideas - ideas are always being exchanged between peoples. Don't you agree?"

Well, yes and no. If you mean technologies, then yes, of course there are new ideas (and by technologies, what is really meant is innovations - these can be physical, technical, or spiritual). There are always innovations. But here's the rub: innovations are essentially new ways of doing the same damn thing. Even cars are just glorified legs. What you have is simply a logical progression, beginning with one basic need (i.e., transportation), going through several stages (i.e., buggies, cars, etc.) and ending with the most direct means (i.e., probably teleportation). The package may change, but what's inside the package remains essentially the same.

And as for the exchange of ideas, well, in order for one to receive a new idea, one must be open to that idea - and this requires a certain ideological framework. Yes, regardless of what one might think, one cannot long remain an open book, upon which any idea can be written - one guiding ideology will always take over. Those "open to new ideas" are simply those with a, shall we say, "hospitable mindset" - they will invite new ideas over, maybe get tips on how to brighten the decor, but when all is said and done the visiting ideologies will go home, and nothing will really change. The Open Mind is already a house, quite complete with all the comforts of home, and aside from a few superficial touches here and there, no changes will be made.

That's the thing that gets me. An Open Mind is really a mind open to open-minded ideas - if a closed-minded idea were to show up, it would be rejected at once. Thus an Open Mind cannot really communicate at all with a Closed Mind (don't you love these terms?), because the difference in ideology is simply to vast to leap across. One has to give way to the other, and usually neither will budge.

The point I'm trying to make here is that ideologies are caught in their own cycles of validation, and thus real discourse (at least of any real intellectual value) is useless. Ideology plugs up people's minds. Real, objective truth - and yes, there is such a thing (hang on, is that an ideological statement? I'm so confused...) - gets shouted down; people don't want to examine things from both sides and find what is true; there's no "reality check" to make people stand back and say, "Hey, wait a minute - this is going too far." Ideology becomes a kind of madness, out of step with reality.

Have there been attempts at bridging the gaps? Yes, but most of these are less than helpful. Usually it occurs between the more moderate/liberal members of the two groups - that is, the members of one group who are most like their group's opponents. Tell me if you've heard this one: they all get together in one room, read off a list of the things they can all agree on (dutifully ignoring their differences), then spend several hours saying nice things about each other, after which a memorandum is drawn up that says everyone is happy and they can all get along now, which then gets back to the prospective groups and is promptly rejected by both.

Why, you may ask?

The reason is, all those moderate/liberals from each party who agreed with each other were, in spirit, simply a third party unto themselves - they represented neither group; all they represented were themselves. That's the problem with this whole damn mess.

And so the hard-liners read their Hard-Line Report, which says how bad the liberal/moderates are with their soft, touchy-feely policies; and the liberal/moderates read their Liberal/Moderate Report, which details how cold and unfeeling the hard-liners are with their stonewalling and unwillingness to change. Appropriate graphs, tables, and histograms are provided, as well as photos of hard-liners enacting hard-line policies, and liberal/moderates enacting liberal/moderate policies. And the industries grind on, and the gaps widen, and people continue to drift ever further apart. And each one continues to hear what he wants to hear - in fact, actively seeks out what he wants to hear - and thus nothing really changes.