Showing posts with label terror. Show all posts
Showing posts with label terror. Show all posts

2017/03/04

The Three Investigator Series - In Order


I loved this series when I was a young girl and I have been re-reading it as an adult for fun and still enjoy them today... even if they 'feel' more simplistic and formulaic to me. I recommend them for children ages 9-13. The series has been written by few different authors; the most prolific are Robert Arthur, William Arden and M.V. Carey. This series had a great appeal when it was originally being written and was translated into several languages and countries. These stories feature three male teenagers who form a club to investigate mysteries they discover in their communities. The boys- Jupiter Jones, Bob Andrews and Pete Crenshaw each have different strengths and knowledge which compliment each other as they work together on the 'puzzles' they discover- their motto is "We Investigate Anything.". Alfred Hitchcock, the famous movie director was also a character in the books as a mentor to the boys in the first two dozen titles, but never actually have much to do with the books- he was simply paid to have his name and image put on them. However, I will admit that I love reading his dialogue with the boys... even if it really isn't his words at all. :)

1. The Secret of Terror Castle
2. The Mystery of the Stuttering Parrot
3. The Mystery of the Whispering Mummy
4. The Mystery of the Green Ghost
5. The Mystery of the Vanishing Treasure
6. The Secret of Skeleton Island
7. The Mystery of the Fiery Eye
8. The Mystery of the Silver Spider
9. The Mystery of the Screaming Clock
10. The Mystery of the Moaning Cave
11. The Mystery of the Talking Skull
12. The Mystery of the Laughing Shadow
13. The Secret of the Crooked Cat
14. The Mystery of the Coughing Dragon
15. The Mystery of the Flaming Footprints
16. The Mystery of the Nervous Lion
17. The Mystery of the Singing Serpent
18 The Mystery of the Shrinking House
19. The Secret of Phantom Lake
20. The Mystery of Monster Mountain
21. The Secret of the Haunted Mirror
22. The Mystery of the Dead Man's Riddle
23. The Mystery of the Invisible Dog
24. The Mystery of Death Trap Mine
25. The Mystery of the Dancing Devil
26. The Mystery of the Headless Horse
27. The Mystery of the Magic Circle
28. The Mystery of the Deadly Double
29. The Mystery of the Sinister Scarecrow
30. The Secret of Shark Reef
31. The Mystery of the Scar-Faced Beggar
32. The Mystery of the Blazing Cliffs
33. The Mystery of the Purple Pirate
34. The Mystery of the Wandering Cave Man
35. The Mystery of the Kidnapped Whale
36. The Mystery of the Missing Mermaid
37. The Mystery of the Two-Toed Pigeon
38. The Mystery of the Smashing Glass
39. The Mystery of the Trail of Terror
40. The Mystery of the Rogues' Reunion
41. The Mystery of the Creep-Show Crooks
42. The Mystery of Wreckers' Rock
43. The Mystery of the Cranky Collector
Extra : The Three Investigators' Book of Mystery Puzzle

If you have also enjoyed this series, which book was your favorite? Any particular critique? I have started to collect the books again and have been introducing them to Bug and hoping he will start to explore them as well... he may not as they do not tend to have enough animals in them. So I'll have to enjoy them on my own. :)





pictures from: http://www.threeinvestigatorsbooks.com/index.html, http://www.threeinvestigatorsbooks.com/Greenghost.html


2014/07/19

Dangerous Rhetoric


Yesterday, I found myself in an unusual situation in more ways than one. As I couldn't sleep, I went to the gym before work... way too early in the morning and found myself running on a treadmill in front of four television screens. The irony is of course that I haven't owned a television in over a decade and so experiences with one are few and far between... but four! It's a bit like being offered piles of riches that you don't think you need and are confused as to why others think they are valuable. This opportunity gave me an interesting opportunity for reflection and experimentation.

As most everyone in the first world probably knows by now, an airplane manned by pilots employed by Malaysian Air was shot down and crashed near Grabovo, Ukraine. With 298 people on board flight MH370 - all who perished- the only thing that seemed known immediately was that everyone on the plane died and that the plane was shot down over eastern Ukraine along the border to Russia. So as I jogged on the treadmill, I looked up at the screens and over the next few minutes I realized my opportunity- all four televisions were showing news from four different stations; ABC, FOX, CBS, and NBC. So for a girl who doesn't watch news, I was able over the course of over a hour to watch all of them at once and really compare their coverage of the situation. And even from a lack of experience as a news hound, what I found wasn't really surprising.

On three of the stations, the story seemed to be covered pretty thoroughly, but also with some caveats. As the news was raw, the situation just unfolding and with very little confirmed information. Only the confirmed facts were given definition and were described in definitive terms – all passengers were dead, the flight, where it went down, etc... After that, the language was was more vague... “Investigations are underway, the black box might be, etc... There were pictures... frankly, terrible and devastating photos and descriptions from eyewitnesses that felt so painful and hard to hear. But not a lot of speculation or opinion. And there would be breaks from this tragedy- each station took time to talk about other events such as wildfires, the situation in Israel and Gaza (just as horrible a problem I might say), the indictment of FedEx over shipping medications illegally and gold found in a shipwreck off the coast of South Carolina. And more such as a court overturning another gay marriage ban, the typhoon headed toward China... The world is a big place with much going on in it.

The same could not be said of FOX news. While they seemed to have the same details, it was pretty astonishing to me with how they used them. Small lettering on the bottom of the screen would say the 'facts', but the people talking didn't give any facts without a lot of supposition and even things that were only opinion.... Most of he time they didn't bother to mention any facts that I was learning from the other stations. I felt the anger of the commentators but I was also impressed by how neatly they could draw me in and if I hadn't been able to see the facts from other sources at the same time, I may never had gotten them. The wording that was used was also extreme and violent in its own right. It is no exaggeration to say that every sentence spoken, every word that was said seemed conveyed to expressed three points and only those three points.

1. That this tragedy was caused by the Russians and ordered by Vladimir Putin himself.

2. That President Obama must 'break' Russia and Putin to show the Russians and the rest of the world that we are the mightiest and must be feared and obeyed. That war, violence, 'blood', all have been caused by the evil that is Russia and we the good must vanquish it.

3. If we as America do not do this, we will all die and only terror will win.... with Russia and Putin as its leaders.


All the rhetoric made me think... and with was terrible. Some of the words still burn in my head over twenty four hours later. “Russia has their fingers printed all over this all ways”.... Really? How do we know? (Don't get me wrong, I suspect that in many ways this comment is true about this situation, but...) And then pictures of John F Kennedy and Ronald Reagan would show up on the screen with some of their words in quotes about bringing down Russia, tearing down communism and its evils... and then “The President must, he must... Eye to eye, toe to toe, he must stop them... whatever means are necessary.” “President Obama must show them what happens when Putin sheds the blood of innocents... and perhaps the most ironic quote that sticks in my
mind came from Geraldo Rivera- “I told you yesterday Putin has blood on his hands.” Yup, the same guy that my friends and I used to laugh at in high school who five days a week make the term 'talk show' synonymous with interviewed strippers, skinheads, white supremacists, families who hated each other, etc.... He's now reinvented himself as a political commentator. So I was able to listen to him wax poetic on the evils and wrongs by Putin- many of which must have been exaggerated...something he used to do on his talk show... he was well known for it.

I am no friend of Vladimir Putin. I do not know him and am aware that living in this country I will not have many opportunities. It has been obvious to me for years that as America and Russia are enemies, the media in this country can never really see anything that has to do with Russia unbiasedly. We as a people are still trying to understand their history and their culture without coloring it through the lenses of our biases and prejudice. And we are doing it poorly. This experiment cemented two things into my head. First of all, I have heard to the polls and studies that show that those who get the majority of their information from Fox news are more ignorant of the reality of the world than people who get their news from anywhere else. But it also explained the constant fear and anger I sense in so many of the people I know who are 'die hard' FOX news fans. How can you not be when you sit and listen to so much anger... and so much falsehood or at least unproven accusations that when they are proved false ... will never be redacted. That language is dangerous for all of us- even those of us who do not hear it. We have to live with the pain and anger it causes in others, many of whom we care about. After over an hour yesterday of interaction and attention, I will avoid giving any of my time to that station again. I only wish that so many others could see it for what it is. There is enough hate and anger in the world as it is without manufacturing more.

Yesterday so many died in a plane crash.... in the conflicts in Gaza, in Africa from malaria, in Syria... everywhere. So many people are frightened and sad and unsure what to do in their lives. In fact, some numbers suggest that 1 in five of the dead in Gaza are children- children may sometimes be called little terrors but very few people would call them terrorists worthy of death. Instead of creating anger, fear and division, couldn't we work together to grieve and to fight it, fight the terror and the pain with an equal amount of love and good will as well as the basic law enforcement stuff? I can only hope.....

2013/04/03

A Night of Solid Dreams

Friday night was absolutely amazing...! (Probably not the way to start a post without having it potentially misconstrued- so don't worry! It's clean. :) I have been struggling to really sleep for months. Sometimes I will get a decent night of sleep, but for the most part I just toss and turn and get up and read or listen to music and eat and play with cats or my hammy; in essence, I don't sleep. When I feel so emotional and tired that I am truly desperate I will try to work myself out of any potential thread of energy left, fill my stomach full, and take two benadryl and I will usually sleep. I will still wake up and toss, etc... but I can go back to sleep easily on those nights. One thing that tends to bring me back to wakefulness is clearly my thoughts and worries and plans as I am trying to move forward and get through this difficult time to find an easier path. The other thing that forces me awake and tends to keep me up is dreams, which have been really challenging over the last few years. Some are so bad that I wake up totally covered in sweat and just panic stricken. In some cases it takes me a little bit to realize that it was a dream and so I am confused about the change of scenery and dress. I understand that dreaming in color is not very common so it is a blessing that I have, but I do wonder if that helps with my mental confusion after some of the really horrible dreams. When I come to work and look pretty awful after a bad night, I will joke about being 'hag-ridden' and we can all have a nice laugh, but I will admit its definitely not funny at the time. I have seen some paintings from past centuries where artists have tried to portray the fear and confusion and of course the 'witches' and 'demons' that caused them. Those painters do not inspire laughter... at least in me.

This week was a typical week. I have been working a lot of hours and haven't been sleeping well at all. Charity is learning to follow food through a hoop and I have discovered that Egg likes smoked salmon and he will try to open the fridge door to get it- that's a big step for him. Several weeks ago I tried an experiment and I took apart the mattress I made and I folded down my 'couch' futon and I have been sleeping on it. I haven't really noticed a difference in my sleep the last week so it sort of confirmed to me that not only do I definitely have insomnia at this point, but it's probably my head or 'me' physically and not anything in my environment. Disappointing, but doable I guess. So that night I was tired and just started to do the normal getting ready to sleep stuff. I got off of work and then ran a few quick errands so that I would be all ready for the Sabbath. I got home, emptied my car and then got to work on the house. Soon it was spiffy and I had heated up a quick meal with lots of fat (I think it helps me feel fuller and sleep better) and I had a nice hot bath. When I came home I had a package from an awesome friend and it had a light but snug king size comforter in it and so I climbed into bed after my bath with a good book and that comforter. As soon as I felt like I could sleep, I put down the book and I actually slept for six hours... a real record for me these days.

The kicker was that I still dreamed and the dreams were really intense. I have been working on trying to mentally 'change' the dreams, but I have had very little success. I'm either so tired that as I try to change it I fall so deeply back into it that it doesn't work... or I become so frightened that I am pushed out of the dream altogether and then I'm awake for awhile. This night, I don't actually feel like I mentally changed anything. The dreams were not as bad as usual, but I felt like the images were seared into my brain along with the emotions that they caused so that when I did wake up I was sure of a few things. One image that happened a few times in the dream was that I was following either a ex-friend or walking with a current friend. When I was walking with the friend we were laughing and joking and just talking.... I'm not sure what was going on with the other scenario because I never felt like a stalker; just like I was in that position for a reason. At some point I would 'feel' something that I can't really describe... just a really strong feeling like something bad was coming and it was going to cause both of us to die. In both scenarios, I would reach out for the other person and would move them- either by pushing or tackling- and I would throw my body over theirs. At one point and I still feel and see this image inside, I looked up as I was crouched over my friend and the air was literally moving and pulsing.

I have been having this dream off and on for months and I have no idea what it really means... if it means anything at all. These images have come back into my mind over the last few days with the recent bombing in Boston and I have thought of the people who ran away.... and those that ran towards to sounds and terror. In my dream I knew something was coming so I could make a active choice and prepare myself... those who ran towards to terror were not sure what was happening or what they could do, but in that split second they decided to try. How wonderful and faith affirming is that! I hope we can continue to pray for all of us- in Boston, Syria.... in so many places where people are suffering through horrors and pain that many of us will never experience. I really hope that we as a race can keep working toward peace with each other. It is one of my fondest wishes.


2012/02/22

Brief Views of the Vikings and their Culture

Until the 1880's, historians knew very little of Vikings and their society and culture except for the stereotypical – large horned helmets, murderous and ignorant barbarians, etc... It was during this time in Norway that some archeologists found an amazing discovery in the ground at several burial sites - large ships filled with goods and military items, etc... clearly a tomb and luckily for us, very well preserved. This gave historians the evidence to suggest that this people had an elaborate burial system, clearly that they believed in a very active afterlife, and the goods themselves would show a more complex culture that was previously believed. And when excavations had begun, it was not necessarily believed that these ships that were discovered were able to be seaworthy. Research and experiments show us that these ships were extremely seaworthy and easily used... giving us more insight into their past culture and lives. This post will hopefully give the reader some brief images and understanding of the complexity of the Viking civilization and some of the leaders of these differing groups. (Some aspects of their culture reminded me a bit of the early Egyptian society actually.... not to change the subject. )

Life was very different for the groups of Vikings who living in the times before 'raiding' became part of their culture. They were considered a sedentary society based on agriculture. The societies were organized around small villages or clans/groups- it is guess that these were based on families, but this is really just a guess. Peace was the norm although disagreements and war between different groups was not unknown. The economy was based on raising animals and growing food and this was truly the basic economic unit of this society. The shot growing season was a time of tremendous pressure to grow and produce the food for the longer, cold period of time.

So... what made the Vikings become raiders...? In this culture, a king was a man who owned a large farm who would have his 'workers', farmers, slaves, etc... Raids became 'necessary' as the amount of food and farm land needed for these growing populations became too scarce to support the larger numbers. This 'military tactic' was first used on the surrounding groups as the stronger preyed and slaughtered the weaker groups... taking the resources and substance to support themselves. (They would basically attack, kill, take everything.... and then leave.) However, this really wasn't sustainable as eventually weak Viking groups would no longer exist. Wealth and resources would again be scarce and so some members would start to look out to the seas and the lands beyond for their potential of resources and wealth. One truly scary aspect of the Viking raiders is that all the different groups were independent of each other. While historians tend to talk of 'Vikings' as a noun (a solid group), this word really describes in some ways a verb.... groups that have some outward similarities, but have no loyalty towards other groups, no political ties, and no understanding or wish to work with each other. So any groups who needed to fight the Vikings would be unable to negotiate, bribe, etc.... to stop the violence.... any treaty would only be with that particular raiding group. The only agreement they would have was they might agree to fight together to conquer other groups... and that was about it. Their traits of greed and terrorism were also hard to combat by their victims.


The Viking long boat gave the Vikings a real edge against other groups of people and became a very significant part of their culture and success. These boats, once developed, allowed for a vessel that was able to be produced in as little as 4-6 weeks that could travel safely in the North Atlantic ocean. Smaller versions of this ship could be made that were light enough to travel in waterways that large vessels couldn't travel safely in... such as rivers. It was this ship that allowed these groups to become a serious fear to the rest of the 'reachable' world. These boats were really a great technological feat for this time creating a ship that has low draft and high maneuverability. These boats are narrow and needed very little water to travel in. Rivers then became significant waterways because this allows these groups to use these smaller ships to get inland quickly and with little warning to the on-land populations. This allowed the Vikings to attack areas that were populated by people who were not used to attack from its waterways leaving these populations especially vulnerable.

While most groups throughout history were attracted to gold, these Viking groups found silver very attractive. And as such, monasteries would have easily been seen as the best places to attack. After all, the monasteries would be the most wealthy groups in almost all of the lands of England and Europe. And, most importantly, monasteries would not be heavily armed and were well trained in 'passivity'. If you have choices of groups to attack, these would have been the most attractive- you were more likely to get huge amount of wealth and resources with much less risk or injury or death to you and your allies.... why would you attack anywhere else that was less wealthy and will more risk of damage/death?

The first known monastery to have been attacked was the monastery of Lindisfarne on the northern most coast of England in the year of 793 AD. This attack was considered a milestone for the Vikings (the first major Viking sea raid) and was recorded in a historical document called 'the Anglo Saxon Chronicles' in words of pain, fear, and anger. This attack was so successful that as word traveled throughout the Norse world, other groups of Vikings started building ships to come and conquer and steal the wealth in Europe that was easily 'taken'. This really started the onslaught of Europe by these groups.

The idea that these Viking had no common leader or king is extremely significant. When you have a group such as the Huns led by Attila, you have more potential ways to end combat. One leader can be bribed or can be worked with though diplomacy or mediation. If a group with one leader needs to try and work with several leaders of several groups, he is very much at a disadvantage. Each of these leaders has no loyalty to each other and has no reason to abide by any agreement made with the other leaders.... which pretty much removed any possibility of non violent means of ending the conflicts. And once fighting had commenced, stopping the violence is again very difficult as there was not the benefit of one leader to call a halt to the fight. So fighting could and would continue long after the 'conquered' had attempted to surrender. This scenario reminds me of groups of children on a play group and how they can be pretty much uncontrollable until a feared teacher calls them into line.... the Vikings would not have had the feared 'teacher.' So the death and violence could literally continue until all enemy combatants including infants were dead. It is no exaggeration that the Vikings were terrorists and used terror, like other past and future leaders, to psychologically convert the people they wanted to conquer.... and the spreading of the stories of their acts of violence to begin the 'psychological' conquering of future European groups/cities.


One of the most well known Viking leaders was a warrior called Ragnar the Dane. Ragnar quickly became known as a notorious and vicious military leader during his career. He was ambitious and he completed the first major river conquest by the Vikings. In 885 AD, he took a fleet of 120 ships down the Seine river towards Paris. Once there, he conquered the French military forces by the river and marched them inland... then 'hanging' until dead all survivors which were estimated at around 111 individuals. As Ragnar matched to Paris, it's leader Charles the Bald attempted and was successful in bribing Ragnar and his army to leave his city alone by paying an extremely huge ransom of six tons of gold. (This was a sign that the 'Reign of Terror' caused by the Vikings was really working as Paris was actually really well defended, but Charles was unwilling to even take the risk of fighting the Ragnar and his Viking army.) This bribe did cause Ragnar to leave, but the stories of the amount of wealth that was available passed across the continent like wildfire and was the cause of even more Viking groups traveling to the European continent for their share of these vast and seemingly endless amounts of riches and wealth. And since each group had its own king, no other Viking leader felt the need leave the inland cities alone. Soon every river in Europe was being used by the Vikings to conquer every city within reach of these waterways... which was pretty much all the cities in Europe at that time.

The Christian religion played a huge role within the differing Viking groups. As it was with other populations around Europe during this time, Christianity became a tool used by the various Viking leaders to subdue and tame their people as well as the conquers. It is thought that Leif Ericson was the major missionary to the different viking groups of this religion – there is some thought that a Viking King in Noway asked him to specifically convert the outer-lying colonies to Christianity. He is fairly successfully although many tribesmen were reluctant to convert from their pagan traditions. Over time, Christianity was followed by the vast majority of Viking tribesmen and groups... and it was the only successful idea that unified these separate groups... as they still had no common kings/leaders or reasons to unite with each other.

Another important Viking leader was Harold Hadrada... who was a half brother of King Olaf- the king of Norway.. At fifteen years old, Harold was known to be fighting in some of the civil wars at the time. (Norway was in the midst of a civil war between the differing groups and the war had pretty much become a war between King Olaf and another leader, King Canute the Great.) After Harold was injured in the civil war when he is sixteen and King Olaf has been killed (about 1030), he is exiled from his homeland and he heads out and finds protection for himself in the city of Kiev in Kievan Rus (Russia) – ruled at that time by Yaroslav the Wise. He learns more lessons in the craft of war and becomes leader of a military force that is used by Prince Yaroslav to keep down insurrections among his people. His work and military prowess for this Prince of Kievan Rus was great and he was only able to leave his 'protection'.... by sneaking out of the country.


When Harold had become wealthy and powerful, he quietly left Keivan Rus and headed back to Norway... and within a year of co-rule with his nephew, he became the only ruler of Norway. Anyone who was suspected of treason or disagreement with Harold Hardrada was killed and he ruled his people through force... through the simple message of 'submit' or die'. He then took the knowledge that he learned in Kiev of trade and commerce and promoted it in his lands understanding that his people would be strongly united under him if the population were wealthy and prosperous. He developed a major trade center in the city of Oslo which sold goods from all over the currently known world. Unfortunately for the country of England, Harold's ambition did not fade over time and eventually an alliance was formed with the traitorous brother of the current king. The alliance with Tostig Godwinson gave Harold the excuse he was looking for to sail out and try to conquer England. The English army is extremely strong and formidable and Harold's vanity and confidence is so strong that he makes a huge tactical error and loses the fight.... and his life. Some historians see this particular battle and the death of Harold Hadrada in 1066 as the end of the 'Viking Age'.

In conclusion, what is the legacy that the Vikings left behind? One benefit of these numerous raids to the Vikings that is not commonly thought of is the tremendous amount of differing cultures and societies that they were exposed to in their quest for conquest and wealth. The legacy of the Vikings to our current world is quite vast. They leave the lasting legacy of the tales of their triumphs, ferocity, terror, and brutality. The lands that they settled in became very discreet lands with their own cultures- Norway became a solid country, Russia does as well... each with its own identity, cultures, etc.... England would fall to the Normans which would then become its own country. These individuals and groups would assimilate into the lands that they moved into and their culture would intertwine and merge with the culture around them. The practice of raiding caused the heavy fortification of Europe as well as significant feelings of 'nationalism'... something that hadn't really been seen before. The Vikings also give us the legacy of significant social and political changes, unifying with other populations by the presence of Christianity, the significant development and changes across Europe in ship building, and their legacy of improved economic growth and trade. While these groups brought lots of negatives to the areas that they interacted with, our world is truly richer because of them.