Editorial Patience

I really think I need to start sitting on posts overnight and then doing a second pass, editing for clarity.  So let it be written, so let it be done!

The Problematic Liberation of Science

You known, it's sad the Aaron Swartz killed himself.  He was bright, intelligent and accomplished quite a bit.  He clearly had many laudable goals and/or ideas.  But his worst idea, and one he seemed unprepared for the consequences of, was his idea for how to reform scientific publishing.  For those who don't know, most academic articles are kept behind the paywalls of for-profit publishers, and the authors are not compensated for purchases made.  In fact, as a published journal author (1 article, woo!), I can tell you that not only that, but scientists have to pay handsomely to get their articles published at all.  It's an old model, it's unwieldy, it could be better.  Swartz's idea of fixing it was to steal (acquire without paying for) millions of articles, I assume with intent to publish to the masses because he had already done a similar stunt with the PACER database.   I've seen a lot of commentary about how he didn't really steal anything, or he was trying to save science or bring it to the masses and that what he was doing was a self-evidently good thing. And I would like to argue that a bit, because I find it highly arguable.  

First, was the problem real?  Yes, absolutely.  I think things like paywalled publishers profiting off of the distribution of scientific articles and research is a relic of the past, that could easily be replaced by the internet as long as a suitable source of funding could be found and the peer-review practices were solid.  I think the apparently sky-rocketing costs of access to these articles are directly linked to the sky-rocketing cost of college tuition, if obviously not wholly responsible.  So yes, I agree this is a system that could be much cheaper, and much more open.

I do NOT agree that scientists are hiding something, or that the masses are being denied access to important information.  For the most part, anything you would want to effectively comment on, utilize or completely understand will require some training in the relevant field.   Most people who go get this training will end up with access to these articles through their school or employer.  I have yet to hear exactly who it is could make use of these articles that is being denied access.  I do agree that there's a larger problem in the interface between science and the general public in that the scientists generally write for each other (which is reasonable) and the non-scientist doesn't really have the education to grasp the context, significance or lack thereof of the results.

Second, was the problem pressing?  Maybe?  I don't hear a lot of grumbling about it in my small professional scientific circle, but that's largely because we all work for an academic institution that pays for it and don't have access problems.  But I imagine most scientists would be happy with lower publishing costs.  And they'd probably be happy to be paid for purchased copies of their articles, although that's never going to be a driving motivation for most scientists, because their actual audience is relatively tiny.  Remember, this is written for review by peers, and not for submission to the general public.  This doesn't mean they have something to hide, it just means the research is typically complicated and written for peers who have an understanding of the tools, concepts and methods involved in investigating complicated topics.  But regardless, people with good research tend to get published, and I don't think  that scientists are having problems discussing and peer reviewing research for each other.  So I would say the cost is an increasingly big problem, but does not actually keep scientists from doing science with each other just yet.

So what's my problem with how Swartz handled it?  He went straight for the illegal option.  Cory Doctorow in his remembrance for his friend, also mentions Swartz was big believer in directly challenging authority and subverting laws he found unjust.  This is laudable to some degree, but there were a wide variety of options less sensationalistic than ripping off JSTOR, even if he thought their business model is bullshit.  Bullshit or not, when you fight the system, and break the law, the system fights back.  But he could have used his remaining money to fund a viral campaign of the brokenness of that system, he could have approached JSTOR, individual universities with an alternative or a compelling argument.  He could have done any number of things to convince people, some of whom would not have taken much convincing, that scientific publishing needed to be reformed and he could have done it in a way that conveyed respect for the scientific need to have SOME respected body publishing articles after peer-review for further peer-review.  Because that's how it works, your articles are peer-reviewed by people knowledgeable in your field before publishing, and then reviewed at-large after publishing. How would destroying JSTOR today preserve that system? How would you fund a replacement?  How do you fund the editors that oversee the peer-review?  These are not easy questions.  And it's not so easily fixed by stealing from JSTOR.

But, you say, is more and open exchange of information always better for science?  Well, yes, but the scientists aren't currently having problems communicating with each other.  But, haven't talented amateurs contributed greatly to fields like computer science, shouldn't they have all the data?  Well, yes,  but everyone can have a computer and tinker with code.  Not everyone can do super-collider research, and the people in a position to do it have generally already have access to all of the articles they need.  As hard as it might be to believe, doing science might require more or different education than that required to write computer code.  And talented amateurs contribute to harder material sciences all the time, especially in fields like astronomy, but usually in conjunction with professional scientists.  Even so, JSTOR ended up releasing millions of articles for free, in the last few weeks, so what exactly is the problem?  Who is it exactly that suffers from lack of necessary information to do their research?

But, you say, aren't scientists just being too secretive?  What are they hiding that they don't want us to know about?  Nothing.  Outside of classified defense research, they are hiding nothing from you.  The reason it seems locked up an inaccessible to you, the casual observer, is an accident of tradition from the pre-interenet days, when published journals were the best way for scientists to present research. Believe it or not, they might be loathe to completely abandon a system with a sound methodology for peer review just because you're excited about your ipod.  And while yes, I wish they would get to re-organizing the publishing into more modern and affordable methods, why on earth would they want scientifically illiterate activists to lead that effort?  Where are the scientists asking the computer hackers to save them from JSTOR?   In addition, I have yet to meet a scientist that won't send you any of his published papers in pdf form if you simply just ask for them.  It's not that you're dumb either, it's that these topics are just very complicated.  If you wanted to read a paper on atmospheric physics and make sense of it, you would first need the relevant training in statistics, and atmospheric science and basic physics and calculus, and by the time you're getting that, you're already in school with access to the paper.

Beyond that, is "scientists are keeping things from us!" really the argument you're making?  I understand that the entertainment, financial and political industries have greatly eroded the public's trust in authority, expertise and the belief that the people in power are behaving with any kind of basic honesty.  Pivoting to science and making the same accusation is just a huge mistake.  There's no conspiracy of scientists because, as mentioned, they don't profit off of their articles and the restriction of information is not malicious and does not yield them more money or power (well, the publishers get both, but not the scientists).  And even with the publishers, it's more a matter of staying relevant than squashing ideas.  You know who else thinks scientists are involved in some kind of giant conspiracy?  Global warming deniers, anti-vaccers, flat-earthers and every other fringe group that doesn't like scientific results because they conflict with their own unsupported biases and decides the whole enterprise must be rotten from the top down.  Scientists aren't keeping anything from you.  That doesn't mean scientific publishing practices aren't a little bullshit, but keep in mind they kind of have scientists by the balls too.  Provide a better, cheaper equally scientifically robust platform to publish in, and they will jump ship, but it's going to be hard, and long, and time-involving  and will require more care than a publicity stunt.

So what are my solutions?  Well, I'm glad you asked.  I think scientific publishing is much more honest and straight-forward than the doubters think it is.  Having said that, I think scientists need to take the lead in pushing peer review away from the old-fashioned publishing houses and into more accessible online journals with the same robust peer review and no charge for download.  I think the general public needs to understand that just because they have google, it doesn't mean they can science, that there remain trades that take years of training and dedication to become competent in, and they are probably not qualified to fully understand the implications of an article if they are not trained in that field.  You don't assume you know more than your doctor about medicine, why would you assume you know more about physics than a physicist?  In terms of communicating with the public, I think we need to hire either better journalists (most science journalists are terrible and misrepresent or misunderstand the studies they're reporting on) or the scientific community needs to make a concerted effort to create an information buffer that translates the science we have into readable language and, crucially, how much evidentiary support a given conclusion actually has (for instance 1 study or 1000 studies and with what degree of confidence).  I've actually been thinking about making a web page for this.

As a larger problem, education is clearly to the internet instead of solely through the traditional institutions of learning.  In addition, university costs are increasingly well above the rate of inflation.  There needs to be alternate methods of acquiring accreditation and qualification that don't necessarily rely on paying through the nose to go to a university.  There also needs to be the same amount of rigor on the internet required in an intense education and I'm not sure how to manage that.  But having seen every yahoo with access to station data that they think disproves global warming calmly and patiently get a crash course on climate science from people who've actually been trained and have years of experience in this stuff, there needs to be some sort of understanding that everyone's knowledge is not equal just because google exists.  There needs to be some standard of evidence and qualification to analyze evidence higher than, "I read about it on wikipedia."

In short, science could communicate it's ideas and methods better, and could probably benefit from more modern and cost-effective publishing practices.  But please super hackers, maybe try talking to people and convincing them to safely and calmly change their behavior and preserve some sense of order and progress in the field before attempting to tear it all down in a fit of pique.  Because that's just about your ego and impatience and it's bullshit.

I Got 28 Problems

For some insane reason, it seems important to me to explain myself, and why I no longer claim Seventh-Day Adventism, or christianity in general.  Well, the last half isn't quite true, but it's true enough.  So I'm going to take a couple of posts to explain it, in more detail than you require.  Everyone is immediately forgiven for choosing not to read this.

I get the impression, largely from family, but from christians in general that one can't simply leave their faith except in error, inability to truly grasp christian teachings or by clearly choosing to do evil after being successfully tempted by demons.  I get this impression from the hundreds of times I heard someone's motivations for leaving the church described in these ways.  As I am problematically vain about my intellect, I feel compelled to explain that no, it's not just because I am a simple lamb who wandered into a den of temptation and got hoodwinked by the first smooth-talking drag temptress that sauntered my way.  I left because I no longer believed just about anything Seventh-Day Adventists believe, which seemed like a pretty good reason at the time.  I have more to say on that process later, but for now, I'd like to start with the basics.

 I am not a Seventh-Day Adventist because I don't believe in any of their 28 fundamental beliefs.  Even though I was born into this church, and it took me a long time to leave it, I am not living under its shadow, living a "sinful" life in defiance of what I was was taught to be right.  I have decided what was taught to me was NOT right (in part, but in important parts), and that I could not in good conscience try or claim to follow it.  My problems with the 28 fundamental beliefs are many, so let's just start at the top and work our way down.

From the opening paragraph:

Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed and hold certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. These beliefs, as set forth here, constitute the church's understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture. Revision of these statements may be expected at a General Conference session when the church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of Bible truth or finds better language in which to express the teachings of God's Holy Word.

I don't agree with any of this, but the bolded parts seem the most important.  I do not claim any christian creed, let alone the Bible.  And I certainly don't think there are fundamental beliefs I must take from therein.  Why would I think that?  It starts and ends as a tautology:  believe the Bible is the holy word of God because the bible tells you to believe it is the holy word of God.  This is the basic reasoning inherent in a chain letter, and like a chain letter it boils down not so much to an argument but a threat.  "Believe in this book or die forever."  I have so much more on that topic but it will have to wait until the next post.  For now, let me just say I don't take kindly to random books trying to make me afraid of the unproven and untestable.  And my life experience has not been that Bible believers are the most happy and well-adjusted people.

The second bolded passage could probably fill a post on its own, but it's hugely problematic.  It essentially gives each congregation and the general conference leeway to cherry-pick biblical passages as they see fit or "as the spirit moves them."  Which I might feel is an unfair generalization if they weren't on their 32nd year of discussing whether women are capable of being spiritual and moral leaders of churches and on their first year of tentatively discussing whether running gay people out of their churches might not fit with christian principles.  In short, I know they understand the idea of present and eternal truth because I've heard them preach about it and they freely wear mixed fibers and have a conspicuous lack of red tents dotting their church lawns.  Therefore, if they were serious about discerning cultural from timeless truth and ongoing spiritual growth, they would have a formal method of periodically reviewing church beliefs as culture changes, and would apply what they understand of the context in which those verses were written, the core principles of the bible and  modern society's biases to try and separate the two.  I can't be part of or even a respect a religion that changes "when it feels like it," which is what it must mean to be moved by the holy spirit, a feeling, rather than as is deemed necessary by their intellect, understanding of the basic principles of their religious book and their experience.

As for the 28 beliefs, I will try to be concise, but I feel it's worth it to go through each one.  I'm not going to provide exhaustive reasons for why I don't believe these and I'm not trying to convince anyone else to disbelieve, but I do want to go over them to show that I've thought about each of them.  For the sake of not repeating myself, please note that the primary reason for not believing in any of these as stated is they all require me to believe that the Bible is true sans evidence.

To Live and Blank in L.A.

My review of Mr. Blank by Justin Robinson is up on CMS.  Take a gander if the mood strikes you.

Conceding Authority, Part 2

I think it is now my official policy to add "part 1" retroactively to any post that turns out to have a part 2.  Because I wrote part 1 of this post months ago and now I feel stupid for not following up with it like I intended to.  The issue, as I recall, was Romney's concession speech, which contained a couple problematic "Democrats may have won . . . but I'm right." kind of speech in parts.  Specifically:

We look to our teachers and professors, we count on you not just to teach, but to inspire our children with a passion for learning and discovery. We look to our pastors and priests and rabbis and counselors of all kinds to testify of the enduring principles upon which our society is built: honesty, charity, integrity and family. We look to our parents, for in the final analysis everything depends on the success of our homes. We look to job creators of all kinds. We’re counting on you to invest, to hire, to step forward. And we look to Democrats and Republicans in government at all levels to put the people before the politics.

In the first part, I was more concerned with the initial half of the paragraph, today I just want to add a few comments to the last 4 sentences.

1).  "We look to our parents, for in the final analysis everything depends on the success of our homes."

Well, kinda.  Hannah Arendt is thought to have once said, "Every year civilization is invaded by millions of barbarians; they are called children."  Which is true, of course.  Kids don't exit the womb understanding sharing, restraint and how to talk to people they don't necessarily like and make up after feelings get hurt, their very patient parents teach it to them, and try to model it for them, and hope some of it sticks once they get out into a world filled with adults furiously rationalizing away their own lack of sharing, restraint, friendliness and forgiveness.

I guess we all know that.  My specific complaint is the kind of dog whistle assumptions inherent in this kind of statement coming from a republican.  They've been saying for many years now that the most stable families are a man, a woman and a couple kids and NOTHING ELSE and keep hammering that point home like liberals just HATE the idea of the nuclear family.  Like we aren't all cognizant of the benefits of good parenting and that has SOME effect on how children turn out as adults.  What we've also observed, however, is the messed up kids that grow up with a mother and father and then go kill people for no reason.  Or the perfectly good kids raised by a single mother, or a single father, or grandparents, or gay parents or any human being with a good head on their shoulders.  We've also noticed that most kids leave the nest with some damage, their parents being human and having failed them in some manner, and that it's the job of every new adult to take responsibility for their own behavior and work past childhood trauma.  Whether that child had a textbook nuclear family is kind of incidental to this process.

And of course, what really grates about this kind of message is why they bring it up at all in the context of a political campaign.  They're saying, "Nuclear families are the most important thing . . . . and that's why gay people can't get married."  If families were the most important thing, if liberty were the most important thing to republicans, they would recognize that citizens end up forming all sorts of families, are free to do so, and that the important thing is encouraging the importance of families, all types of families, and making sure they have stable, safe, thriving communities to raise their children in.  The insistence on the nuclear family as the only workable prototype has much more to do fundamentalist christianity, authoritarianism and, in Mitt's case, mormon patriarchy where everyone listens to dad and then mom.  What is important about a family:  the love, support and stability or the specific, arbitrary rules on how to form them as delivered by men in suits and women with big hair?

2).  "We look to job creators of all kinds. We’re counting on you to invest, to hire, to step forward. "

Again, kinda.  The idea of the mythical job creator has really gotten out of hand recently.  The republican version of job creation is:  Give money to the already rich, kiss their ring, and then watch as they rain jobs down to a grateful populace.  This is when they're not describing the wealthy as the hardest working Americans who got where they are by a drive to succeed, an eye for needed goods/services and not listening to naysayers.  I'm no economist, but I'm pretty sure job creation is sparked by demand for a product or service, which requires businessmen and entrepreneurs who want to make money providing this service for more people AND a middle class that can afford to pay for it.  Jobs are created because the demand and opportunity is there, and someone has the resources to increase capacity accordingly.  A .2% addition in tax breaks to their 2 million dollar stockpile and a feeling of being loved and cherished by an adoring proletariat just isn't the deciding factor. 
 Remember, these are the people in suits telling you seriously that they are the only adults in the room.  The ones telling you their feelings must be soothed and no regulations must be given because parents just don't understand.  This whole "pity the job creators" routine rests on the notion that they are currently maligned or unfairly restrained, and if we'd just not tax them or regulate them they'd bring about a glorious capitalist paradise out of the goodness of their hearts.  The fact that these regulations and taxes exist for fairly sound historical and social reasons and the paucity of examples where rich people just created jobs for the hell of it doesn't seem to enter into it. 
There was probably a case to make for the unfair burdens of the wealthy when extreme wealth was taxed at 75 or 90%.  But I find it hard to swallow, in the year of our lord 2012, after the very rich have been getting very richer for 30+ years as regulations and and tax rates have fallen away, that they are the members of society most deserving our pity.  That, if the nation "must sacrifice" and tighten our belts in order to be financially sound, the people who have gained so much from the support and participation of the rest of us should be exempt.  If they were interested in being leaders worth a little respect and praise, they would lead by example and sacrifice first, or, at the very fucking least, be willing to join the rest of us in shouldering the load in tough times.  Instead, they run for their fainting couches at the merest hint that they might own anyone or any country anything in return for their good fortune.  I am not impressed by people who call themselves "job creators" but seem to mean "small gods."

3).  "And we look to Democrats and Republicans in government at all levels to put the people before the politics."

I don't have much to add to this one.  As jokes go, it was pretty funny.

Attitude and Gratitude

I am sometimes disheartened when I read something that I was going to write about, like I have just taken too long, and the world couldn't wait, and everything I have to say is already being said by someone else.

Which is probably the wrong way to look at things of course.

Now I try to see all the people talking about the topics I'm interested in as validation and opportunity to engage and saving me some time.  Yes there's still a lot of bullshit in the world, but I think we do live in an exciting and eventful era with a lot of interesting new ideas and rediscoveries of old ones.  The times they are a changin' and we are in the thick of it.  There's nothing disheartening in that.

2013: The Year We . . .

In the spirit of 2010:  The Year We Make Contact (one of my favorite movies, adapted from one of my favorite novels by one of my favorite authors), I peer into my quantum split-screen and strain possible tag lines for 2013 from the flotsam and jetsam of probability space.

2013:  The Year We

• Fix Everything
• Fix Nothing
• Get Naked
• Lose Language
• Find Jesus
• Lose Jesus at the Outlet Mall
• are Found
• are Lost
• Have a Pretty Idea of Where We Are, but  Are Too Embarrassed to Ask
• Never Stop
• Never Start
• Brush Better
• File Paperwork
• Buy More Things
• Uncover Conspiracies
• Find Enlightenment
• Pull Back the Curtain
• Float Away into Space
• Live Underground
• Send Text Messages by Kite
• Only Drive Backwards
• Stop Being Shitty to Each Other
• Decide to See What Being a Little More Shitty to Each Other Would Feel Like
• Evaporate
• Condense
• Discover the Present
• Find the Future
• Lose Ourselves in the Past
• Crack the Planet
• Find the Wormhole
• Discover the Terrifying Secret of Cheese
• Trip the Light Fantastic
• Realize it was All Just a Dream
• Flail Helplessly About
• Finally Crown Nicholas Cage our Rightful King
• Find Hidden Truth
• Realize No One Cares
• Start to Give a Shit
• Finally say, "Fuck It."
• Fart without Fear
• Enjoy What We Have
• Want Even More
• Make Contact and It's Scary
• Make Contact and It's SO BORING
• Learn How to Fly
• Don't Stop Believing
• Realize Argument by Picture Meme is Ineffective and Childish
• Mediate More
• Go Too Far Down the Rabbit Hole of Our Own Minds
• Realize Everything is Fucked Up and Bullshit
• Go Door to Door Selling People More Shit They Don't Want or Need
• Just Vote the Entire Government Out
• Sit Back and Just Watch Things Disintegrate
• Try to Be Better
• Give Up
• Can't Shut Up
• Don't Speak Much More than a Whisper
• Go Crazy
• Realize We've Been the Only Sane Ones All Along
• Discover the Secret To Consciousness
• Discover The Equation that Describes Everything
• Drop the Ball
• Drop the Other for a Matching Pair
• Leak Everywhere
• Use the Force
• Grow Wings
• Breathe Deeply
• Discover the Perfect Philosophy for Life, the Universe and Everything
• Kill the One Guy Who Can Fix Everything Before We Give Him a Chance to Speak
• Believe Every Goddamn Thing We Hear
• Believe Nothing Except from Behind a Double Blind
• Stop Letting Other People Tell Us Who We Are
• Give Much More Than We Take
• Take Much More Than We Need
• Perfect Our Trajectory
• Are Translated
• Are Lost in Translation
• Stop Being Afraid
• Can't Leave the House
• Find the Happy Medium
• Lose the Tormented Psychic
• Eat Lest We Be Eaten
• Decide to Grow the Fuck Up
• Wallow in Endless Nostalgia
• Fall Down
• Skin Our Knees
• Pick Ourselves Up
• Pull the Other Down
• Decide Self-Help is Bullshit
• Eat Too Much Garlic
• Walk Both Ways Up Hill
• Spin Around Until We Throw Up
• Make Peace With the Hipsters
• Declare War on Wars
• Lose the Plot
• Find the Thread
• Have Enough of Our Excuses and Bullshit
• Hold Hands
• Decide to Be Kind, Because Why Not?

There's a universe of possibility out there.  I am looking for the best one.  I'll let you know if I find it.  Until then, may the universe you resolve from the possible to the observed be the one that makes you happy.

Happy New Year Blog

I promise to write on you more.

New book review

New review for Justin Robinson's book, Dollmaker.  Short version:  Disturbing, but I liked it.

Nothing is Ever Simple

I guess I need to process a few more thoughts on Newtown and guns.

What do you do with a country where gun sales spike immediately after the election of a democratic president?  And then again upon his re-election?  After little to no commentary on his part, in either campaign, regarding guns?  His sole accomplishment in his first term being a slight increase in the amount of places gun-owners can conceal carry guns?  They've been told over and over by Trusted Sources that Obama, and the U.N. and whoever else is coming for their guns, lack of evidence stronger than hearsay not withstanding.  What do you do with a subset of your population furiously stocking guns like it's the end of the world?  And then occasionally going nutso and going on a shooting spree when the drumbeat of fear grows too big to handle?  What do you do with that?

I'm not sure.  I absolutely reject the NRA's assertion that we must simply throw more guns at the problem.  It's the classic problem where, if you only have a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.  The gun is a tool.  It's good at killing animals and humans.  That's all it does.  It's too simple to declare the gun is the only solution to our discontent, because it assumes we have no other tools in our toolbox.  Also, we really have become a nation of such gullible marks that we can't see the obvious scam in gun salesmen, and the lobby representing them, selling guns to both sides of a conflict?  They sell them to the disturbed and then turning to the rest of us and saying, "Hey, you really need a gun to protect yourself from those crazies."  Their goal is not your safety.  Their goal is to make a ridiculous amount of money playing on your fears to sell you tools most of us don't need.  You should listen to them with all the credibility you give a car salesman telling you this Porche is just what you need to improve your sex life.

Having said that, I'm not remotely convinced it's ethical, moral or remotely pragmatic to try and get rid of the 40 million guns in this country.  For one, availability of guns is clearly not the only issue involved in our gun violence.  Places like Idaho have fairly lenient gun cultures and open-carry laws, and don't have a lot of violent shootings.  But there's a wide range of options in between "giving everyone a firearm and hoping no one's feeling like picking a gunfight today" and "taking away all guns forever and throwing them into the sun."  What frustrates me about this, and most other debates today is we are told by extremists over and over that there is no room to maneuver in between the polar opposites of every issue.  That every action we take will inevitably ride the slippery slope to the furthest extreme.  And it isn't true.  It's obviously not true.  We should stop listening to the people who try to make us afraid enough to forget ourselves and believe it's true.

Yes, the 2nd amendment exists.  But constitutional literalism has roughly the same problem as biblical literalism, in that if you insist on reading a document devoid of context and without interest in the principle behind the rule you're reading, you run the severe risk of missing the whole damn point.  In a time of inaccurate, slow-loading firearms the constitution allowed for a well-regulated local militia and the right to keep firearms in your home.  At the time, this was a pretty good way to ensure the federal government would face an armed and angry populace should it ever become as tyrannical as good old King George.  The last and only time a portion of our populace tried this, we killed each other in staggering numbers.  In my opinion, our option to effectively rise up as a populace ended roughly around the time the federal government developed tanks, airplanes, laser-guided drones, biological and chemical weapons, atomic bombs, space-based spy satellites, counter-insurgency tactics, armored SWAT and the ability to eavesdrop on your cell phones and emails.  So embrace the existential suck of that notion, because like your inevitable death you can't get around it.  And not to embrace worship of the founding fathers, but I'm guessing they were counting on us being capable of reconsidering the 2nd amendment in a prudent and intelligent manner, in light of a world with vastly more apocalyptic weaponry and tactical realities.  And if you're interested in retaining the principle of the 2nd amendment, then a regulated and well-armed militia will also need to include weapons more advanced than a semi-automatic rifles.  Because your collection of pop guns is not going to take down the federal government.  If you have any further questions on that score, please ask any members of the Branch Davidian cult that might have survived Waco.

Regarding the right to defend yourself and your family via firearms, I think the arguments are stronger.  I think people probably have the right to some kind of gun to defend their homes, although I don't think those need to be anywhere near military quality.  I don't have a problem with people shooting at gun ranges.  I don't have a problem with people hunting.     I do have a problem with paranoid and unstable people stockpiling weapons like the world is about to end, or like they have absolutely NO confidence in our police or military to protect us.  As far as I'm aware, that was, in fact, the point of creating a standing army and a citizen police force, yes?  And if shootings are so rare that they don't need to be legislated for, then they certainly don't necessitate every citizen acquiring a defensive arsenal.  I'm not sure what the best method is to re-persuade the citizenry to trust in law an order again, but it seems there are, again, a wide range of options to try well before we get to "fuck it, civilization failed.  Buy a gun and jump at shadows for the rest of your life."  Maybe, before sending the entire population running for body armor, hollow-point bullets and A-team seminars on how to build your own tank, we could try, I don't know, something rational like modifying existing police practice and organization to better meet civilian needs.

But to some, it IS a jungle out there.  There are bad men with guns, and, so the saying goes, only a gun can stop a gun.  Right?  Well, except for Jared Loughner, who was tackled by unarmed citizens while he was reloading.  And about 20 other stories I found from googling "tackled gunman."  Not to mention the British Police force, who overwhelmingly prefer to remain unarmed even though one of their officers is occasionally shot.  If only a gun can stop a gun, why would an entire country's police force refuse to carry them, even when confronted with the possibility of armed criminals?  Why does the military prefer to keep soldiers unarmed when they're not on active duty and assign military police to keeping the peace?  Shouldn't having them tote their guns around off-duty fix it?  Is it possible there are more and potentially better solutions than the ones we limit ourselves to?  I'm not saying we don't want our police to carry guns over here, and I acknowledge the U.S. faces different problems in it's criminals.  But I do want to point out, there are other options in policing gun violence than simply arming everyone involved.  In Chicago, the CeaseFire group uses ex-gang members or families of gang members to talk to gangs, and defuse potentially violent situations.  Notably, they do this without arming rival gangs, intimidating them with weaponry or making them more afraid.  Again, we need to reject people who try to narrow our options to solutions convenient for their bottom line or that soothe their fears with false security.

One thing I didn't see in Newtown was a bunch of civilians running around with guns drawn looking for the shooter.  Why would we want that in any case?  Would it have made the police's job any easier to arrive on the scene and have to figure out which of twenty people with guns drawn is the bad guy?  Isn't there a reason we give cops a badge and a uniform?  Isn't it to distinguish "the people we have paid to train in the use of guns, negotiation and crisis management to protect us" from "some crazy asshole with a gun?"  If you want to be a hero in this society, doesn't it take a bit more than just owning a gun and bragging about how you'd use it to shoot a bad guy if you saw one?   Don't we aspire to have the men in our society embody values more nuanced than that of Ralphie from "A Christmas Story?"  Shouldn't it be understood that being a hero in this society embodies something more than just holding a gun self-importantly?  Isn't Ralphie eventually supposed to learn that more important than a willingness to kill if necessary, is preserving the peace, even if that requires considerably more bravery and risk than firing a gun?  Don't we value the risk of peace more than the certainty of violence?  Aren't we aspiring to a society somewhat more stable than "might makes right?"  Did NO ONE fucking read To Kill a Mockingbird and notice the example of Atticus Finch?

I honestly don't think we want a society where every argument ends in a spoken or unspoken, "watch what you say, I've got a gun."  And I think gang violence and police shooting teach us that knowing the other person has a gun is not the deciding factor in whether they get shot at.  And that having a gun is not the same thing as being safe.  In fact, there is evidence to the contrary.  Nor is there any evidence that the problem is TV and video games.  But since I don't think being surrounded by lethally armed citizens is an environment in which people feel free to speak their minds, and since it seems demonstrably foolish to try and pretend the violence that's been in our fiction for thousands of years is suddenly the cause people killing each other, I don't think we need to abridge freedoms granted in the first amendment simply because some paranoid people interpret the 2nd amendment as a right to carry any kind of gun for any reason, a position Justice Scalia happens to agree with.

But I do think we have a problem.  One that is steadily getting better over time, but still worse in areas where there are more guns than not.  I don't think the level of violence requires panic or fear or a complete abandonment of the idea of a civil society, policed by men we train for that job.  Nor do I think it requires we try to remove every kind of gun from civilian society.  But I think we can do more than the nothing we currently accomplish on gun violence.  I think we can stop listening to the people who are telling us it's the end of the world, that our death is just around the corner, that we can't talk to people who scare or offend us, that security is as simple as holding a gun, or making a prohibition law and that we have no more than two extreme options at any given time.  I think we can ask more of our leaders than a lust for retaining power.  I think we can ask for more of our heroes than just a willingness to kill.  I think we can read and rewrite and re-interpret our constitution in ways that reflect modern realities better, while remaining true to the principles behind them.  I think we can try, assess and effectively manage the solutions to our problems regardless of who is in charge.  And I'm pretty sure we can come to a more interesting and effective solution than "more guns."  I don't know about you, but I'm willing to bet the second amendment shouldn't be read as a suicide pact.

What I really saw last Friday

I didn't react very well to the shooting last Friday, like most people.  Initially, I was overwhelmed both by the idea that there are a lot of disturbed, angry men in our society with little perceived space to process their shit in a healthy manner, access to a wide variety of easily available guns, and nothing to stop them, really, from shooting up a mall or a school or a park or whatever.  And when they inevitably do, we're faced with a chorus of gun-stroking fetishists, who insist that the best way to deal with this kind of tragedy, is to abandon the idea of a civil, civic society, and instead arm each individual and to train them to view every social encounter as a potential shooting situation.  I don't like that idea.  I find the lack of faith in the idea of a civil society disturbing.  It's depressing that the gun strokers and an army of lawyers have locked down the debate to such a degree that it's considered out of form to even contemplate any sort of reasonable gun restriction.  The fact that "sell more guns to everyone" is an extremely convenient position coming from the lobbyists of gun sellers and gun lovers seems to float right on by the outside of the debate.

But that's not what I really want to talk about today.  Yes, we saw one disturbed maniac take the lives of innocent kids Friday.  We also saw two women charge a man holding an assault rifle, because of their love for their kids, their professionalism, their sense of duty and a willingness to sacrifice anything for the kids in their care.  We saw a woman hide her class in closets and lie convincingly to a maniac with a gun in her face to protect her children before being shot herself.  We saw teachers hiding with their children in closets and bathrooms, telling them they loved them, that it was going to be okay just in case those were the last words they ever heard.  Even trying to keep them distracted and protected from even the psychological damage of the situation though they were terrified themselves.  We saw an entire community rushing to the scene to help and protect their loved ones, even if they didn't know how, even though it made the scene chaotic.  There was one maniac at that school Friday.  And he was outnumbered, by a wide margin, by a community that ran towards danger, that chose bravery, self-sacrifice and love over their own selves.   That's who we are.  Not one angry, bloodthirsty maniac.  Not gun-toting psychos.  When you feel like despairing, in bemoaning what the world is coming to, remember the people who gave everything, and the rest of the community that would have done the same, not the one bastard who couldn't manage his shit.

Yes, we saw the worst in human nature in one man last Friday.  We also saw the best in human nature, in far greater measure, from everyone else around him.  I think that's what we should remember.  Mourn those poor kids.  Debate sensible gun legislation and security at schools.  But don't let one paranoid gun nut turn us from people who choose, love, kindness, compassion, self-sacrifice and community into paranoid gun nuts who have such a dim view of human nature that we view every social interaction as a potential massacre and bring a gun to every argument.  We get to decide what kind of society we want to fight for.  Let's make it the one embodied by those six women, not the one embodied by that poor, paranoid coward.

caveat

The below is just me processing the bullshit that went on today.  I'm not sure it amounts to much.  I can posture all I want, but I'm not sure how to actually change anything.  I wish I could do more.

Are you safe?

We are not ultimately safe.  And there's only so safe we can make things for us and for our kids.  And a day like today is a sad and uncomfortable reminder of that fact.

Some of us will want things to be "more safe" forever and cling to whatever we think will get us there. Be it a fierce ban on guns forever, regardless of how practical that is.  And some will claim true future safety relies on all guns for everyone forever.  And neither is completely right, of course, because both answers seem more or less unacceptable or impractical.  There are 300 million guns floating around this country, and we can't unsummon them, unmake or unpurchase them or outright confiscate them without risking an all-out civil war.  Gun ownership is too deeply ingrained into certain sub-cultures in this country for that to fly.  Not to mention the obvious ineffectiveness of prohibition regarding drugs and guns.  Similarly, gun owners can't insist everyone be armed at all times, because that violates the liberty of everyone else to not add "gun accidents" to the list of dangers they want to manage in their homes.  Nor have they really shown that adding a firearm to every argument will naturally lead an overall decrease in gun deaths.  Trucks full of men with large guns roaming city streets is not usually a sign of a peaceful and harmonious society as far as I can tell.

Which leads naturally, if we are inclined to talk to each other at all, about what we CAN do.  I don't know.  I'm not sure anyone has a sure solution, but there are a wide range of options that amount to "doing SOMETHING" in between those two viewpoints.  I think there's a good argument for regulating guns better.  For making them more difficult to access.  For requiring a somewhat expensive license.  I don't really think there's a great argument for guns in the form of "it keeps the government scared of the populace," because that defense kind of went out the window when the government, now including your local police force, started stocking tanks.  Neither you, nor your militia, can stop the U.S. government if it comes for you.  Not since tanks, not since Waco, not since forever.  You will lose versus the U.S. government if it comes for you, and lose big, and your 5 rifles won't change that.  We know this because people keep trying and failing badly.  When the SWAT team storms your house, rightly or wrongly, and you're holding a gun, they just kill you.  And your dog.  And maybe, accidentally but with no real repercussions, your family.  You have no way to defend yourself by force from the U.S. government and that is the reality we all live with in 2012.  And stocking guns and pretending otherwise is just delusional.  So I kind of want to hear what you need your guns so much for that we need to prioritize your false sense of security over making it harder for the mentally ill to massacre children.  Or why any private citizen in this country requires assault weapons for any reason.

But honestly, I do want to hear it.  While I clearly have an opinion about restricting gun ownership, I really don't believe in taking them all away.  Just making it harder for any idiot to get any kind of gun.  And I think the real problem in all this is we've all gotten so, so bad at coming to a reasonable compromise position that nothing really gets done anymore.  So more than I want my opinions above to be enacted, I want a balanced, evidence-based discussion about the pros and cons of various approaches of making middle schools "temporarily more safe" from gun nuts.  And I don't think that happens until we actually start talking to each other, taking each other's arguments seriously, demanding supporting evidence and, AND, be willing to admit when our own ideas don't have enough evidence to support them.  If only we had some deliberative, authoritative body that was capable of doing just that, and creating effective public policy in the process.  Seriously, we should get one of those.  And maybe become a populace capable of allowing them to do that without freaking out in the meantime.

We don't get to make the world safer for everyone, forever.  We do get to decide what kind of society we want to be.  Wouldn't it be nice if it were one where we were all just barely humble enough to talk instead of posture?  I kind of wish we could at least talk about issues like gun control, mass violence and mental health like a group of reasonable adults.  And I'm glad today to see more people calling for less absolutism, and more talking.  And if the slaughter of some innocent kids who never got to see the end of their first decade isn't enough to start that conversation productively, then I'm not sure what will.

Basic Consideration is a Thing to Aspire to

I just realized the other day, that I had been incorrectly reading the phrase "business ethics" for most of my life.  I believe it's intended to be defined as "the subset of ethics relating to business."  I have always  taken it to mean how it's actually practiced as "a shittier set of ethics that enables businesses to rationalizing unethical behavior in the pursuit of profit."  I as getting it wrong, but I still think, as practiced today, it's the more accurate definition.  It is, of course, bullshit.

I had a brief dust-up with a friend today on twitter about reasons to be moral in a business environment, about a post I had misread.  Because I misread it, there's less to get into than I thought, but I do want to say a couple things.  The article frames a reputation for ethical/honest behavior as a "exploiting societal weakness."  To which my objection was, "Why not just be timely, reliable and present because that's the kind of person you want to be, in corporate or private life?"  It's pedantic, I know, but I think it's important to pick good core motivations for our ethical frameworks and to consciously understand why we choose to behave the way we do.  If we choose to be honest, reliable and timely only because that gets us more money, it implies we'd happily abandon being honest, timely and reliable if we thought it would make us more money to do so.  Which, in my view, is incredibly problematic.  I don't want to know or do business with individuals whose core philosophy is "make money at any cost," because I wouldn't trust them not to throw me under a bus if there was some money in it.  And if someone else got a whiff of the idea that your core motivation was worship of money, they would likely think twice as well.

 Don't be timely, reliable and present because you think it will make you more money, or because you think it "grows your personal brand," because those are poor moral foundations for good behavior.  Those motivations are inherently selfish.  They neglect the possibility that you are open to behaving in a way that works for everyone, not just yourself.  Be timely, reliable and present because that's the kind of person you want to be, and you understand it leads to better results, not just for what you get, but for how you feel about yourself, and how you affect the people around you.  When you have that framework, it doesn't matter if you get MORE, MORE, MORE, because that takes care of itself.  It IS generally true that trustworthy people get better results.  But that's not the point of being trustworthy, it's just one of the many perks.  The point, is to behave in a manner that conforms to your values, because that's the only way you'll be happy with yourself.  If all you value is money, pushing your brand and exploiting the weaknesses of those around you?  Well, good luck with that.  I hear they need a new James Bond villain every couple of years.

Worrying about what your behavior gets you, will get you a ways.  Worrying about what your behavior gets you and the people around you, will get you farther.  In my view, it's as simple as that.  And in this day and age, I don't take it as a given that everyone in the corporate world understands that.

To write:

Looper review
Science and the Afterlife Review
Essay on existential philosophy in the modern world
Comprehensive multi-part series on the origins of existential ideas that appear in multiple religions.
My complete thesis of life, religion and humanity, which will definitively answer all of it.
Incarnate (my crazy ass super gay, super nerdy mythology trilogy that I want to write)
Revenant (teleportation gone wrong SF story)
Star Seed (disturbing theory on the origin of life disguised as a story)
Engines of Entropy (story about a new soul, freshly deceased, snatched from the bliss of the afterlife to power chaos engines on a distant planet and turns the tables.  Moral:  Don't give a pissed off ghost control of power armor.  Your failsafes will be insufficient.)

And this is all before I've even decided if I can actually write stories worth reading (either in content or style).  The word "grandiose" flits through my mind several times a day.  And my reading list is steadily becoming "books I need to read so I can write intelligently on some topics."  Hey, at least I finally have ambitions.  I'll deal with the wild impracticality later.

Anonymous

I am having a hard time deciding if I want or need to start writing online using my real name.  The argument, which is strong, is that I am less likely to be pointlessly offensive or hyperbolic when I attach my real name to something, and writing is more interesting and carries more weight when someone cares about it enough to sign it with their actual identity.  I honestly find these compelling arguments, but I still have my reservations, which I will not go into right now.

I think a lot of my pseudonymity during my 20s was due to approaching my life almost entirely from the perspective of, "no one has to know who I really am."  And I'm not sure that's true anymore.  I am increasingly ready to shed my old identity, including the one associated with this blog, and I'm increasingly ready to just be who I am without any attempt to hide it, regardless of the impacts to family and work relationships.  And if I'm not attacking people or being insensitive, I can't be responsible for their reactions to who I really am.  So at this point, I guess it's not so much a matter of "will I?" but "when will I?"

I doubt I'd link my real name blog to this one, because obviously, but if I do switch I should probably make it my main blog, if there's going to be any point to it.  I promise to leave some kind of note here should I ever go public with a new blog.  I guess we'll see.

sigh

I really should have slept on that last post.  That's what results from not writing on a regular enough basis and trying to cram it all in to one post while half asleep.  Save as draft is a thing.

For my own sanity, I will try to focus future posts on grappling with specific topics, although I can't promise there won't be navel-gazing.  Hey, it's my process blog and this is my process.

Still, I should probably write about things relevant to people other than me.  What a crazy thought.

Status Update - Late to the Party

My favorite quote from Madmen recently occurred after Roger went on an LSD trip which sparked a lot of mini-epiphanies and personal growth in the character.  A large part of Roger's entertainment value lies in his lack of a personal filter or introspection.  So it's entertaining to see him walking around the office, smiling, happy, sharing the new ideas that erupted from a crack and shift in his perspective, until he gets to Don.

Roger:  You know, it's very interesting, but a lot of times you think people are looking at you but they're not.   Their mind's elsewhere.
Don:  Lots of people who haven't taken LSD already know that Roger.

I'll be honest, I've had more of these moments than I'd like to admit in the last couple of years, so I empathized strongly with Roger for this particular episode.  The thing is, even if I, or Roger, are late to the party on some important ideas concerning basic human interaction, those moments where you realize the story you've built up about who you are and how the world works is malleable and open to revision are genuinely amazing.  And while some drug use (like pot for instance, he said randomly) can lead the user to believe they have descended a bit deeper philosophically than the sober observer would agree, it can also lead the user to question life assumptions, that are, in all likelihood, long over due for re-assessment.  So, fresh off my own and ongoing series of mini-epiphanies, while I still feel late to the party on some basic realizations about human interaction ("Oh, I DON'T have be the person other random people want me to be."), I continue to be excited about the process.

I think I thought after I came out to my parents, that that was more or less the end of massive changes in my life, which now makes me laugh.  Because it has of course dawned on me that personal growth is a life-long process, and also because that was only one of the big messes I'd been ignoring in my life for over a decade.  And while I'm glad it's more or less sorted, I have reluctantly recognized I still have a few messes to clean up before I can march forward with confidence and ease.  One is work, which is just this whole other thing.  Another is the stuff I have accreted in my time here.

I spent the weekend, paring down my comic book collection from 13 boxes or so to 4.5, and it was kind of a relief.  I had terrible taste in many things in my 20s, and it was good to recognize that, identify books that no longer reflected my tastes and just trash them.  No, they were not worth anything.  It was interesting to note, as I assessed stack after stack of comics for basic quality and goodness of fit, just how many old memories were tied up in those things.  So in a completely bizarre and unexpected way, I ended up letting go of some personal baggage along with the physical junk.  I'm just not that guy anymore, I want different things, and I don't need to fill every second of my conscious hours escaping into nostalgic minutia, even if I still find some of it fun, beautiful and worthwhile.  I am surprised at how often I relearn the idea that getting rid of unwanted stuff also gets rid of unwanted psychic baggage.

It takes a surprising amount of energy to try to change from the person I have been, to the person I want to be, and I struggle with that quite a bit.  I brim, I froth, I overflow with music and writing ideas that I almost salivate at the thought of pursuing, but I'm still too dysfunctional to let myself proceed on those fronts except in fits and starts.  I still can't quite imagine who I am if I'm not who I was, but my impatience with myself has been growing steadily and it's becoming clear I need to prioritize cleaning up the stuff in my way now so I can take care of it in a more thoughtful way, rather than just waiting for my impatience to turn into impulsive, reckless decisions.  I am trying to create an environment that fits who i want to be, rather than who I have been.  And I'm still kind of embarrassed how long it's taken me to figure some of this stuff out.

I am, in some ways, late to the party.  I am getting there as fast as I can.

New Overdue Review

Posted my completely unnecessary but fun-to-do review of total recall at Contents May Settle last night, neglected to mention it here.  Consider it mentioned.

But I repeat myself

I know we're all tired of politics, and I have much more to write about in future posts, but I want to say something that I don't see said enough, for all the good it will do on my tiny blog.

Near the beginning of Monty Python and the Holy Grail, King Arthur stops to talk to one of his "subjects", only to get increasingly agitated when the peasant refuses to recognize his authority in any way.  He eventually snaps and starts shouting at him and grabbing his arm, which incites the peasant to start shouting about how he's being oppressed.  In the movie, King Arthur rides off non-plussed at the over-reaction.  But what if he, while beating his peasant, had starting shouting about how his civil liberties are under attack because peasants won't recognize his authority and won't let him beat them?  This is a little bit what the christian conservative reaction to the push for gay marriage is like.

I keep hearing from evangelicals, from churches, from family members, that gay marriage is a religious liberty issue.  This is, of course, asserted but not justified.  And honestly, I'm not sure what justification one could give.  As far as civil liberties go, the LGBT are simply asking that their marriages be recognized by the government and given the same legal rights as straight married couples.  No one is arguing that churches would be forced to perform religious gay marriage ceremonies in their churches (which would be a civil liberties issue), or that straight people must celebrate gay sexuality and find it wonderful, or that churches must now preach tolerance about gay people.  The only thing we're asking churches not to do, is push for civil and legal restrictions on people who haven't opted in to their belief system.  Especially, ESPECIALLY, since they have yet to provide a moral, logical, reasonable argument that holds up under any scrutiny as to what harm would occur to anyone if two people of the same gender chose to settle down and start a life together.  It continues to boggle my mind that the religious community in this country seems to regard two men smiling at each other and holding hands as one of the great evils of this country in the year 2012.  I would think a more steadfast commitment to marriage would include NOT blowing up wedding parties by drone overseas.

Yes, there are pushes from within their own churches to be less dickish about LGBT issues, as there indeed ample support from their holy books for tolerance and compassion for the less-than-perfect and the non-believer.  Yes, many conservatives feel social pressure and discomfort because they don't love gay stuff.  But no one in this country has, constitutionally or otherwise, promised any of us that we only get to see people who agree with us, or interact only with people with social arrangements that we approve of, or decide which consenting adults do and do not get to love each other.  And it's strange that christians ever thought they had a right to not encounter anything that displeased them or disagreed with them or offended them.  And absent demonstrable harm to society or individuals, an argument the christian right has yet to make with evidence that hasn't been thoroughly debunked by scientific studies and actual experience with gay individuals, they can't just demand civil laws conform to their religious beliefs just because.  I mean, that seems obvious to me, but there seems to be some confusion on the matter.

The fact is, no one group gets a free pass as a moral authority to dictate to the rest of this country.  If you think there is harm in a public policy, or the public good is served by restricting the rights of a minority, you have to show specifically how.  And you have to be able to explain your moral reasoning in a way that makes sense to people who don't regard the bible as moral authority by default.  And if you can't explain the moral basis for your proposed law in a way that makes sense to people outside your religion, and you can't explain the moral principle a biblical injunction is based upon, then you aren't much of a moral authority are you?  And if you think the non-religious are incapable of being moral, or that the lot of us putting our heads together can't agree on simple moral principles like "don't restrict the rights and arrangements of others unless you can show the harm" regardless  of religious affiliation, then we have a deeper problem and maybe THAT's the conversation we really need to be having.