ideatrash

Writing, publishing, geekdom, and errata.

Atomic Time

No comments
This essay was originally written in 2001, and can be found on my personal website. Feel free to poke around the stories, essays, and other weirdness collected therein. And Happy New Year. - Steve


“It’s okay. My watch is set to atomic time.”

I knew better, yet I briefly expected to see a small nuclear generator strapped to his wrist, ticking the seconds away with radioactive precision. But no, it was just a regular plastic wristwatch (though with calculator pad and memory function) set just that morning to the most accurate time in the world. Apparently even more accurate than even the ticker clock on the Weather Channel, which disagreed with the watch by four seconds.

Normally, such a small difference would be insignificant, but this was different. This was important. Someone – nobody was quite sure who – had noticed that we were running out of year. That there were only minutes left until midnight – few seconds remained of the first (or last, depending on how you want to count) year of the millennium. The previously subdued party erupted in a frenzy of channel-flipping, trying to locate the ageless Dick Clark or, failing that, a ball dropping somewhere in the world: an effort to find an “official” countdown to chant with.

There are times when it becomes painfully obvious that I no longer live on the East Coast; New Year’s is the most obvious of them. As the channels flipped by, news, after-midnight televised parties resplendent with second-rate pop icons and drunken hordes, and even the occasional rerun of a sitcom confronted us. It seemed that our only timekeeping salvation would be in the precision of a small quartz diode, only hours ago calibrated to the National Institute of Standards and Technology atomic clock, a feat made possible by technology and an Internet connection.

“We’ve still got three minutes,” the watch-holder announced. The relief was tangible – for a moment there, we were afraid we’d missed it entirely. Paces slowed, and our final preparations continued at a more sedate pace. That is, until the bathroom door swung open, and another guest who had missed the ruckus raised their watch aloft.

“I set my watch to atomic time this morning! We’ve only got sixty seconds left!”

I caught sight of my reflection in the window; outside the night was dark and freezing, moonlight shone upon the snow. Behind me the ghostly reflections of people scurried, bearing hats, noisemakers, poppers, champagne. Someone was making sure the kids – collectively and safely sequestered downstairs – were on-cue and taken care of.

And we had no idea if the New Year had come yet.

Did our resolutions count yet? Did we have time for a last cigarette, a last sugary snack, a final drink? Was it time to kiss someone, or wish for someone to kiss? Should we be toasting, singing, reminding our loved ones that they were our loved ones after all? Was it time yet to start fresh, to wipe the slate clean and try to do things a little better than we had before? Nobody knew for certain – the watches disagreed with the television channels, and all of them disagreed among themselves. No ball (or Dick Clark) was visible yet, and suggestions flew back and forth. “Try CBS.” “ABC! Dick Clark’s on ABC!” “Headline News always has a clock!” The mood was nearly frantic – several of the timekeepers already claimed we were in the New Year. Then:

“Why don’t we just say we have twenty seconds left and start counting?”

In a rollercoaster of emotion, the thought ran through our brains. Suddenly, we would decide when our New Year began. We, nobody else, would decide when to start anew, to hold ourselves to our resolutions, to love our families and remember our friends. From there, from that simple idea, realization spun outward: If it was possible to just say that the New Year began whatever time we wanted today, then we could do the same each day. Every day, every midnight, every minute could be a New Year, a new chance, a new opportunity.

The New York ball suddenly glistened upon the television in gaudy glory; someone had found it. It was a replay; Mayor Guiliani smiling as the seconds counted downward an hour ago (despite the “LIVE” blazoned in the upper-left hand corner). Dutifully, we joined in, chanting away seconds with the televised throng; distanced by thousands of miles and nearly an hour of time.

It was several minutes into the New Year, poppers popped and champagne drunk, that we noticed that the ball hadn’t agreed with either of the disagreeing watches, both meticulously set to atomic time.

No comments :

Grumpy Comedians

No comments
I remember hearing George Carlin on a cassette tape, at a friend's house. We were teenagers, and only vaguely delinquent. We laughed as we smoked and listened; a break from the otherwise boring routine in my hometown. Seven dirty words. Fussy eater. We rolled.

Cut to twenty years later. I vaugely remembered that I stopped liking Carlin; remembered commenting that he'd just gotten bitter. But I wanted my wife to see "Fussy Eater". (Because, you see, she is. Hence the funny.)

The Carlin retrospective we watched started back in the 70's - and included all the bits that I remembered. I noticed, though, that with the Seven Dirty Words bit, that the crowd wasn't laughing for the same reason that Carlin was. The crowd was simply titillated (my wife's very apt term) at his profanity in public. Carlin, on the other hand, was poking fun at our social conventions and the ludicrous arbitrary nature of them.

Then we got to the later parts. Eventually we had to turn it off in the middle of a rant about things that annoyed him while driving. Y'know - stop lights. Joggers. Bikers. Other people. Basically anything that wasn't part of his plans and wasn't actively helping him.

I still don't know if it was satire; the advice to tell a cop that you shouldn't get a ticket because you've got a bunch of heroin to deliver couldn't have been serious. Maybe it was him trying to poke fun at excessively irritable road-raging drivers.

But if so, the crowd, once again, didn't get it. They roared approval as they took him at face value. Instead of mocking selfishness, the audience appeared to be taking it as straight commentary.

Maybe it's just because I'm comparing him to Bill Hicks; also outrageous, Bill wouldn't hesitate to let you know that you were the butt of the joke. All of them, really. Carlin's later satire - if it was satire, and not just the comedic equivalent of "You dadgum kids get off of my lawn!" - empowered instead of deflating those it lampooned.

There's a responsibility that comes with satire. It's the responsibility to make sure that it's not perceived as being a celebration of what they're mocking. Jonathan Swift's _A Modest Proposal_ is a genius bit of satire.

But something tells me he would've been upset if someone actually went to Dublin and started feasting.

No comments :

Taking Veggie Tales waaaaay too seriously.

No comments
The Pirates Who Don't Do Anything is a cute Veggie Tales movie, with plenty of intentional funny moments (and quite a few unintentional ones if you're feeling sarcastic). I'm told that I look like Larry dressed up as a pirate (I'm not sure if this is a compliment or not), and we're not sure if the blind character is a leek or something else. We watched it last night with our son, and there was something about it that bothered me, though.

Um, there are vague spoilers here - but nothing you shouldn't expect if you're at all familiar with VT at all. (We're talking along the lines of "Disney movies end happily" spoilers.)

Unlike the Veggie Tales half-hour spots, there was no explicit references to Christianity (though it was a pretty direct and obvious analogy). That wasn't a big deal for us, nor was the primary moral (it's VT, of course there's a moral) of "Just because you're called someone lowly doesn't mean you can't be a hero."

The problem I had was with the King (I *told* you the analogies are obvious) telling our protagonists this:

"I gave you everything you needed to succeed. All you had to do was to try hard enough."

Okay, I'm roughly paraphrasing, but that's the basic idea. My wife missed it, but it caught my attention. There's a "good" lesson there - "Don't assume you can't do things" - but the flip side of it is a wee bit more ... evil.

The flip side can be best expressed as "If you fail, it's just because you didn't try hard enough." Or for a more explicitly religious tone: "If you truly believe and pray, the good things you want will happen."

I've met people who completely lost their faith because of this. They prayed for a loved one to get well, they prayed for success, they believed as hard as they could that everything would work out.

And then the loved one dies, the business fails. Things don't work out. And it's not because of an illness, it's not because of a recession, it's not because of any of a dozen reasons.

It's because THEY didn't pray hard enough; THEY didn't believe hard enough.

That kind of literal translation between degree of faith and material success is a big mistake. It presumes that your plans are the same as the Divine's plans.

In case anyone forgot, Yeshua's ministry didn't "succeed" in anything like a traditional sense. But even within the Christian tradition, that *lack* of success was part of the Plan.

This is where we can re-invigorate Christianity by looking to Eastern faiths. Buddhism and Taoism look to reduce "attachment" to things and goals - to accept things as they are. The Christian equivalent is accepting things as part of an ineffable plan - and really, truly believing that the plan *is* ineffable.

No comments :

The New Pharisees

No comments
Let me make this clear: My problems with Christianity (and in particular, the Roman Catholic Church, which I nominally belong to) are problems not so much with the core theology.

It's problems with people.

Let me make it clearer: I don't mean that I have problems with Christians that sin; I do not expect anyone to be perfect. Instead, I have problems with people who force their religious intolerance in my face, or who insist both that they are right - and that everyone be like them. It's the parishioners who get offended at people who don't wish them a "Merry Christmas" back. It's the parishioners who judge status by where you are in the building, what service you go to, and what you wear. It's the Knights of Columbus shifting its focus from taking care of its member's families towards enacting political gains (like abolishing abortion, supporting proposition 8, and even historically having "under God" added to the Pledge). It's the friggin' Pope - yes, I realize it's not ex cathedra, but still - denouncing gender studies and talking about the homosexual menace. Sure, he talks about peace in the middle east for 197,090,443 people - but (even with pessimistic estimates of 5%) - simultaneously condemns 330,111,208 homosexuals. (6,602,224,175 * 0.05) It's likely that because of his ideological adherence to the "law", that this far greater number of people will experience more biogtry, hatred, and violence.

Pharisees. Sadducees.

They weren't horrible people. They were - and still are, for many people - portrayed as the selfish, shortsighted, and (vaguely or not) evil priests and scholars that crucified Yeshua. But they weren't, not really. Just like any group, there were people who were more interested in selfish gain. There were others interested in preserving the status quo for themselves.

But I believe they predominately were people who truly thought they were doing the right thing. They were following the Law - or at least, were trying to. They were keeping an abusive dominating power from smashing them again. So they obsessed over cleanliness, and when to do what. They focused on the rituals and the mechanisms - the "sure things" that simply weren't going to change.

And they were wrong.

In any caring system, in any system of mutual support, it's easy to be taken advantage of. Con artists of all types - whether corporate hacksters, Wall Street financiers, or street-level card sharps - manipulate and abuse that trust. All too often, they "get away" with it - especially the white-collar crime types - because they aren't that far outside "the rules" (or it is completely legal as well).

Yeshua - along with other rabbis at the time - had a wonderful insight. That the rules don't matter. All the codified commentary on the Torah is extrapolation on a simple, single rule: Love the Divine, and be excellent to other people.

If you do those things, you fulfill the rest of the Law. If you stop, if you reflect, if you consider other people, you can fulfill the Law even as you break it.

It's interesting that commentators spring up to say that Yeshua wasn't "really" breaking the Law by healing on the Sabbath, because admitting such undermines their own authority. It's interesting that commentators (both Christian and not) point out that "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you" doesn't work for people with differing aims, because such arguments show that they don't "get" what Yeshua said.

It's interesting that we have preachers and prominent Christians, that we have scholars and priests who are following the Rules of the Law to the best of their abilities.

And they - whether scholar or preacher, priest or pope - apparently haven't understood it yet.

Merry Christmas.

(In case you're wondering, Yeshua ben Yosef is the best guess we have as to the real name of the man we call Jesus Christ. Christ is a title that means "lord". And yes, it is finally now just beginning the Christmas season, even though everyone's taking the decorations down.)

No comments :

Gifts - A Flash Fiction

No comments
(As a brief aside, I've been writing a flash fiction or essay each year for our holiday cards. If you didn't get one, it's either because you moved and I still have your old address, I don't have your address at all, or because I have to send mail through your publisher. Feel free to e-mail or PM me with your address so I can have it right for next year...)

Therese rang their Christmas family's doorbell, pulling her finger back before any of the paint could peel off onto her new coat. All of her co-worker's donations sat in the large cardboard box at her feet. The pile of gift-wrapped dollar store presents and discount mart donations were a respectable demonstration of their Christmas spirit. This is the part that makes it worth it, she told herself. This is what kept her braving those stores with those people, even though Jack wasn't with her.

The gusting wind cut through the expensive stitches of her coat, tickling her chest. Therese wrapped her arms and stamped her feet, hard enough she could feel it in her ribs. It just seemed colder this year, that's all.

She forced her frozen mouth into a smile as Caroline opened the battered door. They'd obviously just returned, the children in the process of shedding their school lives in snaking trails across the hall, living room, and in paths terminating at their room.

"Come in," Caroline said.

The oldest child - was her name Tamiko or Taneko, Therese couldn't remember - saw the box of gift-wrapped boxes coming in the door. The little girl squealed in seven-year-old delight.

"Just put them under the tree!" Therese snapped - a little more harshly than she'd intended - as the children raced back into the room. "They're for Christmas, not now."

The children quickly ferried the boxes to the tree, and Therese found Caroline's arms embracing her. The hoarseness of the younger woman's voice surprised Therese. "Thank you so much, Thank you....I don't know how I could have...."

Therese hugged her back, feeling a warmth she hadn't known since Jack passed. The children came and hugged her legs, encasing Therese in a bundle of warm, thankful bodies. Therese hugged Caroline a little harder.

Over Caroline's shoulder, Therese could just see the other woman's shopping, still unpacked. Surely it was her tears that kept Therese from reading the cut-rate store's name imprinted on the plastic.

Yes. It had to be the tears.


Happy Holidays.

No comments :

Of Families and Kites

No comments
This time of year - even moreso than Thanksgiving - has people talking about and thinking about "family". In my experience (both personally and talking to others), family isn't just a Rockwell-esque source of comfort and joy. Instead, families of origin are a primary cause of most of the social ills that affect both individuals and our society.

It started to become really apparent when I talked about S's mental illness to my co-workers and friends. Suddenly, they were admitting when siblings, cousins, or even thier own children had done horrible things... or the horrible things their parents had done to them. Yet, without my saying something first, they'd kept these things secret and safe for years. There are a lot more screwed up families out there than you'd think by casual observation; I'd dare say that dysfunctional is the norm in our society.

But you can't just eliminate families and raise people on farms. Families are not just damaging, they're also tremendously important - that's how you get socialized originally, they provide the interactions that bring about consciousness, and so on.

Part of the problem is that - both societally and as individuals - we rarely deal with those relationships for what they are. It's the same problem with philosophical zombies and religion; the relationships become institutions and rituals instead of dynamic changing processes. The concept of "blood is thicker than water" is a perfect example. That guidance would lead you to support a crack-addicted sister (and lead both of you to eventual ruin) instead of aiding your best friend. If infants were switched at birth, and the parents didn't find out until years later, why does it matter? How many people (or at least, movie plotlines) involve a child wanting to win their parent's attention or affection? How many adoptive mothers are more of a mom than the biological mother? (Jim Hines wrote Gift of the Kites, a good (blub warning) bit of fiction over on Clarkesworld that I happened to read right after writing the draft of this, and addresses the whole thing really well)

There's a societal desire there to have an archetypical relationship or to have archetypes as relatives instead of real people. And when our expectations don't meet reality, we're disappointed.

But none of us are archetypes. None of our relationships are perfect.

But we can start making them better by assessing them objectively, and re-evaluating them constantly. We can ditch the ideological definitions of family and start dealing with reality on the ground. Maybe there are people in your "family" you aren't related to - and maybe there are people in your biological "family" that haven't treated you like kin in decades.

Maybe we just need to fly some kites.

No comments :

An Open Letter to Mr. Obama

No comments
Ms. Steinel (aka The Portly Dyke) has a wonderful letter up about the homophobic pastor who is going to be performing the invocation in a little less than a month.

It's worth reading. Go ahead and read it, then come back.

This paragraph is why I'm not just linking to it:

I believe that sadness is to the heart and soul as hunger is to the body -- and I believe that my hunger is this: I want to be included in your diverse, but United, States of America.


And it became obvious to me what should happen.

There should be a mass invocation. Represent as many faiths as possible. All of them. Doing serial invocations, or one big one. It doesn't matter. Oh, and include the atheists and humanists too - there are humanist invocations, y'know.

Because that is the point - that we shouldn't have to be a homogeneous anything, and especially not a homogeneous nothing.

Perhaps some faiths would decline the offer if they had to do their public blessing alongside Buddhists, Wiccans, atheists (do you capitalize that?), or whatever. Which would be fine - as long as they were the ones choosing to not participate.

So, allow me to add my thoughts to Ms. Steinel's. And I hope some staffer, some person at the transition teams sees this solution to the whole issue and passes it up to Mr. Obama.

Mr. Obama, I - like Ms. Steinel and so many others - believe in this new dream you brought to us:

Let us be not be a divided America, but a diverse America.

Let it start with the invocation on the day of your inauguration.

No comments :

Damn good questions

No comments
I'm speaking about Kelly Swails' honest questions - why aren't people talking about Blago (the corrupt Gov. in Illinois) more in connection with Obama? She's not saying that there's any real link, just that they were part of the same system - and that she believes the system is corrupt. Isn't that a good reason to be leery of Obama?

Yeah, I disagree. This isn't a surprise. But it's good - no, great - to have the question asked. Groupthink is a bad thing, no matter who is doing it. So here's the three big threads of her post (as I interpreted it):

1) Corruption is everywhere in Illinois politics. How much can you trust someone who built their career in such corrupt place?
2) Obama moved to Illinois to get into politics - this wasn't an accident of birth. See point #1.
3) Chicago's Superintendent of Schools as being appointed the Sec. of Education is a bad thing

So, in reverse order, my reflection on the questions.

#3- I have no idea about this. I do know that it's easy for a superintendent to make schools worse, but that it's much harder to make them better. Other than that? I don't know much either the schools there or the superintendent. Even the little I have heard (from This American Life) is dated from 2004, and only mentions Mr. Duncan at the end.

#2 - Obama moved to Chicago not for politics, but for a job as the Director of the Developing Communities Project, a church-based community organization. There's more about the public details of his life on Wikipedia. (To be fair, I thought he went there for school, which is me getting my wife's aspirations of being a student mixed up with Obama's time teaching at the University of Chicago.) As someone who moved a lot and has felt the negative effects of relocation on social networks, I can understand returning.

#1 - Coming from a state with its own corruption issues with Governors (I'm originally from West Virginia), I think I can speak a little to this. The major factors in dealing with (and avoiding falling yourself) with corruption and incompetence are patience and will. The will is to keep going, the patience is so that you don't give up and just go somewhere else. I'm notoriously short on the latter - and it's one of the things that I admire about Obama. Had I been in any of the debates, it probably would have resembled a Springer show. Better ratings, more entertaining - but ultimately a Bad Thing. Openly denouncing people - especially when you don't *have* to - doesn't help you in any way. (see footnote below). The kind of crap that completely wears me down as I try to fight it is the kinds of stuff he had to deal with - and he's somehow managed to be a reasonably sane person. Also, being an adult transplant makes it easier to see such systems as an "outsider" and not get sucked into them; I have a very different perspective on local politics than equally intelligent people who have lived here all their lives. Or to put it in parable form, seeds tossed onto the sidewalk or brush find it very hard to grow - but some seeds might just succeed.

And as a meta-reflection, I, like a lot of people who blogged and volunteered during the election cycle are *tired*. It feels like we passed the finish line, so the enthusiasm (and frankly, the amount that we've followed the news) has declined. Kelly's perfectly right to point out that this isn't a simple race to the top; it's a marathon. Too often we just push until the election's over, then give the politicians a free pass. All of them - Obama included - must be held to the standards we (and they) espoused during the election. A polite - but firm - skepticism like Ms. Swails' is exactly what we need.

(The footnote: Let's pretend that then-Senator Obama in 2005 had denounced Blago. What would have happened? Blago was already being investigated, as Kelly pointed out. It's unlikely that it would have done anything save angering Blago and hurting Obama's own efforts. It does NOT require being complicit himself. Sometimes one has to make the difficult but pragmatic choices of where to do the most good; it's that choice that I tend to flub.)

No comments :

Celebrity Shock

1 comment
As I scanned through the last quarter's worth of the Writer magazine (yes, scanning...somehow I was supposed to have free time now...) I noticed that many of the author credits had a phrase like "An award winning essayist and short-story writer" or "Their novel was selected as one of the year's best by [a local newspaper]."

Which made me realize something (aside from the first phrase insinuating but not stating that the short stories won awards).

I am an award-winning essayist, an award-winning poet, and an award-winning short story writer. But that gives me no special authority to tell you squat about writing. I've gotten - and eagerly absorbed - a lot of writing advice. Some of it works for me. Some hasn't. Some I've simply not tried yet. Some "exercises" have left me cold even though they sounded wonderful, others that had seemed stupid left me sweating and spent after a mad rush of prose flowed onto the keyboard. It doesn't matter who gave the advice or lessons so much as the content therein.

I think this is a generalizable thing. Credentials aren't a guarantee of quality, even though we treat them that way. I'm not sure how we could replace them, even in something more empirical than writing, let alone in the arts.

In the meantime, I will take in the content, and use what works and discard the rest. I urge you to do the same.

(This blog post was written by an award-winning author!!!!!1!11!!)

1 comment :

Why civil rights matter...

1 comment
I just finished telling a national organization that I think they should pursue GBLT rights as a major goal this year. Given that my candidate chose a notoriously anti-gay preacher to give the invocation at the inauguration... well, that makes me unhappy. Anyway, they asked for a "story" explaining why that goal was important to me. Here's mine:

As a white, straight, Christian male, I have only experienced exclusion and discrimination a few times in my life. As a servicemember in Korea, I was denied entrance to a club and cabs passed me by simply because of the color of my skin. At some of my duty stations, because my denomination of Christianity was not well represented, I was excluded both maliciously and simply by being forgotten and overlooked.

Those times hurt. More than I would have suspected before they happened to me.

I cannot imagine the horror of having that kind of exclusion and discrimination happen every day.

It simply must end.


I think that's important to remember. Both that my examples of experiencing discrimination are nothing compared to the everyday discrimination that others face - but that they do give me some clue to what it must be like. If it hurt that bad for me, then how much worse it be for others who don't have the same advantages that I have?

I use that paradigm a lot when talking about white privilege. If it's hard for you, then imagine how much harder it is for someone who looks different, sounds different, or acts just differently enough. I don't think that civil rights legislation will fix that kind of prejudice, but it will force us to interact with other people who are different than ourselves.

And that will change things.

1 comment :

The melted pot

No comments
I distinctly remember being taught the concept of the melting pot in third grade. The illustration had cartoon people hanging off the edges of a large stewpot into the water, apparently so caught up in the spirit of bonhomie that they didn't realize they had become food. I drew a Pac-Man in the book as the chef.

Even then the idea of an American melting pot was on the way out. The overtones of assimilation were too strong, even in the analogy. Add cream to tomato soup, and you have creamy tomato soup, but tomato soup nonetheless. The homogeneous nature of the model is the problem. The dominant quality of the thing prevails and subsumes the subordinate.

Sinoangle at Resist Racism rails against the anti-Christmas movement done in the name of "inclusion". They have a good point - but it's the same problem as the "melting pot", just approached from the other side. Instead of a homogeneous dominant flavor of soup, we'll instead have a pot of hot water.

Instead, we should strive for stew. (Yum. Stew.) Stew has a lot of ingredients. They all influence each other, but each ingredient (meat, potatoes, green beans, etc) retains a good portion of its original characteristics. Additionally, they all work together to make the flavor of the dish.

Looking at the winter holidays as a stew means that there are non-religious christmas celebrations and religious Christmas ones, that there is room for Eid and Bodhi day and Chaunakah and Kwanzaa and all the rest. That there is room for secular solstice celebrations and neo-pagan Yules and Saturnalias.

Christmas is a perfect holiday for this to happen with. So many of the associated images and traditions of the holiday are not Christian in origin - though they can be Christian in intent. It has been influenced by other faiths and practices while not losing its essential character. We can easily make room for our brothers and sisters of all faiths and paths to celebrate however they choose, without giving up our own celebrations.

Whatever they might be.

No comments :

Santa - a flash fiction

No comments
"I don't understand why we bother," he groused, dodging yet another overloaded shopper careening past. The line moved forward a step. The three of them - he, his wife, and son - moved together. Step.

His wife nudged him into silence, her voice pitched so the boy couldn't hear it over the piped-in carols. "We do it for him."

"But it's not real," he said, waving his hand at the front of the line. The boy's gaze was still fixed there, entranced by costumed performers and faux mall elves. "It's all just a fantasy. It's just something in his head."

His wife turned full towards him, hands on hips. "Lots of things are true just because someone believes in them."

"Like what?"

"Like our marriage."

He turned away from her cold eyes, her hard face. He turned back towards the glittering plastic snow, towards the cracked plaster and fading candy cane gates of the model North Pole.

The line moved forward a step.

"We do it for him," his wife said. "We do it for him."

No comments :

Things That Should Be Simple

No comments
For some reason, there's been a slew of little minor social annoyances that simply Should Not Be. They're easy to fix, and generally shouldn't be a problem, but still (inexplicably) are. So today I bring you:

Things that should be simple


A list that's sure to grow




  1. The automation of e-cards, especially when I'm one of a zillion people you cc'ed (instead of BCC'ed), makes that touch a wee bit less personal. That's okay, just don't expect the same reaction as you would have otherwise.

  2. Columbus mistakenly called Native Americans "Indians" five hundred years ago. We've changed a lot of things in the last 500 years; that "I've always called them Indians" is still a socially acceptable phrase (rather than a blinding stigma of racism and/or stupidity) demonstrates how racist/stupid our society is.

  3. "Christmas" means one and only one holiday. "Holidays" includes Christmas, but recognizes there are other holidays too. So deciding that "Happy Holidays" isn't good enough for you is just being greedy and selfish.

  4. Christians used to use the symbol "x" for Christ, so Xmas is NOT inherently disrespectful. And, um, CHRIST is a title, not a name. If you're going to be "offended" by disrespecting your religion, at least get the facts right, okay?

  5. If you're going to publicly espouse any possibly contentious view (including these!), be prepared to have someone challenge it. Talking loudly in eating areas is "in public". Having a conversation in the hall - or loudly on your phone - is in public.

  6. If one makes a rule, one should enforce it. If one is unwilling or unable to enforce the rule, don't make it in the first place.

  7. If you're breaking a rule in public (say, "no smoking" or "no cell phones"), you lose all right to be angry when someone calls you on it.

  8. Workers: When you say "Have a Nice Day", look at the customer. Customers: When the worker says "Have a Nice Day", respond to them as if you mean it

  9. The next person - and I'm lookin' at you, Mike Huckabee - who uses reproduction of the species as an argument against gay marriage is risking violence. Because at that point, you've invalidated every couple who cannot have children for whatever reason. Considering the billions of dollars that pour into infertility treatments in this country, I don't think that's a trivial number of people whose marriages are being called inconsequential.



Have A Nice Day!

No comments :

A Secular Sacred Christmas

1 comment
Not feeling like Christmas is no stranger to me, but it was strange to hear my wife say it.

"It just doesn't feel like Christmas there," she says. "Everyone just unwraps everything all at once. It's a gift orgy, really." She took a deep breath, as if inhaling the melancholy that had wafted about me all day. "They don't celebrate Christmas the way we do. It's just so... secular."

"I don't think that's what you mean," I said. "I think the word you want isn't secular, but greedy."

Our religious views and habits have been a source of some contention lately, but this wasn't about that. She's right; I've been around plenty of families (including my ex-wife's) that simply tear into the gifts under the tree with wild abandon. And it does feel empty, and shallow, and, well, greedy. But that's not being secular either.

The entire tradition of gifts at Christmas is far removed from its religious origins (and yes, both the pagan holiday and Christian appropriation). It's hard to relate getting a new Playstation to anything religious. But it's the quality of sacredness that she was referring to, and so I'd like to share our Christmas tradition with you.

We do not visit relatives, nor do we answer the phone - at least, not until dinnertime. One gift may be opened on Christmas Eve, though that might become optional soon. We prefer Christmas Eve services (and preferentially Midnight Mass).

On Christmas Day itself, the children may get things out of the stocking before we get up, but nothing more. (Fruits, candies, and small toys may appear there, as if placed by the hands of mischievous but vaguely healthy elves.) We eat breakfast, then proceed to slowly open presents. We take turns; the children wait while the parents open as well. Each gift is examined to see whom it is from, then opened. (A frenzy of opening that one present may occur, and is, indeed, encouraged.) But here's the key part - when that present is opened, the child is encouraged to try it on, play with it, to explore. Last year we stopped for an hour or two while my son and I played a newly opened game. We may take the entire morning doing this, appreciating the gifts instead of just tossing them aside and reaching for the next one.

This is the flip side of adopting a true spirit of giving. To truly give a gift, one must be concerned about the enjoyment of the other, not recognition of oneself. In turn, as the recipient, one must appreciate the gift and the spirit in which it was given. (Yes, that means you have to try to appreciate the fugly sweater with too-long sleeves your aunt got you. Again.)

It's this reflection, and time with your immediate family, that makes this sacred. It isn't a religious element; the same thing can be used with any celebration with gifts. It is entirely possible to have a sacred secular Christmas; it's equally possible to have one that claims to be religious, and be utterly profane.

I challenge you, then, this holiday season. Celebrate your holidays. Celebrate them secularly or religiously.

But do this: Make them sacred. Celebrate them without greed.

Every Day is Exactly the Same

No comments
"Oh, American Beauty. That movie made me think. I hated it."

I froze. I really like American Beauty, and had almost said so. Instead, I said: "Why did you hate it?"

"It took everything America's been built on - hard work, doing your best, and being responsible, and turned them on their head. It threw all of that into the gutter."

Which was, of course, very much the reason I liked the film. And still do.

It's an American Beauty kind of day for me, with a running Stars of the Lid soundtrack (with occasional dips into NiN). It's grey, almost rainy, and just wetly chilly enough to be uncomfortable. It's a day fit for a kind of pop-psychological introspection that feels so unique and personal, but is common to everybody.

It's like being a teenager, but with less emotion and more angst and ennui.

Leaving a friend's birthday dinner, I overheard the teenage hostesses. "You're still a kid," the older said. "Hell, I'm still a kid. Neither of us is thinking like a grownup yet."

"You won't ever feel like a grownup," I said. "You'll always feel like a kid, wondering when you'll feel grownup. Instead, you'll just feel like a kid who has too many rules, and realizes the rules won't go away."

I wanted to say that, but I couldn't. There's an unspoken rule about that, too.

Gah. I don't like these kinds of days. Maybe some more rum cake would help...

No comments :

Customer Service Safewords

No comments
Can technology customer service have a safeword? Something like "I know what a SDIMM chip is" or "I've configured triggered port forwarding by reading man pages" that lets you skip past the script-kiddie "support"? My last couple calls to tech support (regardless of company) were typified by me being a step ahead of their instructions. Example.

CS: "Okay, we're going to go to the router's settings page. Open Internet Explorer. Have you done that?"
ME: "Already looking at it."
CS: "Okay, you should see a prompt that asks you for the password. Enter "password" there."
ME: "No, I'm already past that. I changed the default password already. I told you I was already at the settings page."
CS: "It should have asked for your password."
ME: "It did. I'm already past that. I read the manual."
CS: "Is it asking for your password yet? Maybe we need to reinstall the factory settings."
ME: [Sighing, getting ready to lie.] "Oh, look. There it is. Asking for my password."

For an HOUR AND A HALF as the guy walked me through doing all the things I'd already told him that I'd done twice before. Forget where the support centers are geographically located; I just want one that isn't frazzled when I say my default browser isn't Internet Explorer, I don't use Outlook, and, no, I don't use Windows Media Player to play MP3 files.

This has been my typical customer support call since 1997. It doesn't matter what company, or about what kind of system. If I'm calling tech support, it's a funky question - and ever since Mindspring sold out to Earthlink a decade or so ago, I've not found a person on the phone who can help. It's frustrating, let me tell you.

No comments :

The More They Change - A Flash Fiction

No comments
"It ain't the same nomore."

Joel winced at the words, then checked to make sure granpa hadn't seen it. They were making their way down the rows of corn. Joel bent over to make sure the insect he saw really was a ladybug and not something more destructive. At least there wasn't any worry about weeds.

"I said, it ain't the same nomore."

Joel sighed. "How's that, granpa?" He knew the answer - could say it along with the old man - but granpa was set on telling it anyway. Joel tuned out the lecture, nodding and "um-huh"ing on automatic. He just listened for the transition points to keep his place. Cold going to school. Real bugs. Artificial fertilizer. Hail. Storms, Tornadoes. Back to walking uphill in snow to school. They were almost at the elevator. Thank God.

"Granpa, you go first in the elevators."

As they rode, passing floors of wheat, corn, and soy visible through the plexiglass doors of the elevator, Joel's granpa shook his head.

"It just ain't the same nomore."


You can read more about vertical farms at their site.

No comments :

Router and DSL Modem Issues

No comments
I spent most of last evening replacing my DSL modem with a new one.

This should have been a simple thing. My router is a separate bit of equipment, and had all the configuration stuff set up. I just got a simple modem, with a single ethernet jack. It looked very similar to the one that had bricked that morning.

Except it had a router in it as well.

Why you'd have a router in a bit of equipment with only one ethernet jack (and no wireless) I don't know. Still, I got it to directly connect to my ISP and to my laptop. Next was getting it to share the connection through the wireless router.

So I spent the next several hours - including one and a half on the phone with tech support - trying to make the wireless router and the router in the DSL modem play nice with each other.

I tried turning DHCP off on one bit of hardware, then the other. I tried plugging cables into different ports. I don't know how many times I reset and rebooted systems. I was almost able to get it to work by turning the wireless router's DHCP off, but then the DHCP server on the modem wouldn't assign IP addresses to wireless devices.

Tech support's answer was that since I could get one computer to connect to the internet, the problem must be in my router, so it wasn't their problem. (grrrrrrrrrr)

I've put the specific hardware to help others who are searching, but I think this basic solution will generally work for others who are having the same kind of issue.

The final answer that I finally found on a forum somewhere was this:


  1. Hook the ethernet cable to the dsl modem.

  2. Choose "Bridging mode" on the DSL modem for the network connection type. Click "next" through all of that. Reboot the DSL modem using the interface. You won't be able to access the GUI after that, but that's okay.

  3. Move the ethernet cable to your router.

  4. Hook an ethernet cable from the router's "Internet" or "WAN" port to the DSL modem's port.

  5. Configure it to use PPPOE and put in your ISP's login settings.


...and it works like it's supposed to, bridging the signal from the phone line to the ethernet line. The wireless router now handles NAT translation, DHCP, and so on.

Hopefully this will help someone else out there...

NETGEAR DSL MODEM DM111P
LINKSYS Wireless router WRT54G

No comments :

Escaping the Meat

No comments
Between my back, a lingering back-of-the-throat cold, vague aches and the long-present allergies and poor vision, I've been all too aware of the fragility of my body.

This is a discomforting thing.

Being a sci-fi geek, I immediately turn to visions of the Singularity. A common aspect of visions of the Singularity is that we'll be able to escape our bodies - whether through uploads and branching instances (Accelerando), or a new life through clones and transfers of mentality (Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom, Old Man's War"). My problem with those has always been one encapsulated by the ultimate question of Gaiman's Sandman - point of view. An uploaded copy of me *isn't* me. The point of view that's writing now will still be stuck in the meat. The singularity is no more immortality from this perspective than writing, artwork, or children. Your point of view is still meat-bound.

Maybe.

I have been sleeping in a chair this week to help my back recover. It's helped, but it's unusual enough that my sleep patterns have been disrupted. Last night, while falling asleep, I had a somewhat persistent sensation of being *more* than just the meat. I don't mean some kind of out-of-body stuff; I mean that I felt like "I" was the room, the chair, the dogs, my wife, the laptop, *everything* in the room. Yeah, it might just be the drugs and fatigue, but it was a very compelling sensation. And that makes me wonder.

There's parts of the brain that, when activated, make the person in question lose the boundaries of "self" at the meat. It's generally presumed that activating these areas (like activating the so-called "God Module") are *faults* in the system; short circuits that don't represent what's really going on. But maybe that's ass-backwards. The appeal of Mead for me - who basically posits that your consciousness is made up of interactions with other things and therefore isn't just in the meat - is that he gives a good explanation how consciousness could develop. His concept is rather compatible with the evolutionary biology and sociobiology in vogue as of late - while still maintaining some degree of (pardon the sociology joke) "me-ness".

So that activation might just be the meat being able to really grasp what's going on; that we are far more distributed and far more connected than we normally think. As a result, our separateness is an illusion, and actual Singularity-style uploads may be more accurate than previously believed.

No comments :

Radicals aren't (just) out to get you

No comments
Radicalism doesn't necessarily come from the intensity or degree of one's beliefs. It comes from a lack of faith in others. It comes from a feeling of being ignored and unable to participate in the process. It comes from being excluded.

This seems simple to solve. This isn't exactly a new hypothesis - if the end to radicalism is so obvious, then we should have done it already and entered into an era of peace and love and happy singing birds (or singing dinosaurs, depending on your preferences).

Conflict theory claims that the persistence of radicalism and violence is because those in power do not wish to give it up. That's certainly true in many cases. When parents are bossed around by children, we disapprove of it so strongly that we make reality TV shows out of it, where an English nanny or a somewhat smarmy psychiatrist administers advice on daytime TV.

But that's not all cases. The remainder are, surprisingly, easily explained as well.

Ideology has a strong influence here. A rigid, uncompromising view means that one's odds of getting what you want are substantially lower. But those with a relatively moderate ideology can still become radicalized - and it's because they *don't believe* they're being heard.

I've seen managers make overtures to workers - and be greeted with distrust and anger. It's not because of the managers' self-perception; at those times they may be truly wishing to cede some power and authority in return for teamwork. The perception is in the workers. Regardless of what management says, the workers do not *see* trust - they see just another ploy. Rather than work with the system, rather than talk, they'd rather strike, grumble, sabotage, or just plain complain.

This principle scales. The more one thinks they can influence others (whether through votes, words, whatever), the less likely they are to try violence. The less one believes they can actually participate in the system, the more likely they are to go outside the system. It's true that sometimes, with some people, it is impossible to bridge that gap. But to presume that entire groups, entire swaths of people are unable to be reasoned with... that's our shortcoming, not theirs.

The challenge for us with privilege is twofold: Both to hear those who are willing to work with us, and to remember that the burden of proof - the evidence that we *are* really listening this time - is not on them... but on us.

No comments :

Manifesto Games (xpost)

No comments
(Crossposted between the Resource List and Ideatrash)

As I spent the last few days sitting (I threw my back out over the weekend), I spent a lot of time installing software and migrating data from my old PC. During that process, I was reminded once again why I really like Manifesto Games.

Manifesto is a distributor of independent games, mostly for the PC but many also for the Mac. I recommend them for a couple of big reasons.


  • Their customer service is awesome. E-mails are returned within the day, and the staff treat you like a real person, not some cardboard cutout "customer" thing. When I was just moving to a new PC and had a problem re-registering the program, they were helpful and treated me like a truthful person. In contrast, DataViz (who makes a program for my Palm) recognized that I was the legitimate owner - but made me pay more to them in "download insurance" for a product I'd already bought.

  • They feature (good) independent games. Big game companies - just like big film and music companies - have big economic motives to make games that are just like everything else. Sure, the big franchises are fun, but that doesn't mean they're the ONLY things that are fun. Starships Unlimited is a fun, polished 4x game that rivals many commercial offerings. Mudcraft is a fun RTS (like Warcraft 1-3 or Starcraft) that *doesn't involve combat*.

  • Indie games tend to focus on gameplay, not mechanics. Strange Adventures in Infinite Space is a fun casual game, but still ran well on my nearly decade-old computer. Oasis doesn't have the most awesome graphics out there - but it's a compelling, challenging game. How many games have had great eye candy - but were horrible (or worse, boring) to play?

  • Try before you buy. I love the shareware concept nearly as much as I do the open-source one, especially for games. It's all too easy to buy a game because of a review or cool cover - and find out the play isn't what you expected at all. This happened with my wife and NiGHTS Journey of Dreams. She expected a lush, visually rich RPG-ish game. It is lush and a beautifully rendered game but can't play it because the roller-coaster 3D effect of the gameplay makes her nauseated. I had a similar experience with Lux Delux - it seems like a nice game if you like Risk-like games... but I didn't find it to my taste. Likewise, I've seen games that claimed to run on older systems... and did... but so poorly that they were unplayable. Manifesto's format of trying the demo lets you buy the games you'll truly enjoy. Neither my wife or I knew if we'd like Virtual Villagers, but once we tried it we knew we would buy it.

  • Reasonable prices. Games on Manifesto average about $20 a pop. Some of the ones I mentioned are for $10 or $15. Not bad for something you already know you're going to like.



So the next time you're bored, give Manifesto a look. They've done right by me, and I think you'll enjoy their offerings too.

No comments :

Taboo - A Flash Fiction

No comments
Another week, another flash fiction (despite spending the beginning of the week on painkillers from throwing my back out again...)

"I do not like to speak Spanish in public," she said, hoping he and his bright, inquisitive eyes would just go away.

"Well, could I practice with you? I am having problems in my Spanish class."

Kate ("Katiana," her mother whispers in accented English) twirls a dyed blonde strand of her hair. She prays he has not heard her call home.

"No. I do not remember that much, anyway. I am sorry."

"Lo siento, tambien," he says, walking away.

That night, she hears Univision from her mother's television and cries. It is a melodramatic soap opera.

She understands every word.

No comments :

Sharing the Struggle

1 comment
"Black voters overwhelmingly turned out for Obama, who they perceived as sharing their struggle. Interestingly, Obama has no personal connection to America's history of slavery; his father was Kenyan."

That's not an exact quote (though it's as close as I can remember one particular example). It's an amalgam of several I've seen in the post-election analysis. That paragraph - or one very much like it - has appeared in all the major news sources, and many of the smaller ones. In it, they show exactly how far we have yet to come with racism.

The embedded concept is that racism is somehow logically tied to a person's genetics. You can easily find examples of where people used genealogy to try to prove their "purity", but such examples are only really relevant where there is no clear social distinction, e.g. where someone can "pass". But that's not the type of racism that is routinely experienced today, nor is it the concept of "struggle" as mentioned above.

All of our society's current racist effects towards Black people - especially the pervasive amounts of subtle institutional racism - can be traced back to the time of slavery. They have their roots in that time. But Black people who live in the USA today were not shaped and affected by the slave-owning institutions of the 1800s and before; they were shaped by the after-effects. Those after-effects did not (and still do not) care about genealogy; they care about visible differentiation. Do you look "different"? Do you look "different" enough that you can be safely considered "other"? Then those effects kick in. That's all it takes.

To believe that racism has some kind of defensible basis in biology ignores the experience of any Black person living in the USA today. It does not matter to our modern racists where Obama's parents came from - just what color they were. And even that criteria can change over time. Over the years, there's been a lot of talk as to how much "Black" makes you not white? Less than two hundred years ago Irish and Italian immigrants weren't considered white. That such a concept seems absolutely insane to us now just shows how idiotic and illogical racism always is.

So in a very real sense, it doesn't matter who your parents are, or whether you have biological ancestors who were slaves. If you are treated the same, you share in that struggle as well. That so many commentators failed to see that should be another indication of how embedded and unconscious privilege is in our society.

1 comment :

When shopping is sexist

1 comment
To get an idea of how embedded sexist and classist ideas are in our culture, take a look at yesterday.

Black Friday.

We get up really early, and spend all day shopping! There's lots of amazing bargains and deals for all the shoppers, and it does great things for our economy, right?

Consider the assumptions.


  1. Someone isn't shopping. The retail force (who probably need those sales just as much as anyone else) is instead required to be there. Everyone I've talked to who has worked retail on Black Friday (regardless of where - from upscale clothing stores to WalMart) has said that it and the day after Christmas leave them completely exhausted.

  2. It assumes that one member of your household isn't working. In the 60's sitcom family, this wasn't a problem. The "woman of the house" could get up early and shop. Single income households are extremely rare these days, and largely due to economic pressures.

  3. It assumes you can take time off work. My wife went shopping with a friend who did exactly this. I, also, could have called in and had a paid day off. Even if it was an unpaid day off, I'm not living literally paycheck to paycheck (yet - give the recession some more time), and could survive. I also remember when I was living paycheck to paycheck, and a cut in hours, let alone a day off, meant the difference between making rent or not. And that's assuming you work in a job where an unscheduled absence won't get you fired.



I don't think anybody - retailers, shoppers, media - is *consciously* going about being sexist and classist when they talk about Black Friday. But the fact remains that the habit was formed in an openly classist and sexist time in our history - and the effects of that persist today. We must look at the routine assumptions of our habits to see these subtle institutionalized discriminations.

And once we have seen them, then we must act to remove them.

1 comment :

Islam is not out to get you.

7 comments
First, let's get one thing clearly out of the way: The terrorist actions in Mumbai are horrible. The terrorists should be captured (if necessary). Massive police work must be done to find the cells and eliminate them with extreme prejudice. They have quite clearly demarcated themselves as varelse by their actions.

Secondly, thanks to @tomzer1 for forcing me to actually articulate this stuff. Seriously.

Earlier today, one of my twitter-compadres tweeted: “The Islamic terrorist attacks have killed some Americans in Mumbai, it turns out. The fruits of Islam.”

To which I replied: “Why is it when self-labeled Christians do bad things, they aren't seen as a referendum on all Christians like you do with Muslims?”

And this just started a crapstorm of commenting back and forth. Let me save you the link-following; I think it’s a horrible idea to blame Islam for terrorism, and there’s three big reasons why.

1) It is a logical fallacy to hold all of Islam responsible for the acts of a few people. Islam is a huge religion, with multiple disagreeing sects, and large variations in beliefs within those sects. It is, in this respect, very similar to Christianity. There are three large branches of Christianity (Roman Catholics, the Orthodox faiths, and Protestants), and there are sub-sects within each of those. And even within each sect there can be a large variation of philosophies, beliefs, and political orientations. Or as Emo Phillips put it:
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?" He said, "Baptist!" I said,"Wow! Me too! Are you baptist church of god or baptist church of the lord?" He said, "Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?" He said,"Reformed Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off. -- Emo Phillips


And take these two images:




Since both of these folks fall under the banner of "Christianity", I think we can start to realize that maybe not all Muslims feel that everyone should be blown up, the same way most Christians don’t agree with both (or either) of those two. And then you’ve got the very real Christian terrorist groups out there. If we are going to claim that religiously-motivated wackos smears the whole religion, Christianity is just as bad. If holding a religion responsible for its extremists is starting to look like a weak argument, just wait - it’s a dangerous one too.

(By the by, if anyone somehow finds this under “Gay Christians” and needs a supportive community, christiangays.com might be a good start.)

2) Assuming a whole religion is to blame is a horrible security policy. Not only does assuming all Muslims are "out to get you" immediately increase your number of false leads, but it also alienates those who might be on the borderline. Killing someone's parents as “collateral damage” by overbroad targeting might just cause some feelings of revenge.

[graphic of bruce wayne]

We might have some cultural recieved knowledge about that kind of thing. Just maybe.

And it also ignores the very real groups of Christian terrorists out there, who are just as real a security threat. It’s the same reason that profiling is a bad move; it means you get lazy and assumes the bad guys are stupid and all dress the same.

They’re not, and they don’t.

So why do we only hear about the “bad” Muslims? Where are the moderate Muslims that denounce these crimes? Fair question, and point number ...

3) We hear what fits with our preconceptions because people tend to self-select their news. Just as liberals might read Kos and Huffington, conservatives take in Fox and Limbaugh. (There’s a lot more examples, okay?) The point is, there’s very little “crosstalk”, and that means it’s all too easy for any of them... US... to get sucked into groupthink. Nobody is immune to it. While Tomzer and CrapMariner weren’t seeing Muslims condemning the Mumbai attacks, it was very easy for me to find them, even from a local group. Yet an April 2008 arrest of a Christian terrorist goes nearly unreported.

Soundbites and clean-cut dualities of “bad guys” and “good guys” are almost always faulty. Whenever you’re presented with something like that - especially if you agree with it - challenge yourself to question it, and see how strongly your house of cards is built.

As always, I challenge you to test mine.


7 comments :

The two types of mastering a task

No comments
There are two types of mastery - there is rote mastery, and there is understanding mastery.

Rote mastery is when one can emulate the forms of a thing. That is, you can push the buttons in the right sequence, format a document correctly, play the notes on an instrument, and so on. This sort of rote or technical mastery is important, but must be remembered that it is only a beginning. A practical example is someone who can play the right notes in a high school band.

Understanding mastery is when you understand why the buttons are pushed, why the notes go together in the right way, understand the aesthetics of the page. It is reflective and thoughtful, but not mechanical rules. A practical example - to continue with music - is a jazz musician who no longer needs sheet music.

These different types of mastering tasks happens in all areas of your life. I've seen parents mechanically apply good parenting advice - but because they don't understand *why* it's good advice, it is often applied incorrectly. I see co-workers do things more slowly or inefficiently, making things harder on themselves because they don't understand the "how" of the systems they use.

What kind of mastery do you have in the important areas of your life?

No comments :

Squanto, or whitewashing history (xpost)

No comments
(This is crossposted from uncharted learning, the resource list I run for homeschoolers and educators.)

One of my bigger annoyances about history classes is the way we leave complex emotions and complex people outside of history. Instead, we clean them up into two-dimensional cutouts. I really believe this makes history less interesting for students of all ages, and definitely makes us feel less able to live up to their example.

Squanto is one such example. This Weekly Reader interactive story of his life:

http://www.weeklyreader.com/interactivestories/squanto.html

is cute, but leaves out the big reason why he could speak English. He had been a slave. Censoring important details like that cheapen any respect that might be paid. Here is a more factual history of this very important Native American.

http://www.nativeamericans.com/Squanto.htm

Our job - as parents and teachers - is not to omit parts of history, but to make all of it accessible for our children. That way, when they are thankful for the efforts and sacrifices of those who came before us, they are actually paying respect to reality.

No comments :

That word, you keep using it...

No comments
I've noticed a disturbing trend among conservatives over the last several years. When faced with evidence or arguments opposite to their own beliefs, they claim that they are "offended".

Not upset. Not that they disagree. That they are offended.

I've had this put forward on everything from a political cartoon about the causes and costs second Iraq war, to the reality of white male privilege (PDF link), to the lie of the Horatio Alger myth, to a study suggesting abstinence programs reduce one type of sexual activity - but leads to teens interpreting other sexual activities as "not really sex" (or not being effective at all).

I think I know why this is; all of the above statements are *uncomfortable* for true-red conservatives. They do not fit neatly into their world view; in fact, they challenge large parts of it.

Those who have regularly been offended - subjected to ethnopaulisms, discriminated against, and marginalized - have used their feelings as a potent social norming mechanism. By stating that sexist language, for example, is offensive, it is a powerful tool for eliminating that language.

But now the conservatives have lost enough power that the Archie Bunkers are more and more marginalized. (When they're not elected GOP officials, of course.) So they now have to deal with challenges to thier worldview... and "uncomfortable" is a weak word.

"Offended", on the other hand, has power. And now the conservatives are learning to use it - inappropriately, perhaps, but use it - to silence those who are still working for equality and justice. It is, in many ways, like when bigots and racists appropriate progressive language; they're using the tools that levered them out of power to try to maintain their current privilege.

I understand that this is a really, really broad brush I'm using. Many conservatives I know - some of whom I'm messaging specifically to look at this entry - truly do understand the difference between offense and uncomfortableness. They can deal with challenges to their worldview in a coherent, intelligent, and powerful logical manner. Disagreement and debate are absolutely *necessary* in continuing this country's well-being. When I say "conservative" here, I don't mean people who tend to lean right, or even most right wingers. I'm talking the type who think Hannity, Limbaugh, and O'Reilley are actually balanced ethical journalists.

Those who use "offense" to simply silence ideas instead of slurs... well, not so much.

Like I said, I've seen it myself. Do you think this is a bigger trend, or just a few last holdouts? Or just some people who are jerks?

No comments :

Zombie! - A Flash Fiction

No comments
(Because this post demanded it...)


We huddled in the shack, shotguns and shovel blades held ready.

"What next, man?" Bobby's voice wavered across the silent room.

He was the most shaken. I kept waiting for him to start yelling "Game over, man!", but that was a different genre and different generation. Bobby was maybe fifteen, and had liked the AvP franchise instead. A totally different kind of horror, I'd told him, but he didn't get that joke either.

"I don't know, Bobby." I tried to sound reassuring and caring, but mostly I sounded annoyed.

"Bobby's right." Joan, the physician's assistant. She managed the soothing tones I couldn't muster. "We've all faced a lot in the last month, and things have been getting worse. The slow zombies were bad enough, but then they got faster." The others were nodding at the edges of the lantern's light. "And then when they started talking..."

"...my sister, man!" I'd had to knock Bobby down when the decayed corpse of his sister kept begging to be let in.

I held my hand up. "You're all right. Things have gotten bad and..."

"I see 'em!" Zach burst in. He'd been on lookout; he had a good eye, and wouldn't hesistate to interrupt if it was important. "They're coming up over the ridge, and they're saying something... wierd."

I went and looked, and listened.

"We're screwed," I told them. "Listen."

They all listened to the undead mouthing the words: "I think, therefore I am." "Religion is the opiate of the masses." "Ambition is the immoderate desire for power." "And if you gaze for long into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." "Nothing is divine but what is agreeable to reason."

"What's that mean?" I think Bobby might have wet himself. "What are they?"

I loaded my shotgun.

"Philosophical zombies, Bobby. God-damned philosophical zombies."

No comments :

The Thinking Person's Guide to Fighting Zombies

No comments
It's simple: You think in order to fight zombies.

Philosophical zombies, perhaps, but zombies nonetheless.

I first learned about philosophical zombies from Peter Watts' blog (Law of Internet Invocation, I invoke thee!) shortly after reading his book Blindsight. The idea of a nonconscious creature that acts as if it were conscious to try to fit in... well, that fit with my experience of most of humanity. Anyway, it's a year later, and I've absorbed a lot of sociobiology and a lot of sociology in that time. And, in case you somehow couldn't figure it out, Mead really sticks out as either tying it together or anticipating movements years in advance. Especially when it comes to consciousness. Consciousness is considered - in Watt's words - the pointy haired boss of the brain. Not really functional, and just acting like the worst of middle management.

Not so for Mead. Mead's conception of consciousness implicitly and explicitly requires compassion and empathy for others, or at least the ability to determine the motivations of others. For him, this is exemplified through the saints and (interestingly) capitalism, since to form a better communal society with increased benefits for all, one must be able to empathize with the other. (Capitalists who don't figure out what other people need and want don't sell a lot of stuff.) Except that, as with any communal situation, you run into the free rider problem (see here for an exhaustive description). This is where pattern recognition becomes important - because a philosophical zombie (also, almost implicitly, a sociopath) can mimic social reprocity, but not truly *have* it. By Mead's definition, one who does not have a conscious experience (a p-zombie), cannot truly empathize with another. Therefore, sooner or later they will slip up, and you'll be able to either exterminate them or teach them empathy. Your pick.

Pattern recognition then becomes a very worthwhile skill to have - because you can detect zombies. :) So where's the problem? Eventually, pattern recognition spawns off other things - like religions (again, Peter Watts has a good, if irreverent, dissection of this). Religions - like most any social structure - have a tendency to become calcified over time. It's exactly that calcification that Jesus was so famously kvetching about when he reduced the Law of the Hebrews to a couple of pithy sayings. So when religions - based originally on pattern recognition and empathy - become calcified rituals, they lead to predictable patterns which are things that zombies can mimic more easily.

Which brings us back to thinking people. Most modern society - as noted earlier - is made up of handshaking protocols. These are essentially low-level defenses against free riders. However, introspection and conscious thought - something not common in everyday society - is needed to deal with zombies. (Postmodernism, then, becomes the latest iteration; its fractitious nature is a feature, not a bug.)

So you have antibodies - those people who are more prone to introspection - around. They then (effectively) alert the population when zombies have become too powerful, leading to more introspection and either awakening the zombies or effectively castigating them (or at least not letting them be free riders). It's arguable, then, that Jesus is a zombie repellent... though not for the D&D reason.

Add to this: Zombie movies have been most popular during times of social upheaval and war.

Compassion - the anti-zombie.

No comments :

Selfish Christmas

1 comment
(Something a little more rant-y to set off the intellectual bits from earlier...)

The Christmas carols over loudspeakers and "Merry Christmas" wishes have already started, despite the fact that Thanksgiving hasn't happened yet. More time to buy stuff in, I suppose. Regardless, I think that the constant assumptions that Christmas carols and "Merry Christmas" are appropriate for public - and especially business - spaces are selfish assumptions.

Yes, selfish.

It is utterly and completely presuming that everyone else is the same as you, that everyone celebrates Christmas the same way, or that they celebrate Christmas at all. It ultimately ends up being a self-serving gesture, a selfish gesture.

And one that communicates how little value everyone else has.

Perhaps it would be different if other religion's holidays (and atheist ones as well) were celebrated as openly and publicly. Instead, it demonstrates what "normal" is supposed to be, which actively devalues everyone else. Imagine, for a second, that you were the only meat-eater around, and you kept getting served tofurkey? At what point would you start to think that maybe they just didn't give a damn about you?

When speaking to people at your church, or people that you *know* are Christians, then saying "Merry Christmas" is wishing *them* well. Wishing a Merry Christmas upon everyone - thinking it unimportant what their faith or lack thereof is - is serving only yourself.

Happy holidays, everyone.


(Oh, and the season that starts next week? That's ADVENT. The Christmas season is from 25 December until 6 January - the twelve days of Christmas. If you insist on wishing your religion's holidays on other people, at least get it right.)

1 comment :

Expand your mind...

No comments
One of the more interesting things about Mead's concept of mind is that it suddenly makes true artificial intelligence a lot more feasible... or at least, possible.

In case you haven't skimmed your copy of Mind, Self, and Society yet (available free at the Mead Project), Mead basically points out that our mind - our consciousness - is a process, not a thing. And as a process, it exists in relationship to other things. That includes our internal dialogue, but is not limited to it. Therefore, what we consider mind is interactions and relationships with other things, which means that mind cannot be limited to just our bodies.

Read that last sentence again.

Our mind is, according to Mead, not limited to our physical bodies. Yes, the biological brain impacts it - the meat is part of the process - but it is also in the symbols that you and I share (like these words). In a very real sense, my writing this blog is literally part of my mind; your reading this is literally part of yours. [The pertinent quotation is below]

What is important to Mead, in the concept of mind, is the self-organizing symbol usage. Language is the key way that humans manipulate symbols like this; it's the ability to pack so much meaning and knowledge into the process that distinguishes the human mind.

Mead wrote in the early 20th century (or, rather, lectured and his students wrote it down). As a result, he has the rather predictable human-centric viewpoint of that time period. Since, we've learned that other species have, even with the most skeptic interpretation, been able to learn signs and symbols from us, and self-organize concepts. I think it's fair to indicate that these other species are capable of mind (even if you're willing to argue whether or not they develop it in the wild).

So let's take this a step further. We're creating near-autonomous computers already (the Phoenix lander essentially had to land itself due to lightspeed delays; this resulted in several "judgement calls" on its part). What Mead's theory of mind suggests is that while biology (or the "hardware" running the mind) matters, it is not limited to our brains per se. If we can teach computers to learn - efforts at which are still continuing - and interact with others in a social environment, then it is a very real possiblity that they could develop "mind" in exactly the same way you have one.

This is in direct opposition to Searle, who argued in Minds, Brains and Science that the specific biology of our brains is neccessary for our minds. While Mead acknowledges the influences of biology, he also recognizes that social forces can exist, evolve, and change outside of a biological matrix.



The key paragraph I'm interpreting comes from here:

It is absurd to look at the mind simply from the standpoint of the individual human organism; for, although it has its focus there, it is essentially a social phenomenon; even its biological functions are primarily social. The subjective experience of the individual must be brought into relation with the natural, sociobiological activities of the brain in order to render an acceptable account of mind possible at all; and this can be done only if the social nature of mind is recognized. The meagerness of individual experience in isolation from the processes of social experience --in isolation from its social environment-should, moreover, be apparent. We must regard mind, then, as arising and developing within the social process, within the empirical matrix of social interactions. We must, that is, get an inner individual experience from the standpoint of social acts which include the experiences of separate individuals in a social context wherein those individuals interact. The processes of experience which the human brain makes possible are made possible only for a group of interacting individuals: only for individual organisms which are members of a society; not for the individual organism in isolation from other individual organisms.

No comments :

Displaying Twitter with Miranda IM

No comments
I run a jalopy of a system, and it simply can't handle XP, let alone Vista. I don't have the time for the learning curve of linux (the PC I'm writing this on is old enough that only older distros work well with it). So the IM client of choice is Miranda IM. It's extremely low-resource and versatile... And that worked GREAT with Twitter... until IM support went away.

There are some command line sending methods, which are fine... but no automatically refreshing windows. There's supposedly a plugin that is in the works, but until then, you can use RSS News to read your timeline. Since it supports authentication, you're golden. No avatars or sending capability through it, but that's at least *something* for your IM client...

[edit] I was having trouble finding the IMified bots; while you can sign up at thier main page, the bots themselves are at the (improperly linked) old site. Their twitter bot is exactly the opposite; it will send but not receive.
Using TabSRMM makes it not too painful.

Ah, kludginess.

No comments :

The more things stay the same, the more they change

No comments
I have to take a little bit of issue with something John Scalzi said over on his AMC column and expanded on at Whatever. I'll agree that technology doesn't change people, but I think that people - and societies - change over time. It is relatively easy, when reviewing historical thought, to see where emergent concepts and ideas literally changed people's ideas of what was possible. For example, the telelogical framework about society so predominant throughout the modern age have weakened in the evolutionary postmodern day. Our concept of children and adolescents is radically different than the concepts of only 150 years ago. Our ideas of marriage, women, and race are hugely different.

Different people (or different societies) today hold some fundamentally different ideas from one another; there is no reason that should be possible spatially but not temporally.

Under all of that sociological stuff, yes, there is still the same meat - but that "same meat" also produces all the variety of the world and viewpoints today. You are a human animal - but you are also shaped by the society you are in. I don't adhere to the idea that societies are inherently progressing towards an endpoint - but they do change.

A modern child, transported to an older period of time and raised there, would still have the tendencies from biology. However, even from a strict sociobiological view, the dialectic of societal and environmental influences and an organism creates physical change in a developing organism. (i.e. your experiences literally change you.) Therefore, that child would not be guaranteed to have anything like the same temperment, outlook, or values that they do today. It's kind of hubristic to think otherwise.

Again, I agree that technology doesn't *cause* that change. Sometimes technology facilitates that change, and makes it easier and more rapid. That rate of change is the biggest way that technology effects society these days. But mostly it's a correlation of change, not a causative agent.

(If intrigued or unsure of what I mean, the comment I left there is a completely different version of the same thing.)

No comments :

Ownership means decisions

No comments
The "tragedy of the commons" - the idea that if something is a communal resource, then everyone will abuse it - is not a big deal in today's society. Instead, there are two other problems: The someone else's problem syndrome and ownership apathy.

The first is easily seen: Look for litter. Usually, it is easier to find litter in a parking lot than someone's yard. I still see people throw cigarettes out of windows (or dump entire ashtrays and bags of trash) at stoplights. Why? The area is seen as privately owned (someone will clean it up), but not owned by themselves. In a very real way, this is a special case of the tragedy of the commons, because the individual in question doesn't feel they'll be reprimanded, and that they don't own the area in question.

What about the employees of the company? That's our second tragedy: The employees of the city or store *also* feel that they don't "own" the area, and don't feel the social pressure to keep the area up. Despite wearing a uniform and recieving a paycheck, there is no sense of ownership and responsibility. I believe this is directly tied to a feeling of disposableness. While the employees are claimed to be in an ownership relationship, they do not actively *participate* in ownership of it. They have no decision making authority. They may not even get heard, or have their concerns addressed. Without those things, you can call it ownership all you want, but you'll never, ever reap the results of it.

This second principle extends into all business (and social) relationships. To really evoke the feelings of ownership, a person must be able to participate with - and even to some extent control - the thing they are supposed to own. Managers, read the next line carefully:

An ownership society is a participatory society.

Trying to evoke one without the other leads to disgruntled people, disheartened advocates, and a situation worse than when it started.

No comments :

Surveying power

No comments
I'm in the middle of a third iteration studying college students and thier class schedules (you can see the results of the second iteration here). There's a marked difference this time, though.

They're writing more on the surveys.

The format of the survey is only mildly tweaked; a few questions added about when they're taking the survey. So it's not a difference in what - or how - I'm asking questions.The changes seem to be external in nature. First, college enrollment in this area has jumped, straining all the systems. Secondly, this time I actually (by accident) managed to get the survey to students just as they were scheduling for the next term. There are apologies from students who scheduled easily: "I'm an honors student" or "Atheletes schedule earlier, sorry!". There are a lot more people complaining in the margins, or underlining areas that highlight scheduling difficulties.

And there are the thanks.

Written at the end, under my boilerplate thank you for taking the survey, are the surprisingly common and heartfelt remarks. "Thank you for asking about this." "Maybe this will help get something done." "Thanks."

I'm reminded - almost uncomfortably - of my letter to Barack - the other day. I do not know what influence I have with those who make the schedules. But I can feel thier discomfort, and know where that thanks comes from.

Marxists are wrong to concentrate on money (keep with me for just a second). Marx himself talked about alienation, that idea of being without respect or acclaim for yourself and your work. This is key to both why Marx's predictions are wrong - and why I was so moved by Change.gov, and why these students are so thankful for my study. It's not money - that's just an abstract representation of care and acclaim. But that abstraction is just that - abstract. It's not viscerally the same. At the beginning of the 20th century, nearly *as soon as* workers had unions and felt heard - the rage stopped. Greenwashing (and all of the other PR efforts) play on this same idea - that it's the idea of feeling heard and acknowledged that is key. That we are effecting as well as being effected, that we have control, that we *matter*.

That is the key to balanced and productive power relationships. It cannot be faked - not for very long. With that kind of relationship, change is mostly smooth. Without it, change still happens... but much more tumuluously. We do not have a choice as to whether or not change comes; we have a choice as to *how* it comes.

No comments :

Accusations: A Personal History

No comments
There may be triggers, I hope that you'll find it worth reading anyway. Here's a unicorn spacer, since blogger doesn't do "under the fold" stuff.




I was sixteen when she accused me of sexual assault. It was not in a court of law, it was never brought to the police.

It wasn't true.

I had tried to kiss her - that is true. It was the kind of kiss you see in countless "geek gets the girl" movies that were so popular back then (and still are today). I was sixteen and stupid enough to think the movies told the truth, so while we were talking, I leaned over on the couch we were both on, and kissed her.

For all of a second. I think. I'm pretty sure lips touched, but I can't swear to that.

It was a dumbass thing to do. You see, the thing that doesn't happen in movies - the much more likely thing - is that she'll pull back, ask you what the hell you were doing, and you'll blush like the time you did when your mother walked in on you taking a bath even though you're fourteen. In my case, she didn't slap me - we were friends at the time - and we went home. It was during the cleanup part of a haunted house, and I thought that was the exceedingly lame and exceedingly embarrassing end of it.

Until I found out she had told people that she'd been shoved up against the wall, her hand shoved on my crotch, and my tongue down her throat. None of that had happened. The thought of me being that violent nauseated me. Still does. People who knew me well didn't believe it for a second. I've had the concept of "no means no" embedded so far into my skull that I've often been told I'm *too* gentle, and *too* meek in too many relationships throughout a lot of years. To put it in perspective, when I heard of Antioch's sexual consent rules, I thought they were a good idea. If you don't remember, most people at the time thought they were ridiculous.) Anyhow, those who knew me knew there was no way in hell I'd done anything like she claimed.

I found out that year who my real friends were, and I'm glad to have had them.

There were other effects over the next two years. I got my ass kicked because of it - one of the only two real fights I've ever been in. (My wrist got broken in the other.) One girl I'd been going out with for a few weeks heard the story from her friends, and broke up with me right then. Another wouldn't go out with me at all, expressly because of this story. It seems minor now, but for a teenaged loser geek, it was a huge deal. Finally, I moved away to college.

Years later, the girl I'd kissed for all of a second apologized. She told me she didn't even remember why she'd told people that story, and I believe her. I accepted her apology, and went on with my life.

I was twenty-one when I was sexually harassed in the military. It was minor, but I brought it up to my supervisor, but the MPs were never involved.

It was true.

He kept playing grab-ass - literally - as I'd walk out of one room into the common area. It started like those stupid football "slap each other on the ass" things, but they got more invasive when I asked him to stop. I got a lot of crap about it, too, especially since I was still a private in training - and he wasn't.

In 1995, sexual harassment in the Army was yet to be a hot topic; the Aberdeen scandal and biannual mandatory seminars were yet in the future. Reports of men experiencing violent spousal abuse were (literally) met with guffaws and whispered denigrations of manhood by others in my company. You can imagine how seriously a private complaining about his ass being grabbed was taken. He stopped - after my supervisor reluctantly "talked" to him - but it was a difficult several months for me after that until I finally left for Korea.

I was about thirty when my older son hurt himself and claimed that his injuries were from child abuse. He repeated the claim more than once over the course of several years.

It was never true.

No charges were ever pressed, no case ever had any evidence. A few of the times he actually admitted to making it up in front of others. Most of the times, he didn't. One of those times, I was forced to spend a week in a hotel based solely on his verbal accusation. During that time, he continually threatened my wife. If she didn't do what he wanted, he threatened to have her sent away too. Eventually, he went too far with his threats and violence and was arrested - but we still deal with both the mental and legal effects of that trauma. The accusations are still in a file somewhere, waiting to be a "pattern" of some kind. Not a pattern of his baseless accusations - but a pattern to provide circumstantial evidence against me. I understand that's also the case with sexual harassment charges, too.

Regardless of all those things, I still advocate that sexual harassment measures be strong, that child and elder abuse laws be enforced, and that accusers and whistle blowers not face repercussions for coming forward. We must always make sure that we hear all sides of a story, that we take all things into account before jumping to a conclusion - but this is still a sexist, racist, ablest, and ageist world. Harassment and abuse accusations are blunt instruments, but they are a powerful one.

Having been on the wrong side of these things - being falsely accused more than once, and ignored as a victim - it's all too easy to give up. It's easy to blame it on a class of people - or even to blame yourself for something you haven't done. Any accusation, especially one so counter to your ideals and the way you live your life, is fundamentally upsetting.

I wish there was a better way. As I know all too well, it is easy for an unscrupulous person to fabricate complaints. If you know someone who has made up accusations, please speak out. The accused - almost always a person with power and privilege, whether they abuse it or not - cannot really fight back against those attacks. What I ask of you, all you who need the laws against discrimination, who need the sexual harassment lawsuits, who need protection from abuse, is to keep in mind that each false complaint, each person who gets revenge or personal gain by slandering another, weakens one of the few effective tools that those without privilege have.

Those who make a false complaint make it harder for every one of your brothers or sisters - or yourself - who has real problems and faces real harassment.

But until a better way can be devised, it's the best system we have, and it's the system we have to stand by.

Your suggestions for improvements are, as always, appreciated.

No comments :