Book Review of Meg, notes on Boston, and other odds and ends

After writing this, speculating about the continued existence of Megalodons, Gerber recommended the book Meg: A Novel of Deep Terror, about just that. It’s the story of the aptly named Jonas Taylor, a paleontologist/oceanographer/marine biologist, who believes that megalodon still exist. Everyone thinks he’s crazy, until a 60-foot behemoth, through an unlucky series of circumstances, is able to leave the trench and wreaks havoc throughout the Pacific.

The megalodon is able to rack up an impressive kill count while Taylor and some others are trying to capture it, before a climactic battle takes place between the predator, people trying to capture it, people trying to kill it, the media, and a fleet of curious onlookers. The ending here, and if you know anything about the Old Testament you can probably figure it out, is so absurdly unbelievable, even in a book about an extinct shark, that it is a little bit of a letdown.

The novel did have some great scenes, including an opening battle between a Megalodon and a Tyrannosaurus Rex. I would recommend this book based on a person’s reaction to the back cover. In big letters it says, “Two Words: Jurassic Shark.” If you rolled you eyes at that, I would stay away. If that seems pretty awesome, give the book a shot.

Moving on…

A friend and I went up to Boston this weekend to visit a third friend before he goes to spend the semester in Tahiiiiits, and some aspects of the trip were definitely worth passing on. On the drive up we saw a scene straight out of Tommy Boy. As a white pick up truck was heading north on 95, its hood flew up, completely obscuring the driver’s view through the windshield. The guy in the truck handled it like a champ, acting quickly to get to the side of the road. Presumably he then removed the empty oil can.

Saturday night we went out to bars in Plymouth. After an early last call (1 o’clock? Seriously?), we were walking to the car when someone mentioned threw out going to Plymouth Rock. Then an incredible conversation happened; a girl walking behind us blurted out, “You should definitely go to Plymouth Rock, it dances!” The guy walking with her looked at us and said, “No, it doesn’t,” to which she replied, “It does when you’re on acid.” No one raised any further arguments.

On Sunday we went to the Museum of Science, which was pretty sweet. They had a planetarium, and although not everyone managed to stay awake through it, it was still pretty cool. There was also a three D movie about sharks, narrated by a kindly British turtle, which was fun. There was one part, though, that left me completely befuddled. At one point in the movie it looked like a whole school of jellyfish were floating at the audience. Some people decided to reach out to try to touch the jellyfish. Why would anyone do this? First of all, come on, you’re in a 3D theatre, do you think they’re actually there? And second, what if you reach out and are able to grab one? Then you’re just sitting in a dark theatre with a jellyfish in your hands, not a good situation. Finally, there was a presentation about electricity. At one point, the guy running it decided to show what would happen when electricity was passed from a generator to an ungrounded person and then finally to a grounded person. So he had a girl stand on a milk crate and a boy stand on the ground next to her, and started the electricity flowing. When it got going he had them reach their fist towards the other. As the electricity was passed to the boy it gave him a little shock, and he yelped. For most people, that would be the end of the presentation, but there was something clearly wrong with this kid. He reached his hand up again, same result. Ok, maybe he was just trying to put on a good show, and that would be the end. Or maybe not. He kept reaching his hand up, three times, a fourth, yelping each time. Finally, after the ninth time, the guy running the demonstration shut off power to the generator. If he hadn’t, I can only assume that the kid would have kept electrocuting himself.

And one last marine biology note. Here's a professor in Northeastern's Masters program:





And, some other thoughts:

Today Gov. Blagojevich appointed former state Attorney General Roland Burris to fill Obama’s Senate seat. He has yet to announce how Burris compensated him, though it is probably safe to assume it’s some combination of free legal advice and connections within the state Department of Justice.

It really bothers me when football announcers call an end-around a reverse. How difficult can it be to correctly call a reverse? I mean, seriously, the play is described in its title. If the ball is handed one way, then direction is reversed when given to another player, by all means, call it a reverse. But if the quarterback just hands the ball to a wide receiver, it’s just an end around. Stop fucking this up. Also, the Hail Mary is probably my favorite play name ever.

I recently tried to read Black Belt Patriotism, Chuck Norris’ political manifesto, but I could only get through about 25 or so pages. It’s not that Chuck isn’t a passable writer, I read his western novel The Justice Riders cover to cover, but he’s out of his mind. From what I did read, though, Chuck believes there are eight major problems facing America: no national legacy, no control over spending, not enough border control, no moral compass, not enough value for human life, no future for the children, no traditional family values, and no might to fight. There are a lot of right wing buzzwords in there, but I was still willing to persevere through it. I could look past all the name dropping and bragging. I was even willing to ignore that he left out wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, perhaps not considering them to be big deals. But after what felt like the thirtieth mention of liberal judges legislating from the bench I couldn’t take it anymore. How is it that only liberal judges are said to legislate from the bench? Pretty much any time a judge issues an opinion he’s shaping the common law, in effect legislating from the bench. That’s what judges do. Why is there such a negative connotation? And why is it only attached to liberal, progressive judges? Seriously, this is pretty ridiculous.

Not to be a dick, but why are all these year-end retrospectives including Steve Fosset in with people who died in 2008? He died in 2007; I understand that his remains were found this year, but that’s still cheating.