Some good thoughts

from around the Internet:

From Roger Olson on the ambiguity of theological categories:

...some people seem to be so allergic to ambiguity they simply cannot open their minds to flexible boundaries; they feel compelled to be able to know with absolute certainty who is “in” and who is “out” of a category. It’s simply not that simple in most cases.

I find that such people are what I call theological absolutists. There’s a category. What do I mean by it? By “theological absolutist” I mean someone who so identifies his or her theological concepts with revelation itself that they are unable even to consider the possibility they might be wrong. Such people also tend to hold theological categories as bounded sets when, in fact, they are centered sets without firm or definite boundaries.

How about a view of how publishing has changed over the last 25 years? And from an insider, no less:

...When Cuomo delivered the finest speech of his career at the San Francisco Democratic Convention, he flew back overnight and called Jason Epstein, Random House's legendary editorial director to complain that his wife Matilda could not find copies of his book in stores around the Cow Palace, where the convention was held. Jason listened to Cuomo's lament and quietly observed: "Governor, no author since Homer has ever found his own book in a bookstore."

Whatever else has changed in publishing over the years, that wry insight still resonates...

If you've been living in a cave, you might not know it, but Amazon has come out with an ad-based Kindle. Personally, I don't think the price difference is worth putting up with ads, but it was interesting to see that ad in books aren't new. I had forgotten it, but do remember seeing them in paperbacks way back when.

And, in what has got to be one of the craziest bills introduced into a state legislature, Hawaii introduced

H.B. 458 would have imposed civil liability on writers and publishers of travel guides – including books, websites, and advertisements – that depict or describe an attraction or activity if a reader suffers an injury or dies after trespassing to reach the site. The bill would also have imposed a duty to warn readers of any dangerous conditions “typical to the area” where the attraction or activity is located.

<idle musing>
OK, I believe in corporate responsibility, but this is craziness! Where is any sense of personal responsibility?! The bill died, but might/will probably be introduced again next year...
</idle musing>