Zipper Merge and the Left Lane

We've all been there. A lane is closing up ahead. Everyone moves over to the lane that's staying open. Except for that one asshole who stays in the lane that's closing, speeding to the front of the line, trying to merge in ahead of everyone else. Or maybe you've been  that asshole! Despite what the popular view might be, the "asshole" is following the law, and you can get ticketed if you refuse to let him in. Welcome to the bright future world of zipper merging. 

The zipper merging advocates suggest that utilizing all open lanes up to the point where one of them is no longer open, then taking turns merging into the remaining lane.  There are studies that indicate that this is more efficient -- that traffic actually moves faster when zipper merging. I have to wonder whether these studies took place under real-life conditions or were mathematical models, because I have never seen a video of this working smoothly. Sure, I've seen plenty of animations illustrating how it should work, but nothing showing real cars in real traffic smoothly zipper merging. 

I'll concede that there are certain scenarios where it theoretically should work better than everyone moving over as soon as the "lane closing" sign appears. One might be in bumper-to-bumper, slow moving traffic where every lane is already occupied. Trying to move over right away would require vehicles slowing down to create gaps in the traffic flow to allow people to merge early. This would slow down everything.  In this situation it's unlikely that one could move over very easily. But when the traffic got to the choke point, both lanes would need to slow down enough to allow alternate merging into the open lane. It's not clear to me that zipper merging would cause traffic to move faster, although it would prevent the traffic from extending back so far as to block exits, which is a benefit. You'd still need to deal with the human tendency to think of themselves first -- drivers would all need to follow the rules, but I'm not convinced, for the previously stated reasons, that traffic would move any faster.

Now if traffic is moving at, or close to, the speed limit, and and there are enough naturally occurring gaps between vehicles (as there should be -- 1 second for every 10mph) then it should make absolutely no difference when you move over to the open lane. In fact, if vehicles are sliding out of the lane that is closing when there is a natural break in the flow of traffic in the other lane, rather than waiting until the merge point, traffic should continue to move at the same rate. If everybody waits until one of the lanes disappears, both lanes are going to have to slow down to allow each lane to alternately move forward. The only way zipper merging works in this scenario is if (1) space between vehicles in the lane that is staying open is maintained and (2) drivers in the lane that is closing merge into the space left for them without slowing or stopping and (3) no one is a jerk. In my opinion the probability of "1" and "3" is 50-50 at best; the probability of "2" is going to be pretty low -- drivers are going to be naturally hesitant about pulling in front of another moving vehicle and hoping that they allowed enough space and time. The natural reaction will be to at least slightly slow down, causing a chain reaction, slowing everyone down. Then there's the question of why, in some scenarios, is anyone even in what is usually designated as the passing lane?

Rules about the left lane on multi-lane roads is another of the things that irritate me. In most states the far left lane is for actively passing slower vehicles only. The reasoning is that drivers should be free to drive at the speed limit -- if a vehicle is traveling below that speed, other drivers should have the option to safely get around them. It makes sense to me. But I hear a lot of complaining from drivers who are stuck behind someone in the passing lane not going fast enough. Technically, if you stay in the left lane while not actively passing slower traffic, it's a traffic offense that will earn you a ticket. What I see most though, are people griping that someone driving at the speed limit is preventing them from exceeding the speed limit! I even recently saw a video where a member of law enforcement proudly ticketed drivers "camped out" in the left lane at the speed limit, while ignoring people speeding around them.  Logically, if I am driving at the speed limit in the passing lane, why does anyone need to pass me? By passing someone driving at the speed limit they are exceeding the limit and breaking the law! I have no idea whether most highway patrolmen ticket people for hogging the left lane, but I know they'll nab you for speeding if they catch you. 

Personally I drive 5 mph over the speed limit on the interstate. Illegal, I know, but I'm gambling that the cops are going to let it slide and I've never received a ticket for driving between 1-5 mph over the limit. (It's a misconception that cops can't pull you over for going less than 5 mph over, but they usually won't) Some days the middle and right lanes are full of people who are driving slower, so rather than constantly changing lanes to pass car after car of slower vehicles I stay in the left lane for long stretches. In those situations I feel no obligation to enable someone who wants to break the law even more than I'm already breaking it. If someone comes roaring up behind me when I'm already doing 80 in a 75, they're just going to have to wait until there's a clear stretch of road in the middle lane for me to get over to. Chances are they're going to thread the needle through small gaps and pass me in the center lane or even way over on the right. Not my problem. Now, if I have an open middle lane, that's where I'll be.

Christians Battlin' Over Popes

Papal elections seem to flush a lot of the anti-Catholic prejudice out of the bushes. They say they're simply pointing out the unbiblical nature of much of Catholic doctrine and practice, but the vitriol appears to be reserved exclusively for Catholics, and not fellow Protestants who, it could be argued, are equally unbiblical. (I'm not talking about legitimate criticism of the Catholic hierarchy for covering up pedophilia among the clergy, or the other abuses by the church or in its name, just doctrinal disagreements). I'm going to limit today's thoughts to the office of the papacy and whether or not it's biblical. 

There's a few verses in the Gospel of Matthew (which I will quote shortly) which the Catholics claim establish Peter as the leader of the church and imply that he will have successors who will fill the same role. Protestants have a differing interpretation. There are a number of possibilities:

1. Jesus didn't exist, so it makes no difference
2. Jesus thought that the end of the world was coming soon, so there's no way he was engaged in succession planning and the whole section was added later
3. Jesus didn't think the world was ending soon (amuse yourselves by going down the dispensationalist rabbit hole) but this section was added later to support the evolving reality of Bishops of Rome as the top leaders of the church
4. Jesus didn't think the world was ending soon and was quoted accurately -- and was engaged in succession planning (basically the Catholic position)
5. Jesus was quoted accurately but was really saying that he, Jesus, was the rock on which the church would be built (basically the Protestant position)

Since Protestants, at least the more fundamentalist flavors, believe that the Bible doesn't contain errors, or that sections were added by unauthorized hands, they're stuck with the text as it is. 

Matthew 16:18-19 New International Version

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

The text looks pretty clear, although the Greek word for "Peter" is not the exact same word as "rock" (The Greek word that is translated "Peter" basically means "rock" or "stone"). Let's substitute "Rock" for "Peter": "And I tell you that you are Rock, and on this rock I will build my church...". It's even clearer when you construct it like that. And that next phrase: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. -- it seems inarguable that Jesus is naming Peter as his successor. And that's what the Catholics believe it means. But wait! The Protestants disagree! 

The main Protestant argument against Peter as a Pope is presented here in a quotation from Oswald J. Smith:

The Greek word for Peter is ‘petros,’ meaning ‘a little stone.’  The word for rock is ‘petra,’ meaning ‘The Rock.’   What Jesus said was, ‘I will build my Church on The Rock.’  He himself was The Rock.  He never said He would build His Church on Peter, ‘a little stone.’  That would be too faulty a foundation.  In 1 Peter 2:5-8, Peter himself speaks of believers as stones and of Jesus as a rock.  So, in Eph. 2:19-21, Jesus is the Corner Stone, the Foundation.  The Church, therefore, is built not on Peter or his successors but on Jesus Christ Himself—The Rock.

I was exposed to this argument many years ago, and I believed it, mainly because the minister who related it sounded like he knew what he was talking about. But it all rests upon making a distinction between"petros" and "petra". I'm no Greek scholar, but I do know that word endings are much more significant in Greek than they are in English. Petra, translated "rock" is, in Greek, a feminine noun. Giving Simon (Peter's original name) a feminine nickname doesn't sound likely to me, so the "os" ending made Petros a masculine name. There's also the matter of the language that Jesus was speaking - it wasn't Greek. The word translated "Peter", as well as the word translated "rock" are both kepha in Aramaic, the common language in Jewish lands. The Protestant argument, like a lot of attempts to make the Bible coherent, twists logic into a pretzel and makes language and grammar sit up and beg. 

This doesn't mean that I think that Matthew 16:18-19 is legitimate succession planning. Even if Jesus existed (I lean toward the existence of someone upon whom the biblical Jesus is based) the Synoptic Gospels portray Jesus as preaching that everyone should get themselves right before God because the world would be ending very, very soon. 

As I said in another article, there is nothing in canonical scripture to indicate that Peter was the sole leader, or even that he was ever in Rome. Paul is documented as having much greater influence in building the church through missionary activity and James, Jesus' brother, is implied to have been the leader in Jerusalem. It seems likely to me that Matthew 16:18-19 was a later addition to lend support to the evolving reality on the ground which had the Bishops of Rome asserting themselves as first among equals, if not absolute rulers of the growing church, and retconning an unbroken line of bishops stretching back to Peter. It makes sense that creating the idea that someone was spiritually in charge was a way to reign in the various sects and the contradictory "scriptures" (at least more contradictory than the ones we ended up with) that were all competing for attention. It looks at odds with how things operated in The Acts of the Apostles, but how long could that "all things in common" small-scale churches in people's homes continued? Things change and evolve to fit changing circumstances, and somebody cooked up some quotable quotes to baptize what they already decided to do. 

Granted, there is no scriptural model for the top-down hierarchical structure with a Pope at the top. But it's in The Bible now, and the Protestants can either accept it or accept that the Bible isn't inerrant. 

Battlin' Christians

The death of Pope Francis and the upcoming election of his replacement has instigated a flood of social media chatter about Catholicism in particular and Christianity in general. Mostly the conversations revolve around how many Christians think other Christians aren't really Christians. The broad strokes come down to Protestants thinking Catholics are idolaters, worshipping Mary and the saints, and the Catholics smugly believing that the Protestants are all rebels, or possibly heretics, definitely Johnny-Come-Latelys. Catholics largely pin their superiority complex on the belief that the Catholic Church was the original church and that all others are offshoots. The Protestants claim that Catholic belief and practice contradicts scripture, which they claim that they follow -- even when various denominations disagree with each other. 

Even if we accept that Matthew 16:18 is referring to Jesus installing Peter as the leader upon which the church will be built, there is no evidence that this actually happened. I'm not even referring to secular history, but to the New Testament books that record what went on in the early years of the church. The Acts of the Apostles starts out focussing on Peter and his fellow apostles' ministry in Jerusalem and the rest of Judea, but about halfway through switches the spotlight to Paul, someone who hadn't met Jesus and starts his preaching before ever meeting one of the apostles who had. There is also no reference in scripture to bishops who oversee a whole city, but to a more collegial system akin to a board of deacons. Evidently the system did eventually evolve into a single bishop model, as some of the apocryphal books make reference to it. 

There is every indication that the decades following the death of Jesus saw multiple strains of Christianity, some which would barely be recognizable as Christian today. The Bible didn't yet exist as a source, so various groups of followers were left to create their own belief systems and pictures of who and what they thought Jesus was and what following him consisted of. This should be expected -- we take for granted today's instant worldwide communication, but this was more than a millennium before the printing press. Any standards disseminated by the leaders would be in laboriously handwritten, or depended on personal visits. 

One of these groups was founded by Marcion, who believed that the God of Jesus and the God of the Hebrew scriptures were two different deities. His canon of scripture included only the gospel of Luke, the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline epistles. For years Marcionite Christians were the dominant form of Christianity in many cities. Eventually the form of Christianity that became the Catholic Church became the overwhelming majority, and since history (including the Bible) is written by the victors, competing Christianities were tarred as heretics and false teachers. It's easy to look back 2000 years and see how some of these factions taught things that didn't line up with the Bible, but there was no Bible. The writings that make up our New Testament took decades if not centuries to become widely available. And the decision regarding what would be included in the Bible and considered Holy Scripture was made by the winning faction. It's not difficult to imagine a very different Bible if one of the other sects had prevailed. 

By Constantine's reign there was an entity which was recognizable as the ancestor of today's Catholic Church, but it still was far from obvious what form it should take. During that time there were five Patriarchs -- think of them as Super Bishops (the position of Cardinal hadn't been invented yet) who presided over the churches in Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria. Due to Rome and Constantinople being the capital cities of the empire, the patriarchs of those cities enjoyed the greatest prestige and the greatest influence. The Bishop of Rome at some point began to claim Matthew 16:18 as the scriptural basis for his position as leader of the entire church. The Patriarch of Constantinople disagreed. By the 600's the other three Patriarchs were in Muslim lands and therefore didn't figure into any power plays. For the most part the Eastern and Western churches were in sync on doctrine, but began to drift apart regarding ritual. But once the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople excommunicated each other, they didn't need to take the other's opinion into consideration any longer. By this time the retconning of the early church as an unbroken line of leaders starting with Peter had become ingrained. Is it possible that Peter really was the leader of undisputed "true" church, and that there was an unbroken line of successors? Maybe, but I think it's equally likely that what we see in the Fourth Century was a result of several centuries of evolution in faith and practice, with competition for souls and power among various factions. Once Christianity became legal, the Catholic hierarchy had legal authority, as well as spiritual, to back up their views.  

Despite this surface unity, there were many so-called heresies that sprung up, mostly about the nature of Jesus. One thing is evident from reading the Bible as an historian and not a theologian is that the Synoptic Gospels portray Jesus' message as one of how to act while the Pauline epistles and other New Testament books focus on what to believe. This led to heresies and schisms over deep theological issues, and relegating Christian practice to prayer and ritual, rather than to loving your neighbor and doing acts of charity. One "heresy" that had remarkable staying power was put forth by a clergyman named Arius and involved (as most of the arguments did) the nature of Jesus. The Arian teaching was condemned at the Council of Nicea, but persisted until the 800's, mostly among the Germanic people. It finally withered away when Charlemagne decided to hitch his wagon to Orthodox Catholicism. 

When the Protestant Reformation began, its leaders didn't at first reject the Catholic Church or its theology, although they gradually moved away from the idea that truth was determined by the church leaders' interpretation, and began to encourage ordinary people to read the Bible and defer to scripture first. Their position was that the Catholic Church had moved away from the ideals of the early church and that by going back to scripture Christians could recreate the atmosphere of godliness that existed back then. What they didn't consider was that the scriptures that had come down to them were the product of the embryonic Catholic Church. The early church didn't have the Bible. If they had any gospels or epistles, different cities had access to different versions. The Protestants, by claiming to obey only scripture and not human authority, were putting their stamp of approval on the Catholic version of what Truth ought to be!

Catholic doctrine is that scriptural interpretation should be filtered through the clergy, especially the head of the church -- the Pope. As mentioned earlier, there were competing versions of Christianity in the early days, each with its own epistles, gospels and acts of the apostles. Most falsely claimed to have been written by one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus. (None of the canonical Gospels claim authorship within their texts, several letters attributed to Paul most certainly weren't written by him, and several other epistles attributed to Peter or John are without a doubt pseudonymous). The early church leadership claimed the authority to decide which of these numerous tracts and letters were legitimate, and how the canonical ones should be interpreted. This is related to the doctrine of Apostolic Succession, which posits that Jesus taught the Twelve, who taught others, who then taught others in an unbroken chain. The assumption was that the teaching originated with Jesus and was therefore perfect, and was perfect transmitted from successor to successor. As the successors of the Apostles, and therefore of Jesus, the idea was that they were uniquely qualified to determine Biblical Truth. And they had a point. Although anyone who has played a game of "telephone" knows that information doesn't remain intact as it passes from one person to another -- someone had to sift through all myriad contradictory "scriptures" and decide what was legitimate. The idea that anyone who had access to a Bible could determine the Truth hasn't led to a return to first century paradise, with every ploughman able to discern the will of God, but to hundreds, even thousands, of competing contradictory versions of Christianity. And they all "know" that they're right. 

Some of the divisions aren't even about doctrine. There are some denominations that are organized around an "episcopal" model, with bishops overseeing large areas; some are a congregationally organized, with a board of elders or presbyters making all the decisions, still others are independent, led by a charismatic leader. Denominations split and regroup, local churches change denominations, and individuals hop from church to church. You hear people who have been raised in one church describing a change in their church as "becoming a Christian", as if they weren't really a Christian before. And they all can all point to something in the Bible to justify their opinions (except the Catholics, they just say they've been around the longest). The rise of Christian Nationalism has exacerbated the problem, although the alliances have changed. Conservative Catholics and Protestant Fundamentalists have made common cause against liberal Catholics and mainstream Protestants and there appears to be a contest to see who can be the toughest sonofabitch around, rather than who can live like Jesus. 

Ironic that the faith supposedly based on "love thy neighbor" is usually of the opinion that their neighbor is destined for Hell.

Transgender Bigotry

Let me start off by saying that during some periods of my life I have been a bigot. I was born in 1958 and the mainstream culture during my formative years was very much bigoted against...well anyone who wasn't part of the dominant demographic. For a long time I was part of a religious group that made homophobia their central emphasis. I wasn't shy about speaking up about it. I'm sure that there are family members who remember my foolish words and still hold it against me. Although there were also family members who held the same prejudices, but weren't as vocal about it. Cultural values and predominant attitudes undoubtedly shape one's attitudes, but we are not bound by groupthink, we all have the ability to change our minds. 

Many people who are prejudiced against another group of people often change their minds when they come in close contact with a member of that group. A homophobic parent who finds out that his beloved child is gay; the popular coworker who you find out is not the gender you thought she was; the guy on your sports team who is a member of a previously reviled racial or religious group. Of course not everyone acts the same. Some people double down on their bigotry - disowning children or refusing to associate with those who have been labeled as "other"; other people decide that their friend or coworker is "one of the 'good' ones", or proclaim that they love their child "despite" that characteristic that they hate. "Love the sinner, hate the sin" comes up in conversation. 

But should it take close association with another person to conclude that they are in fact a person? 

There's a a lot of different varieties of bigotry in the world, but the kind that lately seems the most virulent is against transgender people. And like every other form of bigotry, the bigots attempt to justify their bigotry. The favorite justification, just like excuses for racism, is the Bible, although cherry-picking science seems to have become popular. But the heart of opposition to transgender people's right to be transgender isn't God or science, it's hatred of the "other", with religion and biology a rationale to cover it up. 

I don't think that someone who objects to a trans woman or girl competing in woman's sports is necessarily a transphobe. There's a reason that men and women compete separately in sports - mainly due to the fact that the average woman is not as strong or fast as the average man. An objection to trans women competing against cis women is that someone who transitions after a certain point is essentially competing with a male body, with all the associated advantages. Although no one (or few) object to the advantages that money brings. In most sports the child of financially well-off parents has an almost unmeasurable advantage over someone from a family that struggles to pay the bills. Irreversible gender-altering surgery for minors is another subject that should not be off limits to discuss. The number of these surgeries, however, is statistically small, and mostly takes place with the support of parents and medical professionals, including mental health professionals. While I'm on the fence about these surgeries, I also don't want the government making those decisions.  Anti-transgender politicians claim to want to protect children, but are conspicuously silent when it comes to social programs that benefit children. 

One of the more visible battles involving anti-transgender actions is the crusade by Republican Representative Nancy Mace to ban transgender women from the public bathrooms in The Capitol. She is unambiguously targeting incoming Democratic Representative Sarah McBride, who is a transgender woman. Who does Mace think she's protecting? Other than the fact that Congressional offices have private bathrooms, I was under the impression that women's restroom toilets were all ensconced in enclosed stalls. There shouldn't be any danger of her espying McBride's genitals, or of McBride seeing Mace seated on one of the porcelain thrones. In all likelihood Sarah's presence wouldn't be noticed unless another woman's pre-loaded bigotry was on the scene. I have to wonder whether a trans man, who according to Mace's requirements, would be using the women's restroom, would cause more or less of a stir than McBride, especially if he was fully male presenting, including facial hair!

One statement you hear from anti-transgender bigots is the opinion that transgender people are some new phenomenon. Surprise! Trans men and trans women have always been here. What's changed is that they are tired of hiding in the shadows and hiding from the bigotry. People act like it's a terrible imposition to use a person's preferred pronouns. I worked with a trans man in the early 80's. No one at work had any issue referring to him with male pronouns, including the religious people. Same situation with a trans woman who worked in the bakery at one of the stores where I was a manager. 

What is considered appropriate gender expression in clothes, grooming, interests, or even what toys a child prefers is entirely cultural. There is nothing intrinsically male or female about hair length. Or makeup application. Or clothing choice. Someone who is identifying as transgender is simply making the choice about what cultural expressions they most strongly identify with. Most transgender people made the decision to physically/surgically transition as adults. Most transgender people aren't competing in sports. Most transgender people are minding their own business and living their lives and require no special treatment from society other than being allowed to live their lives as they choose to live them.

It's not special treatment, or special rights, or an "agenda" to want to be treated as a person with the same rights as everyone else.

Rings of Power

I'm a Tolkien geek. I'm so deep into Middle-Earth minutia that I can tell you the names of the horses of the Rohirrim that Legolas and Aragorn borrowed. I just finished Season 2 of The Lord of the Rings: Rings of Power - there's a lot that I liked and some things that I didn't. 

The following is written mostly for those who have watched the first two seasons, whether or not they were familiar with the source material.

One of things that I recognized early in Season 1 was that the timeline is off. Let me take a moment to give a broad out line of the Tolkien timeline, working somewhat backwards:

• Third Age: this is the time period in which the Lord of the Rings (LOTR) and The Hobbit take place. It lasted around 3,000 years. The main events of LOTR take place in the final 2 years of this period; the opening chapter around 17 years previous and The Hobbit around 60 years before that. 
• Second Age: this time period ends just as the Third Age begins. It lasted around 3,400 years. The events of Rings of Power (ROP) take place during this time period. 
• First Age: ends when the Second Age begins - different interpretations on how long it lasted. It's final 500 years consisted of a struggle by the Noldor, one of three main divisions of the Elves, to recover three magic gems stolen by Morgoth, the first Dark Lord. It ends when Eärendil, the son of a human father and Elven mother, sails to Valinor, the home of the Valar (pantheon of gods) to ask for their intervention. The Valar fight the "War of Wrath" defeating Morgoth. 

Second Age outline:

• Begins as Middle-Earth recovers from "The War of Wrath" 
• The Valar allow the Noldor, who had rebelled against the Valar to fight against Morgoth, to return to return to Valinor, the Undying Lands. 
• The Valar give the Men who fought against Morgoth the island of Númenor, halfway between Middle-Earth and the Undying lands, which becomes the pinnacle of human civilization
• Other than a few Elven enclaves, the Men of Middle-Earth were effectively abandoned
• Sauron, Morgoth's chief lieutenant, survived the War of Wrath and declined the opportunity to be rehabilitated, building a power base among Orcs and otherwise leaderless Men. 

In Tolkien's books, Galadriel had four brothers, various cousins and uncles, all who were killed in the war against Morgoth. She and Gil-Galad are the only surviving members of the ruling family of the Noldor. They, along with many other Elves choose to remain in Middle-Earth

Gil-Galad, High King of the Elves along with the King of Númenor start to suspect that Sauron survived and was building his power base around 750 of the Second Age (SA 750) . As Annatar, he approaches Celebrimbor around year SA 1200, but the first 16 rings of power are not completed until 300 years have passed. Another 90 years elapse before Celebrimbor forges the 3 Elven rings. In ROP this seems to take place over several months. In ROP Pharazôn’s usurpation of the kingship of Númenor takes place contemporaneously with the creation of the rings, when in the books, Pharazôn, Elendil, Miriel, Isildur etc. all live during the final 3 centuries of the Second Age - 1700 years later! Regarding the Dwarves, the release of the imprisoned Balrog doesn't happen until 1980 of the Third Age (TA 1980) under Durin VI. Obviously you have to modify and compress the timeline in order to tell the story, since important events are separated by centuries, or even millennia. 

Overall though, I liked how the story progressed and portrayed the spirit of the Tolkien canon even though it changed up many of the details. Characters like Arondir and Theo are additions that fill in the gaps, obviously there must have been Elves who weren't kings and queens and Men who weren't great warriors. Adar, however was a major character in the first two seasons who moves the story along in significant ways, despite there being no mention of him in the books. He does present a way to insert an origin story for Orcs into the series in a believable, if not canonical, way. 

The crafting of the rings themselves was presented backwards from how they were forged in the books. Tolkien wrote that sixteen rings of power were made with Annatar/Sauron's help first, then later the three were created by Celebrimbor alone, that eventually went to the Elves. Sauron, after forging the One master ring, attacks Eregion and takes the sixteen and distributes them to Dwarves and Men. (No Adar, and the destruction of Eregion is after the One Ring is made) 

What made the rings magical was presented differently. Tolkien is vague when it comes to how magic works in Middle-Earth. It's fuzzily presented as something like an extra "something" in the creative process that Elves bring to the table. ("Angelic" spirits like Sauron and Gandalf too). The mechanics of how the rings influence or enslave people, and how the One Ring controls them, is never fully explored in Tolkien's works. The Seven and the Nine are not described as different in themselves, but have different effects based on who is wearing them. The Dwarves' rings effect them differently than Men's rings because Men and Dwarves are different, not because the rings are. Mithril in the books has no magical qualities and is simply the perfect metal.

ROP presents mithril as having a miraculous power to "preserve". It magically prevents the "fading" of the Elves so that they don't have to leave Middle-Earth for the Undying Lands of the Valar. This is why in ROP mithril is a critical ingredient in the rings. The Three, the Seven, and the Nine are all shown as being intrinsically different in their composition in order to explain the different effects, with the Nine Rings for Men even containing some of Sauron's blood. Initially I thought making mithril magical was pretty dumb, but to make the story coherent to television viewers, especially those unfamiliar with the source material,  there needed to be some kind of explanation to why they worked, and why they were different from each other. In the books the Three do have a power of preservation, and we see that in how Lothlorien and Rivendell are like the lands that time forgot, but it's not due to the inclusion of mithril, but an unspecified magical component. 

I thought that the portrayal of Sauron as a gaslighting, manipulating, deceiver, who nonetheless appeared as the charming Annatar, was brilliant. He seduced Celebrimbor, the people of Eregion, and eventually even the Orcs. But he seamlessly employed betrayal and cruelty when he thought it justified his goals. Celebrimbor's guards killing each other with just his thought showed his power was more than just talk. It's not evident in LOTR, but in one of Tolkien's letters he describes Sauron's motivations as a desire for order that was corrupted into a belief that he alone could bring that order and that the ends justified the means. 

The Númenor arc was disappointing. There is no rationale given for the political intrigue other than...political intrigue. There is little reference to what Númenor was, how and why it was established, or the reason for the antipathy towards Elves: generations of building jealousy of Elves' immortality and the fear of death. The Kings of Númenor (Westernesse) are all descended from Elros, Elrond's twin brother. (After their father Eärendil successfully sought the help of the Valar at the end of the First Age, the half-Elven were given a choice to live as Men or as Elves. Elros chose mortality as a king of Men, Elrond chose to live as an Elf.) The power struggle in Westernesse might as well be any succession crisis in late Middle Ages Europe the way it's scripted. And let's not forget that ridiculous trial by sea monster that supposedly vindicated Miriel and Elendil, but was apparently forgotten by the next episode. The added characters - Elendil's daughter and Pharazôn’s slimy son add nothing to the story.

And as happy as I was to see Tom Bombadil, did we really need to wait so long to find out that the Stranger was Gandalf? We followed him for two whole seasons and he didn't do anything. I guess all of Season 3 we'll be treated to hints on who the so-called Dark Wizard is. Not Radagast, that's for sure. He came right out and said that he was one of the five Istari, i.e. Wizards, so he could be Saruman, or he could be one of the Blue Wizards that we know very little of. Speaking of the Stranger, who we now know is Gandalf, the Harfoot (and now Stoor) episodes I could have done without, but they are trying to cram in as many origin stories as they can. 

I do enjoy the regular throwaway lines that Tolkien fans will get, but that those unfamiliar with the source materials will miss: the chants of Baruk Khazâd in Khazâd-Dum; the Dark Wizard mentioning Manwë; Elendil (finally) mentioning that he has a son named Anarion; references to Fëanor and the Silmarils; mentions of Tuor and Beren; Disa's mention of the Dimrill Dale and Zirakzigal (and Disa's name is similar to Dis, sister to Thorin and the only named female Dwarf in all of Tolkien's writings); the Doors of Durin crafted by Narvi & Celebrimbor; Pharazôn lamenting not being able to see Eressëa in the distance; the Palantir; Miriel giving Elendil Narsil, the sword that ultimately is used to cut the One Ring from Sauron's hand and is reforged as Aragorn's sword Anduril; the Stoors reference to a mythical home as Sūzat (the word that is translated "The Shire" in the appendices); Adar's mention of Melian...and some I may have missed...geek paradise!

I liked Season 2 much more than Season 1, and the ending was at the same time catastrophic and hopeful. The Elves, while defeated in battle, find refuge in what is surely the future site of Rivendell; the Stoors, accompanied by the two Harfoots are one step closer to founding The Shire (although that timeline will have to be off as well, since The Shire was founded in 1401 of the Third Age...and we still need to meet the Fallohides! 

Your Favorite Band Sucks

Taste in music is subjective. Of course we all believe that the music that we like is good music and what we don't like is bad, it comes down to a matter of opinion. For most people, the music which they listened to in their high school years tends to define their musical tastes. Every generation thinks that their music is great while what came after is crap. Even within that window, the musical tastes of those around you influenced what you listened to. Kids in the same high school would be listening to different bands depending on what clique they were part of.  Attempts by others to introduce most people to different artists is usually ignored. Loyalty to specific bands often transcends enjoyment of the genre. 

A phenomenon that I have observed many times: two people are having a discussion about music. Person "A" mentions a couple of bands that they like. Person "B" recommends a band that they feel is similar to Person "B"'s tastes. Person "A" nods politely and never investigates Person "B"'s recommendation. I see this a lot with intergenerational musical conversations. Younger generation person forms an opinion about the older generation's music, sight unseen (or maybe it's hearing unheard?) even though if the exact same music came from a younger artist they'd love it. It goes the other way too - Boomers or Gen X who are convinced that anything that came after their generation's music is garbage - by definition! I'm convinced that this is true of every generation and will continue to be true. I have a vivid memory of my grandmother griping about my father's "crazy music" that he listened to as a teenager (it was Dixieland Jazz) and of course my own dad expressing his negative opinions about what I listened to. 

I consider myself lucky to have been exposed to a variety of musical styles over the years. Until my junior year of high school I mostly listened to Top 40 AM radio, but then I started hanging around with a group of guys that included some garage band musicians. Black Sabbath, Yes, Rush, Pink Floyd, Deep Purple, ELP are bands I started listening to then and still enjoy. I worked with a guy who was into Southern rock and started listening to The Allman Brothers, and The Outlaws. At another job I worked with a guitarist in a jazz fusion band who introduced me to Weather Report, Return to Forever and Mahavishnu Orchestra. When I moved to Lincoln I stumbled across a jazz fusion show on KZUM radio one morning while trimming lettuce and became familiar with other forms of jazz, as well as blues and folk music. I was a deejay/programmer throughout the late 80's and early 90's and played jazz fusion, blues and even surf guitar on various shows that I hosted. Streaming services, while arguably unfair to musicians, offer a window into a wide panorama of musical styles. I've found many "favorite" artists just by listening to a random playlist.

Does this mean I'm immune to the tribalism inherent in most people's musical tastes? No, I'm as bad as anyone else. There are genres I don't seek out - mainstream country, most hip-hop, show tunes, Yoko Ono. I'm a bit of a musical snob in that I enjoy listening to those bands that "no one has ever heard of", and shy away from the popular, arena-filling bands of any genre. I love the Blues, but don't seek out the bluesmen who sound like every other bluesman. I still like the hard rock of the 70's, but can't see myself going to see one of the old guard bands that has no connection to the band that I listened to in my youth other than the name. 

Fortunately there's enough music out there for everyone, and enough variety in styles. 

Even if your favorite bands sucks.

Sports

Despite having removed "being a sports fan" from the lists of things that describe me, I have absolutely no problem with people who are sports fans. Even the "rabid" ones, but I just don't get it any more. (By the way, if you see me wearing my NY Mets cap - I know absolutely nothing about the current version of the team and only wear it as a sign that I am a New Yorker)

There's a lot of things that perplex me about sports fandom. I'll start with New York fandom, since a lot of people in my adopted state of Nebraska think that the fact that I'm not from here explains my disinterest in the local college sports teams, especially the football team.

New York Football Teams: in my view, there's only one New York NFL team, and that's the Buffalo Bills. Both the "New York" Giants and "New York" Jets play their home games in New Jersey, and have for decades. Yet New York football fans happily refer to both teams as New York teams. They're not only out in the suburbs of their eponymous city, as many sports teams are, but in a whole 'nother STATE! It's true that both teams started their existence in New York City, but the Giants have been a New Jersey team since 1976 and the Jets followed soon thereafter. 

Sports vs. Education: I fully understand that professional sports teams, and even popular college teams are good for business. It makes a certain kind of sense for donors to pour their discretionary funds into new stadiums or even for cities to offer big tax breaks rather than funding its educational institutions. Sorts fans spend money. But high school sports? I'm not criticizing the existence of high school sports, but the priority that is often placed on them. When my step-daughter was in high school she participated in several sports. Coaches thought nothing of requiring players to devote many hours to practice or to observing other teams when homework got neglected. Out of town games kept them up late on "school nights". The track team regularly pulled team members out of class to go to most-of-the-day meets. Class was sometimes cancelled to facilitate a tournament. 

The Two Sides of Criticism: Sports fans love to criticize every move a coach makes, but at the same time will get nasty if criticism comes from the wrong quarter. The fans of a team that isn't doing so well will spend hours debating the relative merits of their team's game day strategy.  They call for the coach to be fired over losses. They wait in the queue to comment on sports radio talk shows. But some fans will try to shut down criticism with the position that unless you're actually a current or former coach or player you have no grounds to criticize, because you can't do any of it yourself, so you have no grounds to point fingers. (My position is that if you have a high-profile job that depends on thousands of people being excited about your work, and you accept the adulation when you're doing well, accepting the criticism is part of the job) College sports isn't much better, although more of the anger is directed at the coaching staff since players, being students, get rotated out every few years. Some fans will defect complaints about a team's losses by pointing out that "they're just kids", while having no problem putting those same "kids" on a pedestal and subjecting them to hero worship when the team is winning. 

"It's OUR Team - Why Aren't You a Fan?": I saw this as a transplant from the East Coast to Nebraska. Even when I was a sports fan, football never interested me, so I was indifferent to the local college team. This apparently wasn't good enough. Obnoxious local fans intimated that there was something wrong with me for not enthusiastically rooting for the home team. This introduced me to a phenomenon that I'm sure exists wherever there are sports teams - the locals expect new arrivals to jettison their loyalties to their former city's teams and taking on the local boys, while locals, if they move away, fully expect to retain their team loyalties. One of those mysteries. 

The Glory Days: In any sports league, division or conference there tend to be "dynasties". One team, for various reasons, dominates and wins a few championships. These sports dynasties don't last forever though. For various reasons the top dogs get replaced by the new dogs. This leads to two differing yet related behaviors. Fans of teams who were regularly beaten by championship winners experience a sense of schadenfreude when their former tormenters aren't so good any more. While beating them while they were on top might have been an accomplishment worth bragging about, beating them years after their winning days have faded away isn't much to brag about. The other side of this is the fans of the former golden boys haven't forgotten those glory days. When they are being mocked by their opponents for being thrashed in a blowout, their retort is to brag about championships that took place before the current players were born. My own local college team is in this category. Teams that easily beat them today are giddy with celebratory excitement that they beat a struggling team with a losing record, while the loser's fans console themselves that at least they're has-beens and not never-beens despite being losers in the present. 

Loyalty Doesn't Go Both Ways: Once upon a time a player on a professional team might spend a majority of his career with one team. As a fan, it was easy to have your favorite players - you might even switch teams if the team had the audacity to trade your favorite. (My dad was a New York Rangers hockey fan. In his youth they traded his guy to the Montreal Canadiens and he became a lifelong Montreal fan) These days players are compensated better and have more opportunities to get the best deal for themselves by negotiating with different teams. They are, rightly so, more concerned with their own future and lack a loyalty and connection to the cities where they play. Many don't even live in their team's cities in the off-season. So, have fun cheering on your team, but they don't really care about you or your city.

Everyone has something that entertains them. For many that's sports - not me though!