HighDex

Time to go shooting

2011-06-13T10:31:00.003-04:00

I haven't posted in a long while now, and I stumbled on a quick guide for pistol shooting... which made me think about how I haven't been shooting in a longer time. I miss it. Not enough to get off my duff an go shooting apparently, but I do think about it from time to time.

Anyway, I figured I'd write a quick post providing the list I learned when I was a kid of the rules for properly handling a firearm safely.

1) ALWAYS treat the firearm as though it is loaded and has a bullet in the chamber. ALWAYS.

This rule is meant to keep people from making that stupid mistake of assuming the gun is not loaded and firing off a round accidentally. If you always treat the firearm as though it's loaded no matter what, then you won't make the mistake. Seriously. ALWAYS. Even if the chamber is open and you can see that there is no cartridge in there... treat the thing like it's loaded. Get into the habit.

2) NEVER point the firearm at anything you are unwilling to destroy. NEVER.

This rule is meant to address people goofing off with firearms. Maybe not as obviously as I would like, no one should ever fool around with a firearm. It's not a toy. Even if you know it's not loaded (see rule number 1), and you're not planning on pulling the trigger... you don't point a gun at something you're not intending on shooting. If you're just carrying the firearm, you point it at soft ground, the ceiling, or the sky. Keep it from pointing at people. This is another good habit to get into.

3) Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire.

Different firearms have different amounts of pressure you need to apply to fire it. Some of them only require a touch (usually target pistols are like this for example), and some take more (but being startled might make you squeeze before you intended). Really, this rule is a habit you want to be in so that you can't accidentally squeeze the trigger. Once the firearm is pointed at the target you want to shoot at, you can put your finger on the trigger.

If you assume the gun is loaded, you point the firearm in a safe direction, and you keep your finger off the trigger, you're not going to do anything stupid. Nice and simple. If you're around someone who's handling a firearm unsafely (depending on who they are to you), get away from them or correct their behavior.

Guns don't need to be scary. Really... they're not scary at all. The scary aspect is the people who are holding the guns, if they're handling them unsafely.

One last thing: Firing ranges usually have a list of rules and protocols for further safety, usually around when it's okay to fire. If there are targets that aren't on runner-lines, you'll need to listen for cease fires through your hearing protection, and you'll be expected to "clear" your firearm. But any range you go to will have people happy to help you.

Random thoughts

2010-09-19T12:58:00.004-04:00

It's been too long since I've posted anything, and as usual, I have too much on my mind. I'm not sure I can write about most of it... or rather, I'm not sure anyone wants to read much of it. So I guess I'm writing this as a therapeutic exercise.

I think I'm alone. There are people in my life... but I think I keep them all at a distance. I think I'm also a little bitter that some of those people... well... it feels like they are the ones who created the distance. I think I feel a little abandoned.

But I don't do anything about it really. I just go on being alone. And I intend on continuing to do so... because I don't want to meet new people. I like other people when they leave me alone. I have been told I should find a hobby that gets me out of the house to a place where other people do the same hobby. But I have this strong aversion to meeting new people. I have it in my head that I won't like new people. I think that's partly based on the frequency of annoying people in public (mostly on the road I guess).

I just came up with another idea. I wonder if I don't want to meet new people because I'm pretty sure they will dislike me.

I have no self esteem it seems.

Alright, what I'm more specifically thinking about is how I am romantically alone. I want to find someone. I want to have a lasting reason to smile again. But there are so many obstacles. Many of those obstacles are self wrought. Like my avoidance of meeting people.

I'm also extremely picky. I can't help that. It's just a matter of what I find attractive. So yeah, I might as well say that I require a girl to be physically very attractive for me to have any interest. I tend toward slimmer girls on the spectrum of what's considered beautiful. Keira Knightley, Natalie Portman, Kristen Bell, and Sarah Carter are the kind of women that catch my eye. Yeah yeah... celebrities... but it's a point of reference. I see plenty of women in the real world who appeal to me, so it's not just some make up and a good camera angel. Women that appeal to me do exist.

Anyway, once my interest is piqued by the physical aspects, I have other things I look for. First, she has to have energy and be just a little pushy... I think I need that. I think I need someone to encourage me to get outside my comfort zone a bit. She needs to being willing to laugh... I love laughing... and having someone to share a laugh with is something I really want.

There are a few things I know I want an absence of. Smoking is the most important on that list. I HATE cigarette smoke. That stuff is so nasty... I don't even like being in an elevator with someone who has smoked recently. It stinks. It makes me feel unclean just being near it. And anyone willing to subject themselves to that as a habit... I don't understand them, and don't really want to be around them. I understand that smoking is an addiction... and it's hard to stop... but that doesn't change that it's disgusting and very bad for you. I don't want to be in a relationship with someone who smokes.

Another thing not far behind smoking is religion. I am anti-religion on every level I can think of. On the personal level, I find it to be an illogical thought process to believe in something that no one can prove is there. It's exactly like having an imaginary friend, but for some reason it's the norm for adults to adopt this practice. An individual that believes may have been brain washed as a child by whatever religious institution their family attended, so I can understand the cycle and why religion hasn't died out, but an individual that is willing to believe despite a complete lack of proof, let alone evidence, is of less interest to me than one who has come to a better conclusion. As I think on it... I suppose I'm less opposed to the individual having a belief that something is out there, than I am to someone whole heartedly belonging to a church. Believing in the existence of an all powerful creator is one thing, but believing that any religious organization got it right is just plain silly. Those people scare me... because they seem to outnumber everyone else, and they have a measure of control over my future.

Anyway, I don't like religion, and would prefer to avoid someone who thinks that Adam and Eve is a true story, and that we all came from these two people.

It would be nice if this girl and I had some things in common too. But I'm not making that easy for anyone. I love guns, I enjoy skiing (seems like most women avoid the cold hobbies if they can help it), I'm a sci fi geek (I love Star Wars and Fire Fly for example), and I love watching anime. That's right... japanimation. Top of my list of anime right now is Naruto, though there are many I would say I "love". Several more worth mentioning: Gundam Wing, Cowboy Bebop, Bleach, Irresponsible Captain Tyler, and Martian Successor Nadesico.

Sorry... I'm going off on a tanget I guess. I didn't really mean to talk about what I like. I was supposed to keep paying attention to why it's unlikely I'll meet a girl that fits my criteria. I guess it comes down to me being a weird person. I'm generally aloof from new people if possible, I find overweight women unappealing, I am tremendously opinionated about religion (and a few other things I haven't mentioned yet), I have strange hobbies (like playing video games... forgot to mention that one), and to top it off... I have no confidence that I'm a likeable enough person that any woman I'd be interested in might be interested in me. That right there is a self-perpetuating cycle. I lack the conifdence to approach a woman I might be interested in, so I never meet anyone... which feeds my belief that there's no one who might be interested, which of course means I think something is wrong with me... and I end up not having any confidence.

I guess that's all I wanted to write. I was pretty sure an "answer" wasn't going to present itself.

People should have more sex

2010-06-09T14:01:00.002-04:00

This is a repost of "The Economic Case For Promiscuity" by Steven E. Landsburg. I found it when I was bored and found the article through Give Me Something to Read. I'd post the direct link to the article, but I had to sign up (free) and the link leads to a place that seems to require membership. Okay, I'll post the link anyway in case it helps...

http://www.instapaper.com/text?u=http://www.gametheory.net/News/Items/019.html&article=46815284

News stories by field of study

It’s true: AIDS is nature’s awful retribution for our tolerance of immoderate and socially irresponsible sexual behavior. The epidemic is the price of our permissive attitudes toward monogamy, chastity, and other forms of sexual conservatism.

You’ve read elsewhere about the sin of promiscuity. Let me tell you about the sin of self-restraint.

Suppose you walk into a bar and find four potential sex partners. Two are highly promiscuous; the others venture out only once a year. The promiscuous ones are, of course, more likely to be HIV-positive. That gives you a 50-50 chance of finding a relatively safe match.

But suppose all once-a-year revelers could be transformed into twice-a-year revelers. Then, on any given night, you’d run into twice as many of them. Those two promiscuous bar patrons would be outnumbered by four of their more cautious rivals. Your odds of a relatively safe match just went up from 50-50 to four out of six.

That’s why increased activity by sexual conservatives can slow down the rate of infection and reduce the prevalence of AIDS. In fact, according to Professor Michael Kremer of MIT’s economics department, the spread of AIDS in England could plausibly be retarded if everyone with fewer than about 2.25 partners per year were to take additional partners more frequently. That covers three-quarters of British heterosexuals between the ages of 18 and 45. (Much of this column is inspired by Professor Kremer’s research.

If multiple partnerships save lives, then monogamy can be deadly. Imagine a country where almost all women are monogamous, while all men demand two female partners per year. Under those conditions, a few prostitutes end up servicing all the men. Before long, the prostitutes are infected; they pass the disease to the men; and the men bring it home to their monogamous wives. But if each of those monogamous wives was willing to take on one extramarital partner, the market for prostitution would die out, and the virus, unable to spread fast enough to maintain itself, might die out along with it.

Or consider Joan, who attended a party where she ought to have met the charming and healthy Martin. Unfortunately Fate, through its agents at the Centers for Disease Control, intervened. The morning of the party, Martin ran across one of those CDC-sponsored subway ads touting the virtues of abstinence. Chastened, he decided to stay home. In Martin’s absence, Joan hooked up with the equally charming but considerably less prudent Maxwell—and Joan got AIDS. Abstinence can be even deadlier than monogamy.

If those subway ads are more effective against the cautious Martins than against the reckless Maxwells, then they are a threat to the hapless Joans. This is especially so when they displace Calvin Klein ads, which might have put Martin in a more socially beneficent mood.

You might object that even if Martin had dallied with Joan, he would only have freed Maxwell to prey on another equally innocent victim. To this there are two replies. First, we don’t know that Maxwell would have found another partner: Without Joan, he might have struck out that night. Second, reducing the rate of HIV transmission is in any event not the only social goal worth pursuing: If it were, we’d outlaw sex entirely. What we really want is to minimize the number of infections resulting from any given number of sexual encounters; the flip side of this observation is that it is desirable to maximize the number of (consensual) sexual encounters leading up to any given number of infections. Even if Martin had failed to deny Maxwell a conquest that evening, and thus failed to slow the epidemic, he could at least have made someone happy.

To an economist, it’s clear why people with limited sexual pasts choose to supply too little sex in the present: Their services are underpriced. If sexual conservatives could effectively advertise their histories, HIV-conscious suitors would compete to lavish them with attention. But that doesn’t happen, because such conservatives are hard to identify. Insufficiently rewarded for relaxing their standards, they relax their standards insufficiently.

So a socially valuable service is under-rewarded and therefore under-supplied. This is a problem we’ve experienced before. We face it whenever a producer fails to safeguard the environment.

Extrapolating from their usual response to environmental issues, I assume that liberals will want to attack the problem of excessive sexual restraint through coercive regulation. As a devotee of the price system, I’d prefer to encourage good behavior through an appropriate system of subsidies.

The question is: How do we subsidize Martin’s sexual awakening without simultaneously subsidizing Maxwell’s ongoing predations? Just paying people to have sex won’t work—not with Maxwell around to reap the bulk of the rewards. The key is to subsidize something that is used in conjunction with sex and that Martin values more than Maxwell.

Quite plausibly, that something is condoms. Maxwell knows that he is more likely than Martin to be infected already, and hence probably values condoms less than Martin does. Subsidized condoms could be just the ticket for luring Martin out of his shell without stirring Maxwell to a new frenzy of activity.

As it happens, there is another reason to subsidize condoms: Condom use itself is under-rewarded. When you use one, you are protecting both yourself and your future partners, but you are rewarded (with a lower chance of infection) only for protecting yourself. Your future partners don’t know about your past condom use and therefore can’t reward it with extravagant courtship. That means you fail to capture the benefits you’re conferring, and as a result, condoms are underused.

It is often argued that subsidized (or free) condoms have an upside and a downside: The upside is that they reduce the risk from a given encounter, and the downside is that they encourage more encounters. But it’s plausible that in reality, that’s not an upside and a downside—it’s two upsides. Without the subsidies, people don’t use enough condoms, and the sort of people who most value condoms don’t have enough sex partners.

All these problems—along with the case for subsidies—would vanish if our sexual pasts could somehow be made visible, so that future partners could reward past prudence and thereby provide appropriate incentives. Perhaps technology can ultimately make that solution feasible. (I envision the pornography of the future: “Her skirt slid to the floor and his gaze came to rest on her thigh, where the imbedded monitor read, ‘This site has been accessed 314 times.’ “) But until then, the best we can do is to make condoms inexpensive—and get rid of those subway ads.

Meandering Thoughts on Life and Dating

2010-03-16T13:38:00.003-04:00

I write a lot of negative material on this blog. It's usually argumentative and unfriendly. I'm not happy about it really. The posts are honest, but I seem to like to look at things from an adversarial point of view most of the time. For example, my long post about Valentine's Day being awful. It was honest, and I think it holds value, but it's very negative, and makes me seem an unpleasant person. Maybe I am an unpleasant person.

I read a friend's blog post today which is about what romance is to them. It even mentions Valentine's Day, and it even agrees with me about how if the love is real, it won't need a day each year to prompt the shows of affection. But that friend is much better at conveying the important message than I am. I ended up with a diatribe against a holiday that really only has as much meaning as you allow it to have. I should have written about love instead. Tracy (that friend who wrote the above linked blog post) made me think with her writing. I really appreciate it.

So here I am thinking. What kind of person am I? What have I turned into? Am I really that negative all the time?

I know that I'm lonely.

I joined eHarmony a while back, and have been moderately active in reading profiles and sending messages. Just a short while ago, I got a message from some one named Rebecca. And we seemed to get along well in our messages. And I was really excited about going to have dinner with her. We made plans to meet. And she cancelled them. I was left wondering if something was going on with her or if I had said something that turned her off.

Earlier today, I noticed an article on the eHarmony site called "7 Signs of a Desperate Dater". It lists some things that I'm afraid I might be doing. Regardless of the specifics, I'm sure that I'm coming across as desperate. I'm desperate to find someone. I'd like to find someone that I connect with in a strong way. But I think I might be at the point where I'm not really being myself. Not in the understood social norm of not being yourself entirely when you first meet someone, but in the way where my state of mind is preventing me from being myself. What Rebecca must have seen... and what people see in general is the unappealing desperation. It's a horrible first impression.

Now I wonder how I fix that. I think I need to stop wanting so hard. I need to stop needing that connection. I'm not sure how to do that. I've been told on many occasions that "you'll find what you're looking for when you stop looking". I hate that saying. It basically means that I have no power in the situation. I'm unhappy about situations where I have no power at all. I'm not looking to control everything, but knowing that my fate is in my hands is something I cherish. In this case, my fate is entirely out of my control. At least it seems that way.

And maybe I'm taking the whole thing too seriously. I seem to want to jump straight into a serious relationship. Maybe I should be looking to just date... maybe I should be open to the possibility that things don't have to be serious. It can just be two people enjoying spending some time together, and maybe it won't lead to anything.

This is turning into a negative post again. I wanted to write that I had come to some sort of revelation, but it's not working out that way. I guess I'll wrap it up.

I need to learn how to focus on the positive matters in life. And I need to learn how to relax. I really don't think I've been able to do that before.

Atheism: some more thoughts about it

2010-03-10T00:25:00.005-05:00

A friend posted something about how atheism is not a religion. And he's right. It's not. But I immediately thought about how certain levels of atheism can require a level of faith similar to that required by believing what a religion teaches. You can read all about atheism and its meanings on the wiki page. It's a really good read.

I consider myself an "explicit weak atheist" according to the article, and also an agnostic (which is very similar to a "weak atheist" anyway). Just wanted to be clear.

So I said in the first paragraph that certain levels of atheism require faith like religions do. According to the wiki article, this level I'm thinking of would be "strong atheism". It is the specific belief that there is no god or set of gods. This type of atheism requires faith though, because no one can prove that a god or set of gods does not exist. It simply can't be done. Just because we can't perceive something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Of course, on the other hand, it can never be proven that a god or gods does exist either. Even if a powerful being appeared before you, walked on water, transmuted water to wine, brought a dead animal back to life, cured a person of terminal cancer, teleported right in front of you, and/or conceived a human child without touching the woman... it still wouldn't prove the existence of a god or gods. It would just show you that really powerful beings can exist. Or maybe just a REALLY technologically advanced one. Doesn't matter what the explanation is... it's still not proof of a god or set of gods.

What I'm trying to get to I think is that I don't understand how anyone can be anything but a "weak atheist". No event in my life or any event I've ever heard of has even remotely suggested the existence of a god. Sure, I've heard religious folks speak and say there is a god. But what do they know? They don't know anything. They only believe. They have faith. But that faith is based on absolutely nothing. Some coincidence in their life that seemed too good to be true, or too unlikely to have happened without "divine intervention" is still not even evidence of a god, let alone proof. Surviving a crash that should have killed you is not proof of a god. It's a coincidence. Things just happened that way because that's how physics works. The circumstances were such that you survived. That's all.

It's nearly 1 AM, and I'm swiftly losing my focus. I think I just wanted to write about how religious people are wrong, and about how even some atheists are wrong.

If you think I'm wrong... prove that there's a god. Or prove that there isn't one. I'd be mighty impressed either way. In the meantime, I'm going to go on with my lack of belief in any god or set of gods, because I haven't seen anything to suggest their existence. There's no reason to waste time on them.

Why Valentine's Day is Awful

2010-02-11T13:22:00.002-05:00

I'm going to start out with the simple assertion that Valentine's Day is awful. A good portion of you reading this (assuming anyone reads this) already agree with me. But I find it's necessary to make a logical case for the "holiday" being a thing of evil. Sure... a logical scientific approach might be hard to support because some of it is ill-defined or a matter of opinion, but I hope my case will be pretty strong anyway.

Next step is to break up the groups of people that endure Valentines's Day (which will hence-forth in this essay be referred to as "VD"... coincidentally the same acronym used for something that I find to be less offensive than Valentine's Day). We have four basic groups of people that I'll use for sweeping generalizations later. We have single males, single females, males as part of a couple, and females as part of a couple. Just keep those in mind as I move on to my next point...

We now look at what VD means. Sure we could look at the origin and history, but that's hardly relevant to how it's celebrated now. Do you get together with family and eat a big hearty meal? Do you throw a party? Do you get the day off work? Not really. You might, but it would be a coincidence. The celebration of VD at this point is about buying VD cards, flowers, chocolate, jewelry, and expensive dinners for your significant other. I'll apply the groups I mentioned above to this. Single men are generally safe from this. Single women are generally depressed about not having a significant other to spend that money on them. Coupled men get abused horribly by the commercial nature of the holiday. Coupled women get mad if their significant other doesn't get abused by the commercial nature of the holiday. I apologize, but I'm leaving homosexual couples out of my "statistics" because I don't really understand the dynamic as it relates to VD.

So what we have is a holiday that has become completely an exercise in spending money. Let's move on.

Now, some may try to say that VD is also about couples coming together, doing something romantic for each other, and then having sex... which are all good things, but just like Christmas being a commercial holiday that forces us to buy gifts for each other, when it would have more meaning every other day of the year... VD is strange day that seems to require couples to do something. Why can't they do those things every other day of the year? Really, VD is a way to make people feel guilty about not buying expensive crap and doing something romantic. It's a forced event... and therefore has less meaning.

Some people (a friend of mine in particular) tried to make me see VD as a day that isn't specific to people in relationships. Apparently there's support for that concept but you have to read pretty far back, and perhaps look at other countries that celebrate VD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentine's_Day). So according to this friend, you're supposed to just send flowers and small gifts to friends to show you care. I'm going to point back to the commercial nature of the holiday and mention that this seems like a way to put guilty pressure on single males to spend money on that day too. Wouldn't a friend much rather get a gift given because it was something you wanted to do, and at some unexpected time? VD reduces the meaning of such gifts.

So so far we have that it's generally a holiday celebrated by couples and which seems designed to force people into spending money out of guilt as opposed to out of kindness.

Now comes my favorite part (thick sarcasm intended here). If I happen to be in public during VD (that acronym will not stop being funny), and I see couples gushing over each other, I am subjected to the biggest negative aspect of the day. It's a forceful reminder that I am single, and that they are happy together while I can do nothing but lament my lack of social skill required to find a person who likes me that way. I am admittedly guessing here, but I think a good number of the people in the "single" categories would feel the same way. It's a slap in the face.

So not only is the day a commercial guilt trip extravaganza for couples, but it's a free and fast ticket to depression town (population 1) for single people.

I have more personal evidence I could bring to bear, but I didn't intend to turn this into my personal gripes. I'm trying to point out that as holidays go, VD is probably the worst one of the year.

With any luck, I'll play video games all day, and my contact with people will be minimal (to save me from seeing happy couples anywhere).

Now... one last thing: A different friend gave me a way to look at VD in a better way. If I just think of it as "Singles Awareness Day", it'll be a much more honest name for the day, and it's acronym fits perfectly. :)

More Religious Absurdity

2010-01-14T16:18:00.002-05:00

Here's the link to the article I heard the news from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/13/pat-robertson-haiti-curse_n_422099.html

In case it's no longer there when you read this blog, I'll recap the important parts (it's a direct cut and paste, so I take no credit for writing it):

Televangelist Pat Robertson said Wednesday that earthquake-ravaged Haiti has been "cursed" by a "pact to the devil."

"Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it," he said on Christian Broadcasting Network's "The 700 Club." "They were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon III, or whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, we will serve you if you'll get us free from the French. True story. And so, the devil said, okay it's a deal."

Really? That's what you're going with? You're claiming not only that your concept of an all powerful being and the evil counterpart are real, but that you know what the Haitians were doing when they got their freedom, and that they made a deal with this probably fictional character, and that this somehow resulted in a natural disaster that killed thousands of people who did not make the deal?

Why do people listen to this fucking retard? He's trivializing a lot of people's deaths. He's being an arrogant sack of crap by asserting that his story is true, let alone that his religion is the truth. He's suggesting that due to a lack of religious correctness (and by that I mean the Haitian lack of following his religion), they suffered a horrible fate. So it was their fault a natural disaster struck? And what proof or even evidence is there that can support this? I'm so angry that such incredible stupidity gets national coverage, and though I'm assuming this, I'm angry that there might be people in the world who think he's right.

I'm so tired of faith being used as an excuse to spout off stupid crap. I'm okay with a little faith. I know lots of people who have faith in some religion or another. I understand that having faith can ease a person's mind, and even help with a sense of community, but when morons like that televangelist claim to be right about something like this it just upsets me. He's got absolutely nothing to back up his claim... nothing at all... the arrogance is mind-boggling. I can't prove he's wrong, but every bit of sense in me says he is, and he can't prove he's right either.

Okay... I'm just ranting. But I hope this guy Pat Robertson dies so there's one less public font of stupidity in the world.

Languages of the world and separation of people

2010-01-03T09:51:00.002-05:00

I've written before (if I remember correctly) about how I think religion is a horrible influence on human kind in terms of its propensity for dividing us. It's caused more violence and death than good in the world. And the good effects can be achieved without religion... like the charity work that some churches do. You don't need to believe in a magical sky fairy to do good things. But believing in the preposterous notion of an all powerful being that cares about us and whose truth can be described by one of our religions is directly responsible for dividing societies, cultures, and communities. Anyway, I'm going way off topic and it's only the first paragraph.

This morning I woke up thinking about what steps would need to be taken to unite the world. The event I think most likely to successfully unite us would be a common enemy, and since I'm looking to unite the world, I think alien invasion is the best idea for that one. Lots of people would die, I know. Maybe everyone. But let's say for purpose of this exercise that the invasion is not terribly efficient and we manage to survive, and somehow manage to come up with weapons capable of fighting back against this species that's technologically advanced enough to manage interstellar travel. Our chances go way up when everyone in the world works together. On top of that, like I said: lot's of people likely die in the invasion, and that means we'd probably need more people of the world to work together just for sheer numbers.

I guess I could write a whole blog post on that one by itself, but I'd have to start putting together scenarios and doing research on feasibility before I'd be comfortable with that. What I wrote above is just an idea without support. Now, on to the idea I mean to focus on for this blog post...

I woke up thinking about how language is a dividing force in our world. I suppose I'm going to rely on logic for this one too, since I'm not sure where to look for supporting evidence online. I'll start with small scale. My grandmother from Germany is visiting right now. She only speaks German, and my native language is English. I speak a little German, but my skills are diminished from lack of use. I want to talk to my grandmother, but I don't really have to vocabulary to handle all the topics I'd normally cover. When I visit my parents and talk about my day at work, or a television show I like, or something I went and did with friends, or whatever, I can manage to convey the ideas just fine in English. In German, though, I just can't do it. So when I go over there now while my Oma (German word for "grandmother") is visiting, I end up talking about these normal conversational things in English.

I understand more German than I can speak (easier to hear a word and remember what it means than to recall a word when I'd want to use it), and so I can listen to my grandmother speak about her day and what she did, but even still, I don't understand it all. And I'll admit here that it's often about something that I don't really want to listen to. I listen anyway, but listening to her talk about the nifty knick-knack she found at the store is just not that engrossing. Sometimes the conversation gets to something interesting like politics in Germany, but that's often a bit beyond my vocabulary, and my mom has to translate.

So as an example of a dividing force on the small scale, my experience is that I could be much closer to my grandmother if I was better at speaking German. I'm sad at this, and have gotten language learning tracks to listen to while I drive, but haven't made a lot of progress. I think I'd need to go to Germany and stay immersed in the language for a while to really improve my speaking skill.

One more thing I'm going to bring up that I'll use later is humor. My grandmother has made several jokes in the time she's visited this time around, and I tend to have no idea what she's talking about. I'll understand the individual words, but I won't understand the joke, and when my mother explains to me, it turns out that the joke relies on some nuance of the language. So the point I'm trying to get across is that it's not just about knowing the words, but about knowing the idioms and shades of meaning in order to really understand what a native speaker is trying to communicate.

So even on friendly terms, a lack of common language makes communicating difficult at best.

Now I'm going to try to apply that to a larger scale. Imagine two nations without a common language that share a border. Imagine a misunderstanding at the border because of the lack of common language. Imagine hostilities ensuing over that misunderstanding. And consider the possibility that if they had spoken the same language from the beginning, the misunderstanding wouldn't have happened. I'm not trying to say that all hostilities begin from misunderstandings, but I know that they can.

Pick a conflict in the world to think about where the opposing sides don't share a native language. Most likely, each side has people that had to learn the opposing language. If not, maybe they're just ignoring a diplomatic solution as an option. But it's pretty easy to say that if a diplomatic solution is possible, it would be much easier if both sides spoke the same language. And diplomacy would only be possible with communication... which of course is easier with a common language, even if absolute fluency isn't achieved, though without fluency, you run the risk of missing the "humor", and having further misunderstandings.

I guess I'm trying to assert that common language is really important, and I think that one of the steps to bringing the world together is to homogenize language. Maybe that means picking a language that is most robust and everybody agreeing to learn it. Maybe it means everyone trying to learn at least one other language so they are doing something improve their own ability to communicate with more people. Maybe it means the long process of languages using words from other languages, eventually resulting in a language that is an amalgam of all major languages.

With that said, I was curious about what language is most spoken in the word. Thinking that English stood a good chance considering how many other countries are learning English as a second language, I was surprised to find internet data that says Mandarin Chinese is the forerunner by a wide margin: http://www.vistawide.com/languages/top_30_languages.htm

You can find all sorts of websites with lists like that, but most of the ones I found display lists from the same source. The link I provided just has the most recent year I found. Of course, the number one was Mandarin Chinese no matter the year I found. The second, third, and fourth spots were generally occupied by Hindi, Spanish, and English in some order or another.

Another interesting article (thank you wikipedia) is about the languages spoken in the United States of America: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_the_United_States

The numbers in the article are a decade old, but I find them interesting anyway. It makes me think I should be trying to learn Spanish. So at this point, in order to take responsibility and make myself more able to communicate with the world, I should learn Mandarin Chinese, Spanish, and for my own family: German. As an aside... I want to learn American Sign Language too.

The source (http://www.ethnologue.com/) that provides the language by population data says they track more than 7400 languages. Combined with the knowledge of the number of languages just spoken in the United States, and how much of a topic of contention language is here, I'm really beginning to believe that the idea of common language may be tremendously important to making the world a better place. Since we don't have any alien invaders to force us to come together, I think it's something we might need to pay attention to.

Okay... I think I got all the thoughts out of my head from when I woke up. Now I guess I start fixing my German skills...

Tech: Daylight Savings Time in Javascript

2009-10-30T13:44:00.005-04:00

This is another one of those computer programming centric posts I'm doing. I spent the last day and a half trying to find a good way to handle this, and I'm somewhat happy with my solution... so I'm sharing it. I'll post code, so I'm basically saying that if you want to use it, go ahead.

Let me start though, with the situation I needed to resolve. The application I'm working on is something that allows a user to schedule recording times... kind of like TiVo, but not for general Television... the source of the video is something else. Not important. The thing to understand is that it lets a user pick a time through a web application in "local time", "server time", or "UTC".

Since the client machine doesn't know what time it is on the server without the server telling it, I pass the offset from UTC... since everyone knows what UTC is. The problem I was dealing with was when the server and client are in different timezones to begin with, and daylight savings time occurs. If the server is in a timezone before the client (for example), what ends up happening is that when I pass the client my UTC offset, and daylight savings switch happens on the server, but not on the client, the client thinks the server is one hour different from what it actually is... until the client goes through the switch too, and then everything is back to normal.

It's a pain the ass. I hate daylight savings time.

So the idea to solve this problem was to figure out whether the offset was being passed as a standard or daylight savings time, and then to figure out if the client is in the same time (daylight savings or not). If they're different, I need to adjust by one hour, but if they're the same, I can just keep doing what I normally do in the code.

On the server side, I get to use C# (C Sharp for the search engines), and there it's easy: "DateTime.Now.IsDaylightSavingTime()". Really easy... and I can just pass that to the client side in a hidden input.

Now the client side. Javascript is pretty awesome for most things... but it is lacking a simple method or property to give me a boolean response about whether the date/time I'm looking at is in daylight savings or not. I found all sorts of methods online to tell me when daylight savings would shift, but zero methods telling me if a specified Date object held a date/time in daylight savings or not. And the problem only exists for that one hour where we set the clocks back... because it means that a given time occurs twice on the same day. We have 01:30 twice... and knowing which 01:30 becomes important if you're deciding whether to start or stop a recording in that time.

I'm ashamed to admit this, but it took me a while to figure out that if you just write out the date object without using any of the Date object's "to" functions, it includes the current timezone. In my case it was showing "EDT" which of course means "Eastern Daylight Time" (On the east coast of the United States. I guess there's another EDT in Australia). I looked into this a little further to see if it might be as simple as contrasting it with "EST" (Eastern Standard Time). I found out that Internet Explorer (at least in IE 8) is not following W3C Standards for how to output that information. It's supposed to spell out "Eastern Daylight Time". The standard would make things easy... because I could just the "toTimeString" function and search for the word "daylight".

So, I had to keep looking for a solution so I could make sure it works in IE. I decided to look up the list of time zone abbreviations... and what I found lead me to believe that if the timezone abbreviation includes the letter "d", it is a daylight savings time date/time. Well... except for what the website calls a military time zone, and one of them is called "delta"... abbreviated "d".

I had my solution. I test for the browser; If it's IE, I parse out the abbreviation, make sure it's longer than one character long (just to be sure to avoid that military time zone), and make sure it contains the letter "d"; If it's any other browser, I just search the toTimeString for "daylight".

Seems kind of simple now, and I'm wondering why I didn't stumble across anything like it in my google searches. Anyway, in an attempt at getting a solution out there on the web... and in hopes that google will find the page and lead other people here, I'll include the code...

First, a simple function for determining browser...

function isIE()
{
return (navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase().indexOf("msie") > -1);
}

Second... the daylight savings time test...

function isDaylightSavingsTime(theDate)
{
var theTime = theDate.toTimeString().toLowerCase();
var isDST = false;

if (isIE()) //do the IE based code for determining whether it's daylight savings time or not...
{
if (theTime.length > 9)
{
theTime = theTime.substr(9); //trim off the time so we just have the time zone
if (theTime.length > 1 && theTime.indexOf("d") > -1)
{
isDST = true;
}
}
}
else //handle W3C compliant browsers
{
if (theTime.indexOf("daylight") > -1)
{
isDST = true;
}
}

return isDST;
}

There might be more efficient ways to do it, but it works, and it's not THAT complicated. I hope this is useful for you. And I apologize but making the indentations right for the code samples is making my headache worse... so I'm leaving them as is. I'm sure you can forgive me that.

Did I meet someone? Really?

2009-10-14T08:09:00.004-04:00

Today is Wednesday. Last Saturday I met a girl. And I'm crazy about her. I'm not sure I've ever really meant "crazy" literally though. I find it a little scary how much I like her after knowing only a few days, and only a few hours in person. Let me tell you a story. Don't worry... it's only a few days... how long a story can it be?

It starts with a little background. I think I have a sinus infection. The most prominent symptom has been the sinus pressure and therefore the headaches. I missed work two days last week for this, and I have a doctor's appointment to check it out coming up. So I've been dealing with this headache that waxes and wanes for about a week now.

Saturday was no different, except that I needed to be okay so I could go to a wedding for a close friend of mine. Before I even left for the wedding (it was at 10:30 AM) I had my triple dose of "vitamin I" (Ibuprofen for the uninitiated). So as you can probably imagine I wasn't in the most cheery of moods. Part way through the wedding, I took a fourth dose. I was smart and brought a bottle of the ibuprofen with me. Of course, some of you may know that the bottle for ibuprofen tells you to not take more than 4 doses a day. I was at 4 doses by noon. And yes... I had to take a 5th dose before the end of the reception.

Because of my rough state, and my track record for not meeting people even in the most favorable of circumstances, I assumed I wasn't going to meet anyone at this wedding either. But there was one girl there... she caught my eye. Of course, if you don't know me (and are for some reason reading this blog), I am shy. Stupidly so. Even when I manage to overcome it, I tend to falter, and nothing intelligible comes out of my mouth, so I tend to just sit there and do nothing. Which is exactly what I did. But my friends at the wedding had other plans.

When the last dance rolled around, the bride demanded that everyone get up to dance... it was a paired dance... so I was going to ignore her. But she pointed me out and paired me off with this girl I had noticed. So we danced the last dance together. I didn't even know her name at the time. And I was nervous as hell. As a side note: I hate that I get so nervous. It's irrational. You could possibly classify it as a phobia.

Last dance ended, the reception was over, and there was an after party to go to. A good sized group of us (15 or 16 people I think) went into Boston to Dick's Last Resort. The guys all had tuxedo shirts on, the women had their dresses on, and the bride had her wedding dress on. It was pretty awesome how much attention you can get by wandering around Boston in a wedding dress, though I think it would probably work differently if I tried that.

Anyway, it was loud in there, and shouting was the only way to be heard. I have damn good hearing, but I don't pick out words as well as I pick out the simple presence of sound. So I'm not a fan of these loud places where you can't really talk to people. This girl who's name I still didn't know was sitting almost across the table from me. I think we shouted a little... you know... in a nice way... but it wasn't much real communication.

After Dick's Last Resort we went to a place called "The Hong Kong". Since the place is a dive, I'll assume no one knows what it is. It's a bar with a dance floor, and collection of the most frightening guys I've ever seen. They had nice shirts on, styled hair, an air of confidence, and stares that would make me uncomfortable if I had been one of the girls there. These guys did not strike me as the kind of guys I'd enjoy having a conversation with. They were like vultures. They were circling. It was creepy.

But I'm off topic. Anyway... I was dragged onto the dance floor again. I'm not a huge fan of getting on a dance floor. I don't think I'm good at dancing, and I've already mentioned the shyness thing. Put me in front of a computer, and I'm as comfortable as can be. Put me in front of people and make me do something I think I'm not good at... well... I get nervous.

But the girl (who's name I still didn't know)... danced with me. Now the group was all on the dance floor. Everyone seemed to be having a good time, and the ladies were dancing up a storm... they were really impressive, and I mean that in terms of skill level. They really seemed to have a knack for dancing.

Now I have to clarify something else about myself. I'm shy AND oblivious. I don't notice when women show interest in me. At least, this is what my friends tell me. I think they're making it up, but that's another topic. Assuming they're right, and I really am bad at noticing when women are interested, I wouldn't normally notice what was happening on that dance floor. The girl (I'll tell you her name at the point in the story where I learned it) was dancing with me in ways that figuratively knocked my socks off. She was amazing. It stunned me. And I found myself wanting more and more to be close to her. Even through my hazy awareness of social reality, I came to believe she might actually be interested in me. And I was real happy about that.

The night wore on, and eventually it was time to go. We all headed outside into the chilly night, and stood around trying to recover our hearing (it was really loud in that club). And for the first time that night I saw something that hurt my interest in her. She smoked a cigarette. I am not a fan of smoking as you may know if you read that earlier post of mine in this blog about smoking. And normally if I see a girl smoke, it's an immediate deal breaker. I completely lose interest. At that point in the evening, I just walked away and talked to someone else in the group. I didn't want to smell or breathe in the smoke. But somehow... I didn't lose interest. I still can't explain it, but I was still interested in her.

At some point in the evening I found out that she would be leaving the next day to go back home. And it was some place far away. So my hope was hit pretty hard at that piece of information. It meant she'd be far away, and even if we got along great that night, she'd be far away, and there would be no chance for us to spend any more time together. When the evening was over, and everyone was heading home, I figured it would just end up being a memory for me. Something to look back on and wonder about. I was sad, but not surprised considering my luck.

My memory of the rest of the evening is a little hazy. I had had a few drinks over the course of the roughly 12 hours, but I think my memory is hazy because I was just tired at this point. I think the bride and groom approached me after the girl separated from the rest of the group to head to where she was staying. The bride and groom informed me that she had liked me. And this was the moment I found out her name. They told me Tricia was interested, and I remember my response being something along the lines of: "oh so that was her name..."

When I got home an hour later, the groom asked if it would be okay to share my phone number with Tricia. Tricia asked the bride for it. I eagerly said yes, though I have to admit I was wondering if that meant I was getting a phone call at 1AM. That's what time it was. But it wasn't a phone call... it was a text message. And we started texting back and forth... until about 2:30. I think it was then that I found out she has a 9 month old daughter.

She smoked. She lives 600+ miles away. And she has a daughter. I think it was during that text conversation that I found out she's in the military too. She's served two tours, and is going back for another. Don't get me wrong. I highly respect the military. But this would be one more thing that's keeping us from spending time together.

Normally, a guy meeting a girl with a kid already... well... that's a big important thing and it does require some thought. I'll get back to this point later in this hugely long blog.

Even with all the obstacles and the important topics to consider, I knew I really liked her. It was crazy how much. But I was steeling myself for the probability that nothing would come of it. There were just so many obstacles.

The next morning (and I woke up at 6:00AM despite my best effort to go back to sleep) I got a text message from Tricia. She asked me to go see her off. This would be a 40 mile drive, and the time she gave me lead me to think I might not make it... and the bad part about this is that I was rationalizing it in my head. I was convincing myself to not even try to make it. And then it hit me. That's how I live my life. I never take chances, and I live in my comfort zone. Motivating me to leave my comfort zone is a difficult thing. But in this case... I knew I wanted to see her again... and I knew it might be my last chance. I hopped in my car and I drove. I sped. I actually got out of my own way and drove. Maybe it doesn't seem like much to a reader of this post, but to me... it was an important moment in my life. It was a moment where I finally fought through one of my weaknesses... I won. And I was doing it because of this wonderful girl I had met.

And in case I somehow managed to create tension... to make you wonder if I made it or not... She was running late, and needed to get a meal anyway. So we ate at the Cheesecake Factory in Burlington. Unfortunately, since I had gotten up so early, I had already eaten a big meal... so I feel guilty, but I didn't eat much at the CF. I think I still have the leftovers in my fridge from there. Anyway, we got to eat a meal together, and it was probably the first period of time where we could talk that wasn't full of ambient deafening sound. It was really nice, and I was excited to have had the chance to spend more time with her.

I guess I should mention that she and her friend were both there. Tricia was giving her friend a ride to the airport, and then Tricia was going to be driving home... From Massachusetts to Ohio. Just so I'm not being a jerk by leaving her out entirely... her friend is a really good person. Great stories, very friendly, and she made it easy for me to feel comfortable.

So Tricia was facing an 11 hour drive. Alone. Now I'm not a fan of driving at all. I complain about my 30 mile commute to work. And driving for that long (600+ miles) alone is not something I'd be happy about. She called me near the beginning of her drive, and we talked. I'm not even sure I can recall everything we talked about it. Aside from a pause to eat dinner, we talked for her entire trip.

Something else you might need to know about me to appreciate this part of the story: I hate talking on the phone. Hate it. When people call me for a reason other than making plans and that take longer than 2 minutes... I start trying to find excuses to get off the phone. I don't want to converse on the phone. It's a compulsion. And if I can avoid it I won't talk to strangers on the phone. Calling a doctor's office to make an appointment is unpleasant to me. Telemarketers annoy me greatly. There are exceptions. My brother being half way around the world... I'm willing to talk to him on the phone for as long as he likes. Just an example, and as you can have already read, I talked to Tricia for probably 8 or 9 hours that day... and by "that day" I mean last Sunday. "That day" makes it sound like it was years ago.

I'll admit that part of my motivation was because I was worried about her. I didn't want her falling asleep on the road. But the idea that I would be capable of participating in a 9 hour conversation with someone I just met over the phone is mind boggling to me. I must really like this girl.

And now I'm back at work... and we have been keeping in touch with email, texts, and phone. I've talked about buying her a plane ticket to come visit with her daughter so I can meet her too. I've talked with friends about this... wondering what's going on because honestly, I'm a little scared and confused. How can I have such strong feelings for someone I met four days ago? Am I ready to take something like this seriously enough to take on the responsibility of helping to care for a child? How do I be part of a relationship when we're so far apart? What happens when she gets deployed again? Should I try to get her to move in with me? How did I go from being hopelessly single to wondering these things in a weekend?

Here's another tidbit about me. I tend to analyze everything. I think things through so much that it's often detrimental to me. So I've been thinking about her pretty much non-stop since we danced at that little club called the Hong Kong. I'm worried that I might mess something up because I'm trying to apply logic to a feeling.

So that's where I am. I know I like her a lot. Some of the similarities between us are just too good to be true for me. I'd go into some of them now, but this post is getting real long. Just trust that some of the things she's said have surprised me in very good ways. And I'll leave it to you readers to wonder what might happen. It's still really early. And I don't know what might happen either. But I know right now as I type this that I hope she and her daughter will be part of my life. I hope I'm ready, and I hope I don't mess anything up.

Tech: ASP.Net annoys me sometimes

2009-10-06T16:42:00.003-04:00

I apologize... this post is going to be pretty computer programming centric. For those of you who read this post, and who don't know me personally, I am a software engineer. My job is primarily done with WinForms and C#.Net. But there are projects that lean toward my roots which is web technology. Right now I'm working on a web application that I shouldn't say too much about, but which has become a source of frustration.

How? Well... it's written with ASP.Net.

Prior to ASP.Net, if you wanted to stick with microsoft technology, and you wanted a highly interactive webpage, you used HTML (basis of all web pages), ASP, and Javascript. Each piece handled it's own area of expertise. HTML was the set of tags that told the browser what to show and how to show it. Javascript was the client side script code to handle things like field validation and to update stuff on the page without having to make a request on the network to the server for more info. ASP handled the server side stuff including talking to databases and so forth.

ASP.Net though... they seem to be trying to take responsibility for all the roles the other things used to take. Now, ASP.Net is trying to write all that other code for you. You have drag and drop components that try to do things for you, but in the process they limit your ability to use the other tools effectively. And on top of that, it's not even efficient code. So it does make some things easy, but it murders your web site performance, and limits your ability to do what you need to do in some cases.

An example: ASP.Net provides an "update panel" that is supposed to leverage Ajax technology so you can update sections of your webpage without doing a full page request from the server. The idea is that if you ask the server for small bits of information and just change the page the user already sees, you can improve performance since the computers and network do less. It's a great idea, and the ASP.Net Update Panel does make it easy to implement... you don't have to write any Ajax code or even know what it is. But it's such a crappy chunk of code. It doesn't give you the performance benefits because in the background... it's STILL DOING THE FULL PAGE SUBMIT. You aren't passing just a small chunk of information to the server... It's like using a nuke when all you needed was a bullet, and yes... the nuke in this analogy still destroys everything around it despite only wanted to shoot one target. It's annoying.

Fortunately, you can just write your own Ajax code, and have it work fine.

What I'm dealing today, and probably for the next few days, is figuring out why ASP.Net won't let me use javascript to update some form fields and still get the data to the server side so I can store it in the database. It's as though if you don't use the officially sanctioned ASP.Net method to accomplish something, it won't let you do it. Which is horrendously stupid, and massively offensive that microsoft would code it that way. I can only imagine ASP.Net is aimed at people who don't know much about web code, and aren't looking to do anything complicated... where "complicated" really means: "things microsoft didn't anticipate". And honestly, I can do most of the things ASP.Net controls do, but better.

So why did I use ASP.Net in the first place?

I didn't. I wasn't in charge of this project at its inception. And the guy who was is a back end programmer. Doesn't even like working in winforms UI... Prefers the business logic layer and the database. And he's damn good at it. But he got tricked when he got hired here and got through into a UI intensive web application project. And with ASP.Net, he successfully built the app. The problem is that as the app grows, and since he left the company, ASP.Net is no longer capable of giving us what we need. And I'm stuck on this stupid bug that doesn't seem to have a solution.

So I guess this post is about venting. Maybe it's also a warning. Web programmers using a microsoft base (which is fine. I like ASP... just not ASP.Net), should strongly consider using basic ASP, and writing their own controls. Don't use master pages. Don't use the built in ASP.Net controls (a "label" is just a span... you can write a span can't you?). Don't use repeaters (If I believed in a god I'd say "for the love of God don't use repeaters").

You'll end up with a far better application that is far better capable of dealing with new needs down the line.

The JP Morgan Corporate Challenge, through my eyes... er... words?

2009-09-23T08:30:00.002-04:00

This is something I posted on Facebook (26 June 2009). I'm reposting it here because I rather like it, and I need to keep reminding myself. So I hope it's something you folks out there on the internet find interesting...

==========================

Last night I ran in the JP Morgan corporate challenge. Well, I jogged. Okay sometimes I walked, but mostly I jogged. I did the 3.5 miles in 44 minutes. That's roughly 12.5 minute miles. My legs and feet were fine. I'm not sore today. It's my cardiovascuar endurance that was the killer. I'm working on it though, and will continue to work on it. Anyway, to get to the bullet points about my experience with the JP Morgan Corporate Challenge.

BAD: I parked in Sommerville near the Davis T Stop. I've grown to hate Sommerville. What a horrible city. One way streets, bizarre intersections, signs everywhere that don't tell you where you are or how to get where you want to go... just that you can't park there... and I hope to never have to drive through or park in Sommerville again. It doesn't help that the parking lot had those parking meters that only take quarters. I had two quarters... good enough for an hour. A friend had more quarters but the meter was broken or something and only went up to an hour. I couldn't move to another meter because I had no more quarters. I got a $20 parking ticket.

GOOD: I like riding the T. There are always interesting people to see. I find myself wondering what story explains the facial expressions of other people on the train.

GOOD: The race itself was fun. I'm not a huge fan of the crazy crowd (there were 12,000 people running in the race), but it was interesting. The other people served as motivation for me. The biggest motivation was the guy with one leg on crutches. He was ahead of me at the beginning, I caught up to him at a point where I desperately needed a breathing break, so I walked behind him for a bit. Of course there's the comedic "Holy crap, the guy on crutches is ahead of me in the race", but really the more important thing is that that guy was awesome. I think I take my own health for granted too much. I know I'm out of shape, and recently I've been trying to do something about it, but I'm not in good shape yet. And of course as I was running and then taking that break, the thoughts of doubt and desire to quit are running through my mind. When I saw the guy with one leg on crutches doing a 3.5 mile run through Boston... it really helped me. Anyway, the race was really a great experience. So many people just getting together to run. I don't even care that it was a charity event. Seriously, how does my running 3.5 miles help any charity? I paid $40 to participate, and I understand how that helps the charity... but couldn't I have just given them $40? Oh well... like I said, the race was a lot of fun, and I'm glad I did it... even if it was humbling.

GOOD: Going out afterward to get some food and a drink with the coworkers/friends I ran the race with was nice too. We may have been a little sweaty... but the company was top notch, the food was pretty good, and that Jameson-in-Coke was delicious. Of course I should have skipped the alcohol entirely. Being somewhat dehydrated from the run, and then drinking something that requires water for the body to process. I woke up this morning with the worst headache I've had in weeks (I get a lot of headaches). But still I'm calling this part a "Good" part of the experience. 2.5 times the normal dose of ibuprofen did the trick for that headache.

BAD: Travelling home was not my favorite part of this. Finding my way out of Sommerville (CURSE YOU SOMMERVILLE!! I WILL HAVE MY REVENGE!!), was tricky. I know I'm looking for 16 and route 2. But my iPhone GPS doesn't tell me what direction I'm facing, the previously mentioned crappy signs in Somerville were no help at all, I was stuck on one way roads for the first couple turns, and so finding route 16 was a good 20 minutes of driving so I could see where on the little iPhone map I actually was, so I could figure out what direction I needed to go. Then of course there was the hour long trip back home. I was pleasantly entertained by the lightning storm that was happening... that part was good, but I was tired, sweaty, and I knew I'd need a shower before going to sleep, which would keep me up longer... I wasn't so happy about the drive home. Not that it'll save me on time, but I will always go to Alewife now instead of Davis.

GOOD: The experience in general was a good one. I got to run with 12,000 people, including some really great people from my office. I got to go out in Boston afterward to the Black Rose, and enjoy some conversation with those same people (not the 12,000...). And I got to be shown again that my physical health is not something I should take for granted. Sitting in front of a computer as my job is fine, but typing at a keyboard can't be the only physical activity I get in a day.

That's it. That's what I took away from this experience. I recommend it to everyone. And I do mean everyone who is capable of moving under their own power. The fastest guy did it in about 20 minutes or something. I did it in 44. And there were people who walked the course and did it in over an hour. It's not about getting the fastest time. It's about doing something that will remind you that your health is worth fighting for.

Over 1 Billion Hungry People

2009-09-16T15:11:00.002-04:00

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE58F1MJ20090916?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

So there's the brief news article. In case the link is broken later, the article basically says that the UN relief organization doesn't have enough money to support the 1 billion people who need it.

This issue caught my attention because I'm not sure I care. Don't get me wrong. I feel bad for individuals who suffer, and I certainly don't want to cause suffering, but doesn't this situation strike anyone else as wrong? And by "this situation" I mean the one where 1 billion need to be completely supported by charity.

Why aren't these people doing something to survive on their own? What causes them to need support for their entire lives? Are we doing anything to get these people to a point of self sufficience? Or have we basically created 1 billion people who require total support just to survive?

I'm fine with the idea of helping people to get back on their feet, or to learn how to stand on their own to begin with, but I'm not okay with parasites. Life is a struggle that makes you stronger, and these people are just (apparently) not doing anything at all. They sit back and wait for someone else to take care of them. Sounds a bit like our welfare system, but that's another post entirely.

So to sum up: I think we need to get to a point where 1 billion people aren't in need of charity... where those 1 billion people can take care of themselves... farm... whatever it takes. And I'll just lay it out there... if people die... that's okay. That's a possible outcome of trying to live. If I died because I couldn't take care of myself... that's just nature... it's the nature of living. Like I said before, I'm okay with helping people become self sufficient, but not with supporting people indefinitely. The strategy needs to change, for their (the starving people) sake more than ours (the people who can feed themselves).

Creationist "Museum"... what?

2009-08-18T14:58:00.002-04:00

Here's a blog post I just have to share...

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/the_creation_museum_1.php

The author of the post sounds like someone I'd enjoy talking to. The post is about this Creation "Museum", and about how it's not actually a museum. So I'm just sharing it here, both so I can find it again later, and so you few people who read this blog might see it. The post is not as long as the scroll bar implies by the way... lots of comments at the end of it.

A follow up to the exorcism post

2009-07-28T10:30:00.003-04:00

Hello again to anyone who reads this blog. It seems I'm focusing quite a bit on religion and how much I'd like for it to go away. Sadly there are people who insist that their religion is "true" in spite of an overwhelming lack of evidence, and in spite of the fact that there are so many mutually exclusive religions that claim to be the one true one. They were all written by people. Some of them just appealed to enough people that they lasted.

Anyway, I wanted to address something from my last post about the church that performed an exorcism to "help" a teen boy stop being gay. It's still infuriating, but the person who responded and deleted his two comments did mention something I have to correct my assertion about. Apparently, as of when I did my reading, homosexuality is not necessarily a biological trait. It supposedly can be, but isn't always. Or something like that.

But when I thought about it... I realized it really doesn't matter if it's biological or not. What right did those people in that church have to impose their way of thinking on that boy? The boy wasn't hurting anyone (to my knowledge). It's persecution. It's morally wrong what they did to that boy. One of the touted traits of this country is freedom of religion. And that's great. It's a protection against one group of people telling another group of people what to think. Having a different sexual orientation is a bit like religion in that respect. But for some reason the religious zealots from that church are allowed to mistreat a young kid in a way they would be furious over if done to them. If I went to their church, tied them up, and forced them to listen to me spout on about how their socially acceptable imaginary friend for adults (and by that I mean their god) is a farce that isn't any more likely than the flying spaghetti monster (I've linked it before... easy to find on wiki), they be pissed off. How can they be so hypocritical?

My guess is because their faith tells them that they're "right", and that the exorcism was a good thing where my explaining why their god doesn't exist is a bad thing.

I have friends who have deep faith that their religion is the "truth". I'll never understand why. Faith to me is something built up over time based on experience. I have faith in my parents, my brother, and my friends. I believe that if I was in trouble these people would help me. I know that I would help them. But I can't prove they would help me without it actually happening... so it's faith instead of knowledge. But having faith in a religion... in a god that has no better chance of existing than a levitating pasta creature... It makes no sense at all. And then to let it guide your actions like those people in that church did... That's what scares me about religion. Even if they are based on something that a goat herder made up thousands of years ago, people seem capable of believing strongly enough to let it make them do stupid things.

I think I understand why people want to have faith. If you believe in some powerful being that for some reason cares about what happens to you, and that everything happens for a reason, suddenly life isn't so hard. Things will work out. You don't have to worry. It's a comfort.

I just can't do it. Part of me wants to have faith in a higher power because I crave that kind of comfort too. But there's nothing in my life that has ever given me reason to even suspect that there is a higher power... except what religious people say, and that barely counts because they are just people... people who believe... and they don't have evidence either.

I'm definitely wandering around in this blog post. Sorry for that.

Exorcism? Of a biological trait? Seriously?

2009-07-02T14:56:00.002-04:00

I'm having trouble starting this blog post. So I'll just give you the link...

Exorcising Homosexuality

This is the kind of thing that makes me think humanity is doomed. If I'm not mistaken, the majority of people are religious. What I wonder is about how many of them are as obscenely stupid as the people of the church in that article.

In case the link is broken, the article talks about an exorcism done at a church. There's even a video. And they were exorcising the "gay demon" from a teenage boy. He apparently goes into convulsions, pukes, and can't stand on his own. They cover him with a white sheet. At some point a woman yells to rip the demon from his throat.

WTF?

I just... I mean... how do these people function in society? I'm writing an angry letter to Darwinism to complain about the fact that these people haven't successfully died out yet. If you've read my anti-religion posts, you know I'm already not a fan of religion. But these people... they believe in exorcism... on top of that they believe that homosexuality is a demon that possesses a person... and they think that they can get rid of this demon so the kid won't be gay anymore. This also means they believe in their religion so fervently that biology is lost on them. And the worst part is that they think they're doing something "good". That poor kid.

I'm trying to imagine the rebuttles I might get if anyone actually read this blog. But if there's a logical or reasonable oppositional argument to my assertion that these religious freaks (the ones in the article and video) are stupid, evil, and/or seriously negatively impacting their community, I don't know it.

I want to say that I believe everyone should be able to believe what they want. But this is really putting that belief to the test. I suppose, when you cross the line into hurting someone... like these people did (and apparently do regularly according to the article)... the people of that community need to have some kind of intervention to teach those religious nut-jobs that they're being stupid.

Sorry. Examples like this... well... they get to me. And I really wonder if there's anyone out there on the internet that would actually defend that awful behavior.

Everything Happens For a Reason

2009-03-30T15:26:00.002-04:00

"Everything happens for a reason" is one of those phrases you hear a lot, and it seems to be a means of finding comfort. In that way it's a lot like the concept of a god. In fact, if you believe that saying, you must believe that there is a conscious force behind everyday occurences.

Let's imagine a hypothetical scenario where you step on a rusty nail, and it makes a hole right through your foot. Now you have a nail stuck in your foot. Removing it yourself is generally a bad idea as you tend to bleed faster when you remove the puncturing implement. You know you're gonna have to get a tetanus shot. This is an unpleasant situation.

But everything happens for a reason right? Maybe you end up meeting your future spouse at the hospital. Maybe you end up missing a really lame social event because of the injury and are happy for that at least. Maybe you're just a horrible person and the reason is that you deserved it.

But all of those possibilities assume there's a "greater power" at work planning this crap out. Lacking any evidence of a god, it makes no sense to say that everything happens for a reason. Even if you did meet your spouse because you stepped on the rusty nail... there was no reason behind it. It's called a "coincidence".

"I forgot my cellphone at home, two of my tires blew out, and I had no way of calling for road side assistance. It was really a big problem to get someone to stop and lend me their cellphone. But I guess everything happens for a reason right?"

No.

Of course, you can say that some things happen for a reason. But those things are the events that occur as a result of the actions of a thinking being.

"I can't walk right now because a thug shot me in the left leg."

Yup... it happened for a reason. That thug consciously pulled the trigger and shot you. And their reason might have been that they wanted to hobble you, kill you, or maybe they hit you by "coincidence" and they were just pulling the trigger because they wanted to. That's the reason. It might be a stupid reason. It might not have any greater purpose.

To then assign it any greater purpose is solely a construct of the mind. You can decide it has meaning, but that doesn't mean it actually does. "God let me get shot so I'd understand pain and the struggle to get back up on my feet," doesn't work. You can decide how to deal with the situation, and you may come out stronger. That's your choice. Not the plan of some manipulative being.

That's it. That's my rant for now. I suppose I should just stop trying to tear away comforts... people deserve to delude themselves a little now and then right? I guess. I choose otherwise.

Missed Opportunities

2009-01-28T07:38:00.003-05:00

Years ago, maybe almost a decade now, I spent a lot of time and money at a place called Boston Billiard Club in Nashua. One of the defining characteristics of this place was (probably still is) beautiful waitresses in little black dresses. This is probably why I spent so much time and money there. Don't get me wrong... going with friends was fun in it's own right, but I do often lament how much money I spent there.

And of course, I had interest in various waitresses there. I became a regular. They knew me by name, and I'm told that management had a meeting about me and one of my friends who was there with me most of the time, also spending lots of money. Management wanted to make an effort to keep the girls from fighting over who got to have us as customers because we were so well known there... for spending way too much money. When I first hear about it... it felt sort of good to think the waitresses there would fight over having us... but now it seems sort of sad to me that it was about how much money was being spent there.

Anyway, hopefully that lesson got learned.

So there was one waitress there that I was very interested in, and who I of course said nothing to about my interest in her. Okay, so there were several waitresses I was interested in over my time going there, but the story is about this one.

After I stopped going there, and I think at least a year went by, I saw her again. She was working somewhere else, and she remembered me. And she seemed happy to see me. I was there with some relatively new coworkers for lunch, and she was waitressing there. She hugged me and of course my coworkers were amazed and impressed. The icing on the cake was that she gave me her phone number and told me to call her. I talked to her alone for a few minutes there, just to catch up a bit, and found out she was living with her boyfriend.

This is where we'd insert the screeching sound of brakes being applied vigorously.

So I left that day with nothing but confusion. And I never called. I mean... maybe she was interested in hearing from me. And I'm sorry I didn't call for that, but she lived with her boyfriend. That's not something small... that's big. And it was enough to dash any hope I might have held.

Last night, I had a dream with her in it. I don't really remember the dream now, but I remember seeing her in the dream. It's the only thing I do remember. I decided to look her up on facebook to see if maybe she was there. And I found her. And she's married. And she has two kids. Most important though is that in the pictures she posted, she looks really happy.

So I am happy for her. And I know that getting in touch with her now would be bad. The reason I'm writing this blog entry is because I still feel like I lost something... or missed an opportunity somewhere that I'm really unhappy I missed. Sure, none of the circumstances were particularly good. She knew me because I spent money. She was living with her boyfriend. And now she's seemingly happily married. But there was opportunity somewhere in there to at least ask, and I did nothing.

I'm trying to think of any situations like the one years ago that are in my life right now... wondering if maybe there's a chance I should be taking... that I'll look back on and regret if I don't.

Not sure how to wrap this post up. I think it was mostly a means of getting my thoughts in order. I hope it was interesting at least. And I hope this means I learned a lesson, though I somehow doubt it.

Where I want to be in five years (professionally)

2009-01-06T15:54:00.003-05:00

My boss (a long time friend) made it a job related task for me to figure out what I expect or hope for myself to be doing in five years professionally speaking. This blog post is going to be my effort at figuring out what my answer to the question is. So if you plan on reading the whole post... I'm sorry for the jumps in thought I'm likely to make.

I don't really know where to start. I mean, people have asked it of me in a general sense, where do I want to be with my life in some period of time. But I don't really have a good answer for those questions either. I usually think about things like being retired early, having a small beach house and a dog to play with, and of course, having enough money to not have to worry about it anymore. I don't want an extravagant life, but I don't want money to be a source of concern or stress either. I just want to live.

With that said, I guess the first and most honest response to where I want to be professionally is that I want to be retired with enough money to live on for the rest of my life. Then I start thinking about how unlikely that is, and really, what employer wants to hear that the employee isn't interested in working at all in five years?

I have to admit that of my software engineering jobs (and really the others as well), this current job is my favorite. I love the people I work with. The work itself is interesting, and I even crack open my laptop at home in my free time now and then to do some work. And I didn't even admit to myself that the pay was important to me before, but now I actually feel like I'm being paid fairly. So this company is one I can see myself still working for in five years, if the general feel of the company stays roughly the same for that long.

I just thought of two more things that might be important to keep in mind. First, I keep calling it a "job" instead of a "career". The difference in meaning is something I should keep in mind. Second, I've never worked for a single company for five years. Companies have gone out of business due to the dot com crash, some just laid off 40 to 60 percent of their employees, and one company fired me because they thought they could get more and better work from someone who didn't have half the experience I had and for less money. Oh well. No worries there. That company was awful. Anyway, I haven't worked at one place for 5 years before. So maybe I just don't have any basis for figuring out what I might expect or hope for in five years at this company.

My boss mentioned a few ideas to try to help me, like becoming the expert in a finer field of software developement, or maybe I want to be a tech lead, or something and have people reporting to me. And I keep coming back to "I don't know".

What about the idea of just seeing where the path leads on its own? Is that a valid option? I'm happy doing what I'm doing now. How can I possibly know what I will be happy doing in five years? "Goals" you say? I already mentioned my goals... to be retired, have a little beach house, and a dog I can befriend. "Professional goals" you say? I still don't know. There's some kind of disconnect. Maybe I'm just not an ambitious person. Maybe that's a good thing... maybe the way I am lends itself well to living in the moment instead of being trapped in the past or lost in the possibilities of the future. Maybe it's a bad thing because it means without an ambition for the future, I don't have enough motivation to accomplish much.

I was hoping that by writing all this stuff down I might find some answers. But I haven't come up with anything so far. I guess I still have lots to think about.

Nature of Competition

2008-11-13T17:40:00.003-05:00

I dislike competition.

I understand that competition is the basis for biological development. I understand that species that compete better will survive. I understand it is integral to what we are. I am in effect competing with all the people that might want my job. I have to be better than all of them to keep my job. Competition exists. I just dislike it.

I dislike it unless it's against something other than other people. Competing against my own previous standards. Competing against a task. As long as there isn't another person on the other side.

I dislike competition with people because someone wins, and someone loses. Again, I see that to grow in life it seems necessary to lose, but that doesn't make it better. If I am the one who wins... I feel bad because the other person is faced with not being "as good" as me. I feel bad when I lose too... because I wasn't "good enough" to win.

I don't understand people who enjoy competition because it seems to me that if they win, they are being inconsiderate of the people around them. If the lose and keep enjoying it, it seems like they don't understand what just happened.

Even a friendly game of foosball at work is something I'm starting to dislike because it's starting to feel like people involved care what happens. I can play and enjoy it normally because it doesn't matter. We play another game, and there's a different winner. We can compliment each other on the good shots or good stops. And no one seems to care who actually wins. But when people start to look dissappointed, or keep track of win rates, or just cheer when they win instead of just enjoying the company... I don't like it anymore.

I think my self-image is part of the reason I dislike competition so much. I seem to put more value into those contests than there actually is. The board game "Risk"... I won't play that game anymore. Where a game of foosball can take a few minutes and can go either way on a regular basis... Risk and games like it take hours. You set up, you plan, and your intelligence has a bearing on the game. So to me, Risk is a game where you get together with your friends and spend hours of deep thought to show an example of being smarter than your friend. To me it seems like a slap in the face. Either you find out you're dumber or smarter, and either way, someone has to lose, and it's this long drawn out process to get there. How does that help anyone? When I win, the victory feels hollow because I made another person face the idea that they aren't good enough. When I lose, I realize I'm not good enough. I won't play that game ever again.

So while I understand that competition is necessary in life, and that a person can become stronger by losing... I hate being the one to tell someone else that they lost. There's no pleasure in winning for me when the competition matters.

How can I go into a competition against another person knowing that the only outcomes can be bad? I hate competition.

Now on a bit to the other side of it... homogeny. Schools are the best example I can think of here. Each student is competing with themselves to learn. But of course, the grades make for a way to compare students. But I'm not looking to go indepth on my thoughts about grades. I'm looking to get to Levels. Some schools separate students into low difficulty classes through a spectrum to the high difficulty classes. Kids are put into levels. And while a person after reading the previous part of my post might think I'm against levels because it's a form of competition, they'd be wrong. Grades can be kept to yourself. But the level of classes you're taking is pretty easy for people to find out. So it's easy for people to say "I'm in level 1 classes and you're only in level 4 classes... you must be stupid". There is the same sort of competitive standard.

And there are people in the world who think those levels should go away. But I am adamantly against that. When you're a teacher, you have to account for all of your students and their learning styles. And unfortunately, you tend to have to go at the pace of the slowest learner. If you keep a pace that the fastest learners can keep up with, the slow kids get left behind and you aren't doing your job. If you keep a slow pace, the fast learners will invariantly get bored, and very likely won't learn. You're still not doing your job. To do your job, you need all of the students to learn the lessons. As you may guess... this effort required increases dramatically when the students have such different learning abilities, to the point where to get rid of those levels would mean teachers would be far more likely to fail. Putting stupid kids in with smart kids just means the system won't work.

So in the case of schools, I think it's vital to label students as low level through high level learners. Without it, we're making the task of teaching close to impossible. And when did we stop admitting that some people are stupid? Sure, you feel bad for a stupid kid, but putting him into a class with smart kids is not going to make the situation better. Instead... put him in a room with other kids who learn like he does, and let the teacher do their job. They might not learn as much in total... but at least they'll learn. We can't treat students like a homogeny. While I would feel bad categorizing a kid as stupid... how else can we keep things moving? How else can make things good for everyone involved?

Alright... I'm done putting my thoughts down about this one for now. I don't have a clue what good it will do, but I figured I'd try to get my head straight anyway.

Thinking versus Doing

2008-11-03T14:57:00.003-05:00

"Thinking is easy, acting is difficult, and to put one's thoughts into action is the most difficult thing in the world."
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

I think about that concept frequently and often for extended periods. It seems to define me. I don't know how well Goethe's quote applies to everyone else, but it fits me extremely well. I have hopes. I have intentions. I have goals. I think about these things and it turns into a day-dream about things I'd love to do or experience. But I don't do them or experience them.

I'm writing this post because I'm thinking about things I'd like to do that I'm not doing. I can be conscious of the fact that I'm not doing what I want to do and still find excuses to not do them. Does that mean it's not actually what I want? Or do I spend all that time day-dreaming and hoping for things I don't actually want? That doesn't make sense... but then why don't I just act on those thoughts? Goethe knew me well apparently. For some reason putting my thoughts into action is terribly difficult for me.

Talking to a woman I'm attracted to. Home improvement projects. Buying a new car. Taking a ski trip. Going shooting more often. Practicing karate. Getting back into shape with running. Writing software in my free time to try to sell it for extra cash. Writing fiction in my free time because I love writing (I think). Getting together with friends more often...

It's all stuff I think I want that I'm not actually doing. I'm sure there's more I should list, but I think you get the idea. Can you make a list like that? This is where I'm hoping I can be of some service to anyone who stumbles on my little blog. I'm hoping that maybe you'll think like I do, but that maybe you can be conscious of the situation and actually do something about it.

I'm writing this so I can try to think through in a clearer way what is going on with me. I think I want to act on my thoughts. I want to stop being afraid. I want to stop making excuses. Maybe putting this out there for anyone to see will help me. Maybe it'll help someone else too.

Good gravy my impulse to find negative sides is strong. As I wrote the previous paragraph I was thinking to myself about how I don't know where to start. When I get home after work I'm just going to settle down and catch up on TiVo'd shows. And why would reading someone else's thoughts on this help anyone to get over that hurdle? And the thing is... I believe the negative side. I believe I won't change. And I believe that anyone reading this isn't likely to change either... or at least not because of anything I've written.

So here I am pondering again the concept of acting on your own thoughts because I'm not strong enough to do anything about it.

More about religion...

2008-10-22T08:49:00.002-04:00

First, there's an article to at least gloss over. The italicized parts give a good idea of where they're going with this one...

http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000008385.cfm

Citizen link? My first complaint with the article is that for some reason it seems to assume that religion has a right to have a bearing on legal limitations. I'm pretty sure we're allowed to follow whatever religion we want, or no religion at all. I'm sort of offended by the title of the website considering the content of their site. Oh well. I guess they can say whatever they want right? As long as they don't somehow change the meaning the citizenship and for their sake, I hope they don't hold the mistaken belief that their religion is more important than others.

Their first point about why gay marriage is a problem has to do with the reference to one person in the wedding being called the bride and the other, the groom. Apparently California state law changed it to "Party A" and "Party B". Sounds pretty ridiculous to me. Why does it matter whater either person is called? Why does it matter to any law? And why would anyone suggest that it's the fault of gay marriage that the state came up with a misguided change? The "Citizen Link" definitely messed up on this one. Sure, they (religious types) might insist on calling themselves "Bride and Groom"... that's fine. I've got no complaint with it. Everyone should be able to choose what to call themselves in that context too.

Their next point has to do with how churches might lose their tax exempt status if they hold one sexual behavior/preference above others... like if a church says homosexual behavior is wrong, they could lose their tax exempt status. Churches shouldn't be tax exempt to begin with. I don't go to any church. I don't benefit from any church that I'm aware of. I pay taxes, and the companies that I'm aware of pay taxes, so why don't churches pay taxes? They are corporations that provide a service to people who look for it. They have employees. They have customers. Paying customers even... how much money do they make in donations? yeah yeah... donations aren't technically payment... but it's a fine line, and no religious institution should be exempt from taxes.

So I guess in a way, I agree with Citizen Link. Churches shouldn't lose their tax exempt status over views on sexual orientation. What they left out is that Chruces should lose their tax exempt status anyway. But this leads me to another dissappointment with Citizen Link. They seem to be asserting that Churches should keep their tax exempt status. They based their argument on a faulty premise. I'm sad if legislators try to use sexual orientation as an excuse, but if churches lose their tax exempt status, I'll be happy.

The article's next point is about how parents are losing the right to oversee the sexual education of their children in Massachusetts where gay marriage is the moral equivalent to heterosexual marriage. Again, we have something where they are looking at it wrong AND making a faulty assertion.

How can you lose the right to teach your children your beliefs about sexual relationhips unless you're doing something damaging to the children? You can tell your kids that gay marriage is wrong all you want. Just don't expect any public school to support a religious belief over the freedom of human beings to marry who they like. Heck, why are schools responsible for teaching kids about relationships anyway? There's no class taught about what's right or wrong in relationships, unless you consider health class to be responsible for filling kids heads with unsupported notions of a religion? Health classes are responsible for making kids aware of actual health issues... not religious issues. So if you want to teach your kids to be closed minded, that's still your right. And Massachusetts (I never thought I'd be defending Massachusetts since I have my own complaints with it) is not a bad state for supporting gay marriage.

Also, what makes anyone think that heterosexuality is more moral than homosexuality? I don't even know where to begin on this one. If I say that cleaning your house of dust is a crime against your own dead skin particles... disrespecting your own flesh... and I whole-heartedly believe it... would you agree that your cleaning of the dust in your house is less moral than my behavior? If I say that it's an atrosity that a religious person speak one word of their religious belief to me, would you consider it immoral because I said so? The only argument I can think of that anyone might make to suggest that heterosexual marriage is more "moral" than a homosexual one is based on religion. And religion by definition is based on faith... a belief in something unprovable. Basically... what this article is saying is that gay marriage is less moral because "they say so". There's absolutely nothing to support that. Hell... gay marriage might even be hugely good for human kind... we're already overpopulating our planet... gay couples can't conceive on their own. So the birth rate goes down. And gay couples may decide to adopt, helping kids without a good home already. I'm just throwing some possibilities out there. But even what I'm saying doesn't make gay marriage moral either. I'm trying to get to the idea that morality is not related to marriage. It only comes into play when the act of marrying includes something that hurts someone. And then the act that's hurting someone is what has the moral issue... not the marriage to begin with. Okay... I've babbled enough about that one. I hope it was understandable.

The article's final point is about small business owners not being to operate and still hold their deep religious belief. Well, I think that this one is a bit touchy. The article provides an example of a religious couple that turned away a gay couple from their photography business for wedding photos or something. Apparently, the business was fined for turning them away. I can see both sides of the situation, so I guess this one is the one I have the least complaint with. Discrimination is what the article forgot. Discriminating based on religion is not okay in this country as far as what I understand. If you have a business that anyone can walk into, you're not supposed to turn them away just because they happen to think Zeus and the other gods of his kind are real. Just like it would be wrong to turn you Jesus/God loving people away because of your belief. I'm an agnostic with a belief that atheism is probably right. Would you turn me away because I don't believe in God? Why would it be okay to turn away two guys who just want pictures taken of their happy day? It's a business... so can't discriminate because of homosexuality. So I guess I changed my mind. I disagree with the article. The couple that turned down the customers because of their belief was horribly rude, and legally improper. They can express their distaste, and maybe the gay couple would choose someone else on their own, but denying them service... that was wrong.

So I guess that's another post on my part about how religion is a bad influence on our society. I don't begrudge religious people the right to believe as they see fit, but I do take exception with it when it negatively impacts the people around them and even more so when it tries to affect government and law.

Love and Confusion

2008-08-20T09:05:00.006-04:00

Surprise... Surprise... I've been single for a long time. I'm a computer programmer with hermit tendancies. Doesn't change that I feel like I want a relationship. I've known that for a long time, but my own propensities get in the way. Logically, it seems simple to make a change and do something about it. Emotionally... well I tend to feel nervous, and no amount of logic has succeeded in ridding me of that feeling.

I went to a gaming convention in Indianapolis recently. GenCon is a huge gaming convention with a big vendor floor that sells all sorts of gaming related products. There was a trading card booth that hired a "booth babe" to draw the attention of geeks like me. It worked to some degree on me, except the product they were selling wasn't something I was interested in. The girl working the booth however, was something I was very interested in. Of course, she probably got plenty of attention from guys there, so all I ended up doing was asking if I could get my picture with her.

She's obviously beautiful. Mind numbingly so. I keep looking at the picture. And I kick myself for not buying something, finding out her name, saying SOMETHING... anything that might mean I'd have a way to talk to her again. See, not only is she beautiful, but she was nice and intelligent. I did talk to her for a bit, and she was leading the conversation to help me with my nervousness. She spoke clearly and knew what to say to bring the conversation along. And I was my usual useless self.

So I am interested in her, but I the picture does something more to me. I look at it, and I see two people that look happy together. I know we're not "together". And I know it's unlikely I'll ever meet her again, but I see myself standing there next to a beautiful, intelligent, kind girl who is smiling with arm around me... and it really forces me to think about how I want that. I really want to be a person that makes some great girl happy. I really want a relationship. And the picture gives me a glimpse... a moment in life... that shows me what it could be like. A picture can be a powerful thing.

I'm going to post this blog. But I'm starting to think I'm just going to start complaining if I keep typing.

particles and the nature of the universe

2008-07-29T15:29:00.003-04:00

There is no such thing as "random".

That's the basis of my hypothesis about the nature of the universe. It leads me to believe that there isn't really a such thing as free will for example. If this statement intrigues you, keep reading and I'll try to explain.

First imagine an infinite space with nothing in it except one base particle of matter. Imagine that this particle is moving in a particular direction at a particular speed (though movement won't matter yet since it's in the only thing in infinite space). Based on the knowledge of the particle's properties, environment, and current movement, it is the case that five seconds later, the particle will be in a spot that could have been defined mathematically. A better way of looking at it is that you can know both past, present, and future of that particle with 100% certainty. Let's not worry about Heisenberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle) problems here. This hypothetical situation doesn't reuire that anyone measure this particle or actually even know about the particle. In the example... there just is a particle, and its behavior can be modeled... it will behave a certain way.

Now let's add another particle to the scenario. Their movement matters now because of relative position. Let's even say that the particles will collide. Based on the behavior of particles of their nature (whatever that might be), the speed they're moving, and the angle they'll hit each other at, we can again mathematically model the following behavior. Maybe they bounce off each other and change the path they were taking. But the new path is perfectly predictable... the outcome of the collision with those parameters would be the same every time. Change something a little bit, and the outcome will be different, but knowing the preceeding situation, you can still model the resulting behavior.

Now imagine the universe. A presumably infinite space with lots and lots of particles moving about in ways that can be modeled. They'll react to the gravity of nearby particles. They'll react to hitting other particles, sometimes bouncing, sometimes combining... but every single thing those particles do is a logical progression where if you know all the pieces, all of their behaviors, and their current situation, you could mathematically rewind and see where they were. You can also mathematically fast word and know with 100% certainty (as long as you have all the information to work with) what will be happening in 5 seconds, 5 hours, 5 years... Whatever time frame you like, though of course longer times would require huge amounts of calculations as you figure out every step of the way, but try not to get hung up on thinking that this has to be a human being or any intelligent being that is "knowing" all of this. Just keep in mind that regardless of whether a person knows about the particles, they are there behvaing in the way they normally would. The whole universe and everything in it is just a complex continuous reaction that keeps going.

That's my hypothesis. I don't have any real means of proving it since I'm human. But I can give you something to think about that might lead you to think the hypothesis has some weight to it. Actually, I'm kind of hoping what I wrote above seems logical to you, and you find weight to the idea already.

Let's carry the idea out further now. The human body is composed of those particles. How they behave is a static thing... it doesn't change, or if it does change, the change is expected... because it's part of the behavior of the particles. Gravity affects us, sunlight affects us, wind affects us, sound affects us... all the particles around us have some bearing on us in some way.

Our brains are made of these particles. How we think and what we think is a result of the behavior of those particles, the larger constructs of our neurons, and all of the environmental forces around us as we grow up. Now, if someone could somehow know all of the particles in the universe and their situations without affecting them, they could watch those particles interact and could likely predict exactly what position those particles would be in next, and what that would mean for everything. Based on various stimulus, past experience, and the way our neurons are formed, the resulting choices we make would be perfectly predictable. The particles would move as expected. The electrical charges and chemical reactions that are the medium for our thought would behave as expected. Our thoughts and choices are a result of particle interaction and are subject to the same laws as the rest of the particles in the universe. "Free will" is a misnomer.

I'm not trying to suggest you can't decide on your own. I'm not trying to suggest that you are under some kind of control of the particles of the universe. I'm saying that you make your decisions and take your actions based on everything that came before that affected you, and you will always do so. When you decide to throw a pen on the ground upon reading this to prove that you can do something unexpected, it's a reaction to reading my words that would easily fit into the mathematical equation. The particles reacted to the other particles and your body ended up taking action. And the hypothetical being that can know all the particles would easily know that you were about to throw the pen on the ground and would even know what your thoughts would be. Every action you take is a result of what came before. There is no such thing as doing anything unpredictable from teh view point of the universe. Of course, other people might not have expected it, but they didn't have all the info. It was unpredictable to that person watching you, but that doesn't really matter. The particles behaved as they would.

All of that said, I carry the thought further by then realizing that all of the future will happen as it would. Every decision you make. Every stumble. Every change of mind. Every decision where you wonder what would have happened had you chosen another path. It's all going to happen as the particles bounce, and the imaginary creature that can know all the particles and all their interactions... could perfectly predict exactly what your life would include and every decision you would make.

Of course... now to bring the Heisenberg uncertainty principle back into it for a moment. If this mythical being told you what was going to happen, it would affect your decision making... the particle behavior would change... the being would have affected the particles it was observing. But then your reactions would change in a predictable way... so I guess this quick tangent is leading me down a path to an attempt at a proof that an all-knowing being can not exist. :)

All this thought is coming out of my head very quickly and I'm not sure I got all of it into this piece. My conclusion is that while we decide as we like, the decision is perfectly mathematically predictable, and so in a way there is no such thing as free will because what will happen to you over the course of your life is just a particle reaction set in motion long before you were born.

Oh that reminded me. A friend of mine debated with me a bout this a bit, and got me to a point where I was saying that everything is a result of the moments before it. He brought up the question of what happened first. I'm just trying to be complete here. So what set off the first set of reactions? It's a question that lots of people have tried to answer for various guesses about the "beginning" of time and space. It's a question that all intended answers have to address really.

I'll address it as simply as I can. I don't know. But my not knowing has nothing to do with what really happened, and my not knowing does not disprove the hypothesis I put forth. I can guess, and some people might point to a "god" of some variety, but I don't need to know that. The particles march on.

Musings on smoking

2008-07-17T16:47:00.004-04:00

Why do people smoke? What I use to rationalize people smoking in my head is to imagine that someone they are close to smoked near them at some point before high school graduation. Parents or friends I guess. And then they continue smoking because of the addiction... both chemical and psychological.

I find myself trying to apply logic to smoking, but it doesn't work well. Theoretically, no one would choose to smoke. It makes no sense to smoke. And it makes a lot of sense to not smoke. But in practice... well... lots of people smoke. Looks like in 2006 the CDC estimated that about 20% of the 18+ year old population in the United States smokes (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5644a2.htm). So one in five adults. I'd be curious to see how it spreads across age groups, gender, and geographic location (among others), but really my curiosity is based on the personal experiences near people who smoke, and an un-scientific observation that physically attractive women in bars, pubs, and clubs seem to all smoke. But that will get way too involved if I try to get in depth on that one. So I'm going to go back to the basics. The pros and cons of smoking.

The Pros...

- once you're addicted, smoking a cigarette satisfies the addiction causing a feeling of relaxation.
- it's rebelious?

The Cons...

- It costs money.
- It kills you slowly and with horrible painful conditions.
- It kills the people around you with horrible painful conditions.
- It smells bad. Really bad.
- It leaves a film of some awful material on everything you smoke near.
- The stench clings so even when you're not smoking it can be smelled.
- Did I mention the horrible health effects yet?

Here we go... a better set of information than I could put together. More CDC numbers: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/factsheets/cig_smoking_mort.htm

Apparently over 400,000 people a year die from cigarette smoking. That's pretty nasty. So at this point I'm adding one more reason smoking people might use: they just don't care. They started smoking, and don't care enough to stop. They smell bad, they are spending hundreds of dollars they don't need to, they're ruining thier own health, and they're hurting the health of those around them. I don't get it. Logic says to me that anyone in their right mind would stop smoking... and go through anything to stop. Oh well. I guess smokers don't care.

social skills

2008-06-16T17:02:00.002-04:00

Sometimes I wonder if I messed up somewhere along the way in growing up. I really enjoy solitude... I find myself craving it. But in a weird paradoxical twist of human programming, I can also crave company and attention.

At a given party, I can watch the person who's at the center of attention and feel jealous that I don't have what it takes to gather that kind of crowd. I sometimes try to do social things, but I'm not very good at it. Meeting people in public... new people... is something I'm especially bad at. I don't know what to talk about. I know computers. I'm pretty knowledgable about guns. I'm a practicing martial artist. I have a pretty vast knowledge of movies... which is the closest I can come to a topic that "normal" people might know about. Oh yeah... there's that I'm agnostic... which seems to be the minority... so religion as a topic is right out. I don't follow sports at all... I don't care about some professional sportsman making millions of dollars to play a game. I'm a little miffed that so many professional sports players complain about their salaries. they get to play a game to entertain people... while those people are off doing things like making sure the streets are clean, putting together furniture, and so... not making nearly as much money. I suppose it makes sense that a job where lots of people are willing to spend money will earn you more, but it does seem odd to me that a soldier who risks far more physically, who is ordered to be away from family and friends, and who may die for our sake are paid no where near as much as a professional athlete. Sure... the government might not use the soldiers terribly well... but that doesn't change that the soldiers chose to give their lives to us... for us...

Sorry... I went off on a tangent about how much I dislike professional sports and the fascination our country has with them. I understand that people need escapes... something to take their minds off the stressful parts of life. Sports just isn't it for me. So it's one less thing I have in common with "most" people.

I wasn't part of any clubs in highschool. I did no afterschool activities through the school. And I think I missed out on a chance to learn what it's like to be social with people then. I was reclusive even at that age.

I'm 31 years old. When I say it to myself I think about how bizarre that is. I'm a socially awkward person who's supposed to have lived enough life to know things... to know how to give advice to younger people about life will be like.

I'm still stuck wondering how to meet a girl to date. A woman. I'm old enough I guess that it's weird to call someone I could date a "girl".

So in all of that growing up where I wasn't having social experiences to learn those social skills... I think it became a sort of self fulfilling prophecy. I didn't have the social skill... so I was alone a lot. I was alone a lot, so I found ways to be entertained. I was entertained while I was alone, so I stopped trying to be social. I stopped trying to be social, so I didn't learn the social skills.

To back-peddle a little... I know manners at the dinner table. I know a decent amount about addressing people properly in different formal situations. I know when to be appreciative for kindness and graciousness. What I don't seem to know is how to be confident and relaxed around people I don't know. I tend to just clam up and start paying attention to what everyone else is doing. I start noticing things like who the most likely people in the room are to be dangerous. I start noticing where exits are. I notice potential weapons in case I might need them. I withdraw into my thoughts and the conversations people are having around me sort of disolve into background noise.

Those escapes... I love them. I perk up whenever they come up. But solitude... I wonder how long I can stand it... I probably need therapy.

So I guess this isn't a very useful blog for anyone. I think this was more an attempt at getting my thoughts out. I do this occassionally. It's sort of strange to me that I was just thinking I'd like to "feel normal"... to feel like I'm part of society. But I guess lots of people don't feel normal.

So what's the next step?

Adding Gun Control Laws is a Bad Idea

2008-05-23T15:07:00.005-04:00

So since I already made a sort of hurried attempt at getting my thoughts out about religion, I figured I'd play with another hot-button topic: Guns.

I'll say right off the bat that I believe in and support the individual's right own firearms. I hope to explain why in a manner that might be helpful to those who want to ban guns in the U.S., so they begin to understand why banning guns would be very bad.

First, an irrefutable point: There are lots of guns in the world, and lots of guns already in the United States. They exist.

Now we already have lots of gun control laws in the country, and if you do any kind of searching on Google for stats on guns brought into the country illegally... you might find yourself wondering what the hell our government is doing. I'm guessing they're doing the best they can. The fact is, the government has been trying to stop illegal trafficking of firearms for a long time. Many years. Decades even.

So let's look at a hypothetical situation. Let's say that the government passes the horrendously stupid law that says United States citizens are no longer allowed to own firearms of any kind. Now let's put aside the idea of an armed rebellion. Let's assume all the law-abiding citizens of the country agreed, and turned in all their guns. Happiness and Peace ensues right? Hell no. Think back to the part about how the government already can't keep guns out of the country, and how it already can't keep guns out of the hands of criminals. A law that stops citizens from owning guns is a law that condemns those citizens to a fate chosen by criminals.

Now do some research on the percentage of firearms used in violent crime which are obtained illegally. Even if the government managed to ban guns for its law abiding citizens, it wouldn't put any kind of real damper on the violent crime rate with guns. In fact, in other places in the world where stricker gun control laws have been passed (you can find this with Google searches too) crime rates have increased. Criminals have a good reason to believe that their victims will be unarmed... there's less risk for the criminals. So it makes sense even if there weren't real world example (Australia has had problems with this).

One last thing along this line of thinking. If I'm at home, and I hear someone break in (smash a window, bust the door in, pick the lock, whatever), I already know a few things about this person. First, I know it's not law enforcement officials because they announce themselves. They have to. Second, there's a good chance the person is a significant danger to me. I know that because any smart criminal is going to do a little research on their target first. If they are breaking into a house, they could easily avoid me by breaking in while I'm at work. So if they chose to break in while I'm there, it's because they want something with me. Maybe just to kill me. And if they're a stupid criminal, and broke in thining I wasn't home, I suppose they might just run away, but they might also panic and try to hurt me. In any case... if someone is breaking in while I'm home... they are a danger to me.

So assuming I notice early, and have twenty seconds or so to think, i can chose one of three options. First and probably safest is to exit through another door or window and run away and call the police from there. Depending on the bad guy, you might lose a few things, but not your life. Or if they're determined to kill you, very likely running away won't get you anything, because they'll try again. Second option is to call the police immediately and hide somewhere in the house. This option is the stupidest, but those unable to handle the third option (coming up), and who got cornered somehow might not have any other choice. Unfortunately, this means waiting for three to fifteen minutes while police try to get to you. Any person with a frying pan can kill you in less than three minutes and still get away before the police get there. Hiding is a bad idea. The third option is to fight back. And if you are one of those responsible American citizens that took shooting and gun safety courses, and you own a gun... you might have time to get that gun and shoot the guy who's breaking into your house. It's within your legal rights to do so... and i would argue that it's within your moral rights as well, though that's a whole other blog.

Now that we have that defined, it boggles my mind that so many people in this country seem to want the government to take guns away from us. Do these people think the government is capable of protecting us? I'm 100% confident that it is not possible for the government to protect us. I'm quite sure that if someone broke into my house, it would be up to me to do something about it. And I hope I have the presence of mind if it ever does happen to get my gun, find a defensible position that the intruder is less likely to notice right off, and then after I get a look at the person to make sure I'm not shooting someone I shouldn't, pull the trigger... maybe a couple times for good measure, and then call the police.

Now of course, most people will never have to deal with this. But some might, and I refuse to deprive those people of an extremely effective means of self defense. I will not support any laws that takes more rights away from citizens with respect to guns.

Okay, we all understand now (I hope) that gun control laws simply aren't capable of accomplishing what some gun control law supporters believe they will. They can't protect us from guns. But I've misspoken. And this leads me to why gun control laws are not the answer. Guns are not capable being a threat to anyone. They are inanimate objects. Guns are handled by people. Laws can not stop a person from feeling. If a person wants to kill another... there hundreds of ways other than through the use of a gun to do so. Poison, explosive, frying pan, knife, baseball bat, golf club, cricket bat, fire wood, broom handle, pillow, bare hands, rock, car, tire iron, a little push from a tall precipice...

The real problem isn't guns. It's people. So if we want to do something about making our lives freer and safer... it won't be accomplished by taking our rights away from each other.

---

The only argument that people bring up that I'm anywhere near hesitant about it deaths of children by firearm. That concept right there is awful, and I obviously hope that children will stop dying long before their times. But I do have some responses to this.

First... more children die each year in swimming pool related accidents than gun related accidents and events. Look it up on Google (I love how readily available information is). Look up drunk driving accidents while you're at it. The numbers I'm asking you to find are not meant to say that children dying in gun related incidents is okay. It's meant to give you perspective. Guns aren't bad by themselves... just like swimming pools.

Next, go back to my previous statements about how guns are inanimate objects. They have no ability to make decisions. Therefore it is impossible to assign any kind of blame on them. Look to the people wielding them. Some people use guns with malicious intent. Some use them to protect when there's no other choice. What we need to hope for is that citizens of the United States will take some responsibility for their own actions and for their own safety. My father owns guns. He taught me what they were and to avoid them when I was young. I listened because my father was scary, and the prospect of killing or dying was horrendous to me. My parents raised me correctly. When I was ten or so, my father started teaching me how to use guns. We went to a shooting range and practiced for a long time. I already knew what they could do. After all the practice, I knew how to handle guns to avoid bad results and to gain safety. My parents raised me correctly. If I had ever stepped out of line even a little... I would have been smacked down so hard and fast that I would have had to learn from it. You dont treat guns lightly. They are not toys. What I'm getting at is that when children die from a gun shot wound... it was irresponsible actions of parents and guardians long before that time that lead to it. If it's even possible for a kid to get a gun from his parents to bring to school... those parents screwed up big time. If kids just scream and die in the face of such a thing... their parents screwed up in not teaching them what to do in emergencies like that.

Yes... it would be ideal to have a world where there are no bad people willing to kill for hatred, anger, greed, or entertainment. But we don't live in that world. And laws can't change that. People will continue to die around the world for stupid things. Please don't hold the false belief that taking my gun away from me will somehow make you and your kids safer. Please stop being afraid and if you're up to it... go take a shooting class. See if you can learn something. See if maybe you can be one of those responsible citizens who will stand up and protect themselves and their families.

Guns are not evil. They are inanimate.

Several Aspects of Religion

2008-05-15T16:32:00.003-04:00

So sticking with the theme of writing about things I think about a lot, I might as well write a post about religion. I'll just say right up front, that I'm agnostic. And this post is likely to include a lot of stuff the a highly religious person might find bothersome. Just a fair warning.

I've noticed in various discussions I've had with people about religion, that religion can mean lots of different things to different people. Seems obvious, but what do you think about when someone says that word? Do you think about "God", or a belief in something of all power? Do you think about church and the organization? Do you think about the philosphical tenets? The moral lessons? Do you actively think about many aspects of what religion can refer to?

I've taken to thinking about religion in three somewhat vague ways. I consider the individual's beliefs, the community's form, and the religious corporation it would be associated with. That last one is my way of referring to big religious organizations like those associated with the Vatican. Oh... damn... and I guess I have to add a fourth category... televangelism.

The Individual
This is really the most important aspect of religion. What does a given individual believe? Does that individual believe in Heaven and Hell? Enlightenment? Reincarnation? The Greek Pantheon? Redemption? God and the Devil? In this case... religion is simply "what the person believes" to me. This is where my agnosticism really comes out. Every time I talk to someone who says they believe there is a God, I wonder why. What thing in life made them begin to believe? What confirmed it for them? And the truth is that there is no proof for the existence of God (I'm using God now as a focus and example of any belief in some power so great that it has some bearing on the universe's existence).

Can you prove to me that God exists? Can you prove to me that God does not exist? What I'm left with is the knowledge that God is unprovable. But for some reason billions of people around the world believe whole-heartedly that there is something there based solely on the word of other people... and perhaps a desire to believe.

This takes us to faith. It comes up in almost every religion discussion I'm part of. I'm told it's not about proof. Some might argue that faith and happiness as a result is preferable to skepticism and misery. People that have faith can get emotional support in life from their faith. They can find happiness in "knowing" they will go to Heaven when they die. They can believe that all the bad events of their lives have a reason and that God has a plan for them. It can bring a sense of comfort and belonging. And all of that is true. It can do wonderful things for a person. But the thing that confuses the hell out of me is that people are capable of genuinely believing... as if God were the truth (like those stupid car decals)... as if God were a fact. But I already know... as should everyone of rational mind... that God is unprovable. How can these religious people believe in something without proof? Just because it's comforting they're unwilling to consider that their beliefs have no support except what some guy at a podium told them or what's written in a book... that again... was written by a human?

Why is one religion right and another one is false? Just because billions of people have believed it for a couple thousand years? Because one makes more sense to you than another? How do we know that the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't the true creator of all things? Please... read the wikipedia article about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster. How is it any less valid than Christianity? Buddism? Taoism? Judaism? Sure, you can say it's silly, but how can you prove it isn't true? All faith in a God or power gets you is a false sense of comfort. And I refuse to comfort myself with something unprovable.

This stance of mine makes it hard for me to interact with other people sometimes. But fortunately I have managed to save my ponderings for the internet of late, and I avoid the topic when I can with friends. I have several highly intelligent friends who are also highly religious... and it confuses the heck out of me. Maybe a random person from the internet can shed some light on it.

Religious Community
The next aspect I wanted to look at (man this is getting long, and I'm probably already skipping thoughts in my attempt at getting through it all) is the community of religious people. By this I mean the group of people who belong to a church or equivalent group locally... people that get together and hold picnics, fundraisers, do charity work, and so on. This is the one aspect of religion that I really like a lot. Sure... these things brainwash the kids that get dragged in to the sermons into the same unprovable belief system, but while I hate that unprovable assertions are made, I can't deny some of the beneficial effects. Morals can be taught this way. And so I bite my tongue a bit. The really good part of this though is the fact that it becomes a community. People getting together with commonality, sharing their burdens, helping each other, meeting each other, and developing a sense of belonging to a healthy community. These small churches that can accomplish that... I like them... even though I'm not fond of the belief system.

With that said, I've considered joining a church just for the social aspect. That might be insulting to people who actually believe what the church is teaching, but I'm trying to convey how much I admire the community aspect of the church. But... as I mentioned before... I can't believe in something just because it might be comforting or afford me a bond with people I didn't know before. I can't choose to believe in something so obviously unprovable. So I'm stuck with a chasm between me and religious people. Unfortunately for me, I don't enjoy watching professional sports either, so I'm right out of luck on what to talk about in social situations.

The Overgrown Religious Institutions...
The Vatican is horrifying to me. Any religious institution that can affect people on that scale scares the hell out of me (yes... I keep using the word "hell" on purpose). When they try to insinuate themselves into government decisions, I begin to believe that society is headed for a huge collapse. This is the level of religion that I hate. I don't understand individual belief. I admire community bonds. I hate when people try to use religion to justify legal actions. The church saying that gay marriage is wrong and therefore should be illegal... that's a load of crap. Sure... a gay couple couldn't get the religious ceremony in a church that doesn't agree with gay marriage, but who cares about that? Marriage at this point is a legal definition that any two people should have the right to. There are tax benefits and so forth that makes it so we can't use gender to discriminate here. Anyway... that's just an example of where big religious institutions try to throw their weight around.

Let's not forget how many wars have been fought over big religion. It is my conclusion that big religious institutions are detrimental to society. I am open though to the possibility of examples that don't fall into this category. But no one can deny the negative effects of so many religious institutions... no can deny the wars, the persecution, and the divisive influence it can have on that scale.

Televangelism... ugh...
My thoughts on this are best described as disgust and pity. Those guys that get up on stage and preach to the world on television are some of the most evil people I've ever been exposed to. Maybe some of them actually believe the crap they're spewing, and yes... their devoted followers may receive that comfort benefit I mentioned earlier... but really... the televangelist is asking for money. Send them money for redemption. Have you ever watched one of these shows? It's sick. In a financial way you kind of have to admire them. They're milking gullible people who are desperate for comfort. In every other way, they're deplorable.

Then comes the followers. Them I feel pity for. I'm not sure I have to describe that further. How do you go from rational human being to a sheep that depends on a televangelist for emotional life support?

Wrap Up
Perhaps this was too big a topic for me to squish into a blog post. I guess what I was hoping to convey was a rational look at why religion should go away. And I always hope that someone who is suffering with the unprovable beliefs of a religion might wake up and realize that there's a really strong probability that their religion is wrong. And now this post is devolving into me ranting. Unfortunately for those of strong religious belief... they still can't prove their religion is right.

Introspection

2008-05-08T09:20:00.002-04:00

There are some things over the course of my day that make me really mad. Really... the only thing that happens on a daily basis is that I get mad at other drivers. And I'm pretty sure that the "points" I have against them are valid, but the real problem is something else. I'll go over my pet peeves on other drivers first to give you an idea of what's making me mad, and then see if I can come to a useful conclusion...

My first pet peeve is drivers who don't know how to use their turn signals correctly or who don't bother to use them. They serve a purpose in traffic. They alert other drivers that you are intending on doing something other than follow the current pattern. An example is when you change lanes (cross the dotted line). If a driver doesn't use the turn signal, I should be safe in driving as though that person is going to continue following their course. Not using a turn signal at the right time can easily mean accidents. And yet on a daily basis, I see people use turn signals in "turning only" lanes, or lanes where the road is curving away from the other lane... even though it's the expected behavior to continue to follow the lane. Then I see people cross the dotted white line without turn signals, or actually turn out of the main path onto a side road without a turn signal. This is the most minor of my pet peeves about driving.

Next in severity is loitering in the left lane on the highway. The left lane is called the passing lane. The right lane is called the travel lane. When you are just driving on the highway, you're supposed to be in the right lane. If you catch up to someone and want to drive faster than them, you use your turn signal to switch lanes, move to the left lane, pass the car, and use your turn signal to get back into the right lane as soon as you're done passing. It's actually a pretty neat algorithm. Now I understand that in times of heavy traffic this becomes harder and I often give up and stay in the left lane just in hopes of going faster... but it has to be pretty heavy traffic. But there's no excuse for those people who just sit in the left lane not passing anyone during normal or light traffic. Sometimes, they end up keeping pace with a car in the right lane... and then don't seem to care that a huge line of cars is building up behind them. I hate those people. They should be fined until they smarten up and drive correctly. This probably causes me the biggest aggravation on the road... being stuck behind someone who seems oblivious to the world around them or the people they are inconveniencing.

My final big pet peeve with other drivers is the most dangerous one: Merging. How is it that people can pass driver's education classes, pass the practical exam, and then not know how to merge. A quick explanation: Match speed with the traffic you intend on merging with, then move into the traffic. It's pretty simple. So why is it that so many people come to a stop at the end of the on ramp to a highway? What do they think the on ramp is for? I'll tell you. It's for matching speed with the highway traffic. The only time you should be coming to a stop on the on ramp is if the highway traffic is also stopped. And these people are going to get someone killed. It's so much harder to merge with highway traffic from a stop. And everyone behind them who was forced to stop also are now in danger. This one pisses me off the most. These people should lose their licenses.

Now with all of that said, I end up coming to work in a bad mood, and I end up going home from work in a bad mood. It's like a twice daily dose of medicine to keep me agitated. But here's the introspective part. Why am I really getting mad about this? I'm looking at other people who I have no real influence on, and I'm getting mad at them. They are influencing me because I make it happen. I shouldn't be getting mad at these people. I've been driving for nearly 16 years, and have only gotten into two accidents with other drivers involved... and they were both my fault. Granted, the conditions of the accidents were fairly extreme (like ice on the road that I under estimated), but they were still my fault. And while it bothers me that people don't use their turn signals correctly, it hasn't caused an accident that I've seen. And while people being inconsiderate in the left lane on the highway is also bothersome, I'm still going to get where I'm going with only a few minutes difference in arrival time at most. I just need to change my expectations and not be so impatient. And while people stopping to merge is stupid and dangerous, I haven't been in an accident because of it yet, and getting mad about it isn't going to teach the bad driver anything.

So the problem is me.

I'm getting mad for no good reason. I sit here as I type this and wonder if I can apply this knowledge to my life. I wonder if I can help myself be less angry with a seemingly simple understanding that getting angry won't benefit anyone. It won't help me deal with anything. It won't help my headaches go away. It won't help my work. It won't help me relax at home when the work day is done. I understand that anger is an emotion that can be very important in some situations, but I also understand it will never help me make good decisions too. If I can change myself... I think I'll be a happier person.

An end of the week beginning

2008-05-02T16:27:00.000-04:00

I've never really thought I had enough to write about that other people might be interested in reading. I've written quite a bit in my time, but I've only shared bits and pieces. But even when I wrote in a journal or in an odd file on my computer, I realize that the audience of the writing is not me. It's whomever happens to read it. I seem to write as though I expect someone to dust off an old journal decades down the road and read something that evokes something important in their thoughts. I think most people probably feel like they have something important to say, and most people would feel happy to know that someone is listening. And I think the internet is a pretty big example of that. We all have a voice here, and lots of potential listeners.

So I guess I'm hoping that I do have enough to say that people might find it interesting and maybe even helpful. Hopefully if you're reading this there's already a substantive post up about something that you can read. This is just a greeting. So hello, and welcome to my blog.