Potential Revenge of the Sith spoiler alert.

Much has been made of the overt allusions between the Sith and the George W. Bush administration and Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith.  My only issue with this is that no such allusions exist.  I think it would be easier to produce evidence of Matrix Reloaded bashing albinos.

I have a hunch about the hubbub, but let me digress for a bit.  Back in high school I wrote 10 or so papers dealing with literary criticism.  I'd go and find the mythological, historical, and biblical allusions, the rhetorical devices, and so forth.  I'd then paint my opinion of the author's intent based on the allusions, devices, etc.  The one thing I want to emphasize here is that what my papers claimed and what the authors' opinions really were didn't have to match.  It was entirely possible that I was mistaken, that the overtones really were coincidence, that an editor had modified the original text, or whatever.

Back to the Sith...my thought is that Lucas, and his own words confirm this, wrote a story that follows historical precedents regarding dictatorships or warfare.  Is there a comparison between Spartacus's Crassus and Star War's Palpatine?  Absolutely.  Both were conniving politicians who subtly and violently came to power exterminating their opponents as they went.  I'm not so sure this sounds like a picture perfect W to me.  Is there a comparison between Anakin's (now Darth Vader) line "If you are not with me, you are my enemy" and Jesus Christ's line "He that is not with me is against me" (Matthew 12: 30)?  Absolutely.  Both refer to a mindset that is common in time of war (Anakin's war was political, and Christ's was spiritual).  This does parallel W's statement about the war on terror, but I think it is more likely that W was alluding to Christ's statement, so even if Lucas was alluding to Bush he was indirectly alluding to Christ.

All in all, I think that Star Wars was abstract commentary on human nature and not focused on any specific government or time period.  Certainly the ideas Lucas addressed as causes of dictatorship - pride, lust, envy, and greed - are as old as humankind and not new since W took office.

I've received several failed email delivery notices today.  It seems that someone has decided to spoof my domain and send out a large batch of, doubtless, unsolicited spam.  As if the spam isn't bad enough, whenever a destination address is invalid, I get notified.

For the non-Mormon readers, I thought I'd post a small scale glossary of missionary terms that I'm likely to use.  This is certainly not exhaustive and is molded by my personal experience.  The reason I decided to post this now is that I have been cooking up a blog post for the last few days that draws on an experience from my mission.  For greater understanding of this and future posts, I thought I'd provide some definitions.

Missionary - Worthy and desirous Mormon men aged 19-25 and women 21-30 (? forgot the upper bound) can be full time missionaries.  Men's missions are for 24 months and women's for 18.  The title for a man is Elder and for a woman is Sister.  Most missions are proselytizing though humanitarian aid-only or other service-only missions exist too.  Missionaries are volunteer only and are not materially compensated for their time.  Typically, the missionary and his/her families pay for the missionary's support in the mission field.  There is also a church missionary fund that ensures all missionaries have funds for the necessities - housing, food, etc.

Mission / Mission field - this the place where a missionary works.  The mission name is a specific place but the term "mission field" is a general term.  For instance, I was a missionary in the Russia Moscow Mission, so for me Moscow, Russia and a few other nearby cities were the mission field.

President - each mission is headed by a mission president and his wife.  They are the priesthood authority for the missionaries and the top of the chain of command, so to speak.  The president's title is President and his wife's is Sister.

Assistant to President (AP) - typically, the mission president has two APs from the rank and file elders.  Their function is at the president's discretion.  Typical tasks for APs include - the top of the chain for gathering weekly statistics, training (missionary skills and language (for foreign missions)), and event organizing (conferences and other large scale meetings).

Zone Leader (ZL) - a mission is divided up into one or more zones.  Each zone has a zone leader who is similar in function to an AP but only for the scope of his zone.

District Leader (DL) - a zone is divided up into one or more districts.  Each district has a district leader who is similar in function to an AP but only for the scope of his district.

Area - a district is divided into one or more areas.  An area is a geographical location within a district where a single companionship of missionaries work.

Companionship - missionaries typically serve in pairs (though sometimes in threesomes).  A pair of elders or a pair of sisters are called a companionship.  Companionships are not mixed gender.

Trainer - when new missionary enters the field, his first companion is his trainer.  The trainer's responsibility, along with the standard duties he/she has in the area, is to train the new missionary in missionary skills and to help learn the language if it is a foreign mission.

Senior companion / Junior Companion / Co-companion - generally, the senior missionary (the one who has been in the field the longest) is designated as the senior companion while the other is the junior companion.  Senior companion is a title (like DL, ZL, or AP) and can be given to the companion with less time in the field.  If the two companions are not united in their opinion of what to do, where to go, etc., the senior makes the final call.  Some missions have co-companions or co-senior companions.  Here, there is no tie breaker vote, so to speak.

Stats - missionaries keep weekly stats on their activities.  These include metrics such as total proselytizing hours, non-proselytizing service hours, number of first time contacts, number of baptismal commitments, number of baptisms, etc.

Transfers - roughly once a month, new missionaries enter the field.  This is also the time when in the field missionaries might be assigned to new areas.  Transfers occur differently depending on the mission (more than anything how they happen is a function of the geography).  The one thing that is common is this - the assignments for companionships, areas, and leadership change during Transfers.

Office staff - the function of the mission office is dependent on the president.  Typically, the office takes care of things such as missionary apartments (when rent is due, the contracts, etc.), transfers transportation (getting to different cities or countries some missions span countries), cars (if applicable), referrals, membership records, etc.  The office staff take care of the day-to-day grunt work, so that the other missionaries can focus on proselytizing.  Office staff is often made up of two to four companionships of either elders or senior couples (that is, a husband and wife couple).

On the trip north a few weeks back returning home after a weekend of playing Settlers of Catan (I'm sure we did other stuff too), I discovered the best price for gas that I'd seen in weeks.  It was an out of the way Flying J in Salt Lake.  It seems this price is a regular occurrence.  I just checked Flying J prices for the state of UT, and the only prices below $2.20 are in Salt Lake.

In case you aren't aware of it, Flying J publishes its fuel prices on its web site, filtered by state.  To check prices near you or near where you'll be see http://www.flyingj.com/fuel/gasoline_CF.cfm

Thanks to amazon.com and the magic of ebooks, I spent most of the last day reading Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. (unlike yesterday, I now know that Da Vinci is not spelled DaVinci).  For the ten people out there who've not read it or been told what it contains, consider this a spoiler alert.

Overall, I liked the book.  It was adventurous, pseudo intellectual, and generally playful.  One of the main points, however, struck a nerve.  I speak, of course, about the sacred feminine so often referred to in the text.  First, let me state what I understand to be the author's point, then I'll state what my issues are based on that understanding.

The Priory believe in the sanctity of women, their innate ability to produce life.  They exult them, as did many religions prior to Christianity, as goddesses.  They believe that man's (the gender, not all humankind) ability to commune with Deity happens only via woman.  In short, woman is divine and man partakes of that divinity via union with woman.

The reason that I take issue with this line of thought is this - despite the numerous overtones and undertones of balance - yin / yang, male / female, black / white - humankind, the Priory perspective is not balanced.  The female is divine and the male is not.  That seems more than a little unbalanced to me.

What I would consider balanced is this - believing in the sanctity of man and woman, that woman cannot produce life without man nor can man without woman, that ultimate communion with Deity (creating life, thus becoming a creator like unto Deity) for man requires the woman and for woman requires man.  If one is divine, then so is the other.  If one is not, then neither is the other.  This is balanced.  This more correctly reflects the difference between man and woman.  Each needs the other to be whole.

This in no way is meant to disparage woman or the sacred feminine but simply to recognize that woman is only half of the equation.  Had the text reflected this as well, I think the ideas that seemed radical would have been much easier to swallow.  Then again...it's only a work of fiction, perhaps Brown was after a good thriller and not trying to be an ideologue.

I think I'll have to put up a page devoted to the books I've read / am reading.  I just finished 7 Habits of Highly Effective People this week and figured I'd read The DaVinci Code for a change of pace.  There are two points that I want to make about 7 Habits.

First, I'd say that some of the supporting arguments feel a bit contrived (perhaps that's just my skepticism), nevertheless the points are valid.  I think perhaps the most striking thing I'll remember from the book was near the beginning when discussing integrity.  The basic idea was that if you don't act with integrity, in time, everything you say or do will be viewed sceptically.  I have, arguably, a suspicious nature but for some people significantly more so than others.  There are some people I won't trust to be honest about anything unless I have at least one other source to verify the claim.

Second, it's very idealistic.  There are things that would be difficult to pull off.  Covey even acknowledges this himself.  At one point he says that if you practice this (I believe it was habit 5 seek first to understand then to be understood) others will likely feel you are trying to manipulate them.  (That's something I can well relate to, since I've heard it often against me and other missionaries.)  He recommended explaining what you were doing before doing it.  Something like - I'm trying out a recommended practice from the 7 habits...

I definitely think it was worth the time to read it.  It reminded me of another Covey book, Spiritual Roots of Human Relations, which I started reading back in high school.  One of these days I might even finish it. 

I just finished reading Seymour Hersh's Chain of Command : The Road from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib.  As regular readers of my blog will know, especially last fall, I'm not a George W. Bush fan.  This book does not paint a stunning picture of him or his administration.  However, I don't think it is a simple matter of gravitating toward like minded opinions.  Hersh makes several compelling arguments.  If nothing else, it gave me a better understanding of the United States' relationship with countries of the Middle East.

Two weeks ago I was introduced to the Settlers of Catan board game.  I'd played a few electronic versions in the past and was not disappointed in the "real" thing.  Naturally, I couldn't resist getting my own copy.  Keith introduced me to a wonderful web site that had pricing with which I was pleasantly pleased - http://www.fairplaygames.com/.

As of this writing (and barring a lucky break on eBay), this site has the best prices that I could find.  If you want the whole kit and caboodle (as outlined below), you'll even get free shipping.

• Settlers of Catan
• Settlers of Catan 5-6 Player Expansion
• Settlers of Catan: Cities & Knights
• Settlers of Catan: Cities & Knights 5-6 Player Expansion
• Seafarers of Catan
• Seafarers of Catan 5-6 Player Expansion

(For those unfamiliar with the game, Cities & Knights and Seafarers require the base Settlers of Catan game.  In like manner, the expansions require their respective base games too.)

A bug was opened against the pricing model for Visual Studio 2005 on the Product Feedback Center.  Here's the link if you'd like to vote on its merits.

I'm less than pleased with the announced pricing plans for MSDN subscriptions that Microsoft announced this week.  For about five years, I've been an MSDN Universal Subscriber.  I used to describe it as "everything that Microsoft does that could benefit a developer...basically everything but Money and the games."  Now, things have become different.

The Universal subscription level goes away (as does Enterprise).  In their place is MSDN Premium.  However, Premium itself does not include a Visual Studio license.  (Well, it kind of does...)  You must select Team Edition for Architects with MSDN Premium, Team Edition for Developers with MSDN Premium, Team Edition for Testers with MSDN Premium, or Team Suite (includes the three previously named editions) for MSDN Premium.  Visual Studio Team Foundation Server is not included with any of those packages.

Why am I not pleased with this?

First, it caught me off guard.  All the hoopla about Team System the last two months wooed me to believe that I'd have all that VSTS goodness in the same subscription I've known and loved for years.  Little did I know that the subscription price was doubling (for the first year) and that it would provide less value (percentage-wise) than it did before.

Second, I don't like Microsoft's snow job.  They claim it simplifies licensing and lowers pricing.  So, two levels go away (Universal and Enterprise) and four new ones appear.  On the surface there is one price level (MSDN Premium) but in reality there are four different Visual Studio editions offered with Premium.  The old top tier price?  About 2700 MSRP.  The new top tier price?  About 11000 or 5500.  Where is that cost savings again?  Where is the simpler licensing?

Third,  I wear three hats - architect, developer, and tester.  Not only do I not want to pay 11,000 with my hats, but I also don't want three different versions of Visual Studio installed.  Presumably Team Suite will allow you to install the enhancements for the three roles on one VS installation, but I'm not too sure about that (and the product info pages aren't clear on that either).

Fourth, I want Microsoft to show its developers the respect they deserve.  Development tools should be a loss leader...which MSDN Universal has been for years, I'm sure.  We use the tools, which we get for a low cost, so that we can drive the need for Windows, Office System, and Windows Server System.  Why has .NET been adopted so quickly?  Because developers sold it to the masses.  Microsoft surely didn't do it.

Don't kill the goose that's laying your golden eggs, Mr. Microsoft.

My information comes from the following pages:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/howtobuy/vs2005/compare/

http://msdn.microsoft.com/howtobuy/vs2005/chart/

http://msdn.microsoft.com/howtobuy/vs2005/transition/

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2005/mar05/03-21DevToolsPricing.asp

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2005/mar05/03-21vs2005pr.asp