Sponge Freddie Speaks

The significance of perspective

2012-01-29T22:42:00.002-06:00

My wife kindly reads my essays, and she usually approves. The one just previous to this one, called "Father Albert should turn in his collar," was not as amusing to her as I thought it might be. In fact, she brought up some compelling points, which I will now share in italics, with my own thoughts following immediately after each:

"I am not convinced she doesn't misuse statistics..."
This is a wise comment, as statistics are often manipulated to one's own purpose. Whether or not Ann Coulter's use of the statistics in this case are more objective or more personally biased may certainly be subject to debate.

"... I don't think the answer is adoption. It is an extreme solution. Just because the disadvantage increases doesn't mean all women have to give away their children."
I agree. While the unwritten societal policies in America that were still present fifty years ago did effectively stave off our current travesty of family structure, it would be a bit extreme to compel all mothers to give their children up for adoption as the best possible solution. The bond between mothers and their children is supernatural, in my opinion, and not easily given to severance. Thus the level of calamity possible by having sex out of wedlock is exceptionally high.

"Risk for bad things to happen is often poorly misunderstood, because risk is often relative."
Again I agree. One thing that seemed to have happened during the video segment in question is the audience and host himself appeared to misinterpret the statistics quoted. Although the statistics support the premise that it's not a stellar idea to choose to raise a baby by yourself, each individual case is of course unique and should be subject to relevant decisions.

So in conclusion, although I wrote the 'Father Albert' essay to mostly amuse, I will now take a moment to remind anyone reading these essays that my support or non-support of anyone else's opinions is entirely based on the evidence I may encounter. While I am still not an official Ann Coulter cheerleader, I rarely find objections to her ideas that are not steeped in angry emotional bias. In our attempts to view the world reasonably, angry emotional bias is not usually of much practical use.

Father Albert should turn in his collar

2012-01-26T05:16:00.019-06:00

I keep insisting I'm not an Ann Coulter fanboy, but here is yet another essay about her often erroneous opponents with their penchant for argumentum ad hominem. I simply couldn't resist; YouTube has turned out to be a seemingly limitless source of Ann Coulter video controversy. Much to my amusement, I found an entertaining bauble called:

Ann Coulter Says Single Parents: Put Your Babies Up For Adoption

This is an excerpt from a television show I've happily never heard of until now, and if what I've seen is any indication of its average content, I will blissfully continue to ignore it. It's called "Father Albert," and it hangs its greasy collar on the Fox network. Father Albert is the showbiz pseudonym for Alberto Cutié, a former Catholic priest.

As you will see by watching the video, Father Albert is "hot under the collar" about Ann Coulter's conclusion regarding single mothers in America, based on U.S. statistics. Coulter is promoting her book "Demonic," and apparently there is an entire chapter that uses illegitimate child statistics to impugn the selfishness of choosing to be a single mother (as opposed to being divorced from the child's father, for example).

What I found most interesting in this emotional and blunt attempt to demonize Coulter, was that the objections to her conclusion were based on nothing more than subjective opinion. Time and again, Father Albert dismisses the depressing statistics that Coulter is citing. Instead of honestly acknowledging them and risking the ire of his mostly female audience, he instead waxes indignant with consistent misdirection that seeks to avoid the fact that, statistically speaking, a child is at a significant disadvantage in life by being raised by a single parent.

Fifty years ago it was still a scandal to have a child out of wedlock. Apparently the unmarried mother in America is now so sainted that any negative words aimed in her direction are sacrilege. The Good Father and the audience were so concerned with rejecting any criticism of single motherhood, they were apparently misinterpreting the statistics. Coulter never said that 70% of all children of single mothers become society's problem, she said that 70% of problem children come from single parent homes. The show's editors would often cut to the women's faces in the audience (many of them single mothers, I suppose) that carried various degrees of incredulity at such a preposterous affront. How dare anyone accuse a single mother of being selfish and narcissistic, when "they really are going out of their way to provide for their kids"?

The permissive public ethos that fosters the celebration of single motherhood is the most significant factor in the ruination of the American family unit. Is anyone shouldering the blame for their own contributions to the destruction of our society's nuclear family? Not really.

They're too busy exercising their individual rights to pleasure without responsibility, thus giving much less thought to the well-being of their future children than they will ever admit. But I suppose modern, emancipated women have never been very fond of being told they shouldn't give the milk away for free. And shame on the insemination machines that refer to themselves as 'men,' who willingly participate in this tragedy.

The unborn children, who are left with the rest of their lives to deal with the fallout of the irresponsible and selfish decisions of their 'parents,' had absolutely no say whatsoever regarding the dispensation of their developmental environment.

Here are some of the Blessed Father's spiritually wise commentaries (in italics), my observations immediately after:

"[...] we're singling out the single mothers, [...] but we're not talking about these absent fathers."
Perhaps Alberto has forgotten what so many single mothers also seem to have lost track of; for the Johnny Appleseed deadbeat-dads to commit their irresponsible deeds, they first need willing sexual partners. Could it really be true that a person who is conscious enough to contemplate sexual intercourse is somehow mysteriously bereft of common sense? Just what exactly does a woman think will happen if tab A is inserted in slot B without benefit of a wedding ring?

"There are so many great moms that are trying to be mom and dad to their kids, I know that they cannot be emotionally mom and dad. But they really are going out of their way to provide for their kids."
So once the single mother has made the selfish decision to raise the child on her own, her obligatory Herculean efforts somehow erase the emotional deficit of a missing dad?

"I think you're talking about maybe the Casey Anthonys of the world."
So a single mother must be brought up on charges of murdering her child in order to be thought of as selfish and narcissistic?

"A lot of single moms are being responsible with their children."
If someone makes lemonade out of lemons, does this mean that the sugar negates the fact that the lemons are still sour?

"See but the problem is, it's good to get rid of those stigmas. Because we would put people always in a box, you know. This is the way you have to be, this is the way it works out. You know, this is not an ideal world Ann. You're talking about an ideal world. Oh, in an ideal world, by the way, everyone has a mom and dad, we're going back, you know, to the days of Happy Days [...]"
Ol' Pappy Alberto really loves his pop culture candy. No wonder he left the Catholic Church; who wants to deal with all that guilt? But of course, what better way to react to an imperfect world than to just throw up your hands and surrender? That's the absolute best way to turn things around.

"I mean, I think that when you, when you say things like that, I mean kinda make these blanket statements based on statistics, I say to myself, gosh I know so many good single mothers, so many heroic single mothers, I just can't agree with you on that, I really can't."
Of course he can't agree with Coulter on this; that would mean he was trading popularity for honesty, and how's a poor clergyman supposed to make a decent buck in front of the studio cameras?

I was going to address the audience's comments as well, but this essay is already running too long. Their contributions were mostly emotionally charged portraits of subjective denial anyway. Let's sum up:

Father Albert was once a Catholic priest, but he told the Catholic Church to stick it, so that he could kiss women and become an Episcopalian.

Father Albert, why don't you jump ship again, and this time become an Epicurean? At least then you wouldn't be considered an unctuous hypocrite for your politically correct sensibilities.

Christopher Hitchens, rest in peace

2012-01-22T14:59:00.009-06:00

On December 15th, 2011, Christopher Hitchens passed away from the effects of cancer. My reaction was not quite what some who read this blog might expect.

I never met the man. I didn't know him personally. I am not familiar with his entire body of work or all of his prolific contributions to the world of opinion, but I am very aware of one of his former points of view, which I disagree with most vehemently.

Hitchens could be quite aggressive and caustic in his accusations and railings against the concept of God and even the proponents of (and believers in) God. That I disagree with his activities in this regard is an understatement. He spent most of his adult life trying to convince approximately 97 percent of the world that they were merely deluding themselves by thinking that there could possibly be something as ridiculous as a supreme being. He was passionate about many topics, but this one was probably the most prominent in the public's imagination.

What little I know of his personal life could fit on a postage stamp, inscribed with a large font. But, it seems clear that his excessive consumption of cigarettes and alcohol was evident. While I believe that every human being should be allowed the freedom to use (or abuse) their bodies in any way they wish, I find the deliberate abuse of one's body to be just one more indication that one's powers of ratiocination are somewhat impaired. To what degree this impairment existed for him, I couldn't say.

That last paragraph was by no means meant to reduce Hitchens to a foolish self-destructive individual. I am merely pointing out the obvious. Hitchens was known to have defended his chemical dependencies with the concept that many great writers did some of their best work while under the influence, but I suspect the true nature of his self-abuse went far deeper than that. That particular knowledge probably died with him, and to be frank, it was not anyone else's business anyway.

Also, please note, I am much like Hitchens, or anyone else on the planet, in that I have my own burdens to bear in the arena of self-defeating behaviors. So please don't make the mistake of thinking that the purpose of this essay is to judge Hitchens. Along with everyone else in the world, I am in no position to judge.

I have experienced a few moments in my own life being irritated by some of Hitchens's former antics, as well as other prominent individuals who share his opinions regarding God. These fellows are easy to identify, as they are usually grouped together when one wants to quickly list the poster boys for atheism: Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Hitchens. At one point they were actually referred to as the Four Horsemen, which I admit was amusing.

So one might think, upon hearing of Hitchens's passing, that I might feel some sort of perverted sense of relief or pleasure.

Quite the contrary.

My own father was diagnosed with esophageal cancer near the end of 2003. He was fortunate enough to survive chemotherapy and the removal of his entire esophagus. I was there the whole time, watching him go through this grueling process. I am sorry Hitchens had to suffer a similar fate, and then not survive it. Cancer is a grim reminder that life is often not fair, and that our lives are more fragile than most of us feel comfortable enough to admit.

Hitchens was passionate, and he acted on his passions. He sought to captivate, motivate, irritate and yes, even to illuminate. His life's work and efforts were impressive and stand forever as a testament to one person's desire to make a difference. For all these things, I respect the man, regardless of whether or not I disagreed with some of his ideas. He was unlike the lukewarm masses; he took up the sword and fought for what he believed in, instead of merely catcalling from the sidelines.

I am very sorry he passed away in the fashion that he did. We all have to follow him at some point, but it's always sad when someone dies of disease or illness. It's as though something was taken from them unfairly.

Hitchens, near the end of his life, could not have believed that his life was being taken from him, as that implies that something was 'given' in the first place. His denial of all things God-related would imply that his death was nothing more than the relatively unimportant event of providing more nutrients to the biosphere's soil.

Following this train of thought, as we are all merely fertilizer-in-waiting, the most brilliant, moving and world-altering personal achievements are merely meaningless events, arbitrarily attributable to an individual biological entity that ultimately has no greater significance than briefly furthering the mindless cycle-of-life that is our evolving planet.

I choose to believe he was wrong about that.

All Hail Otto West!

2012-01-21T01:58:00.009-06:00

(Announcer, speaking in an excited, somewhat hushed tone): We now bring you to Mount Olympus, where Grand Master Debater-In-Chief Otto West is about to give his address!

[Enthusiastic applause.]

(Announcer): All eyes and ears are on West as he steps up to the podium.

[Awed silence.]

"Thank you for joining me today on this auspicious occasion. Today, I will reveal for the first time ever, the secret of my success as Supreme Logician of the Universe."

[Audience erupts in applause and cheers, which drown out West for no less than sixty seconds.]

"As you all know, there has been no one on planet Earth with the intelligence, tenacity and exceptional gift for Internet mouse-clicking as me. No one researches more than I, no one studies harder than I, no one dares to challenge me on any subject I deem worthy of my intrepid attention."

[Reverent silence.]

"Furthermore, as the entire world has noted for many decades, no one has ever been able to refute a single proposition or premise of mine. Not one person, not even once, not ever. How did I accomplish such an amazing feat of intellectual prowess? Well, as I am feeling generous of late, I will actually share with you my most cherished secret. A secret that has allowed me to hold sway in every argument, on any subject, with any individual or group who has dared be foolish enough to challenge me."

[West scans the crowd, basking in the rapt attention he has generated.]

"Here is how any one of you can successfully experience unblemished perfection and victory in every argument you ever construct:"

[The entire crowd leans forward in its chairs with breathless anticipation.]

"First, you must always interpret any situation or event in the way that you see fit, regardless of other opinions that may exist to the contrary.

Second, using said interpretation, you must formulate an impervious proposition by summarily dismissing the possibility that your interpretation could be incorrect.

Third, you must click your magical Internet mouse until you've gathered enough corroborative material to overwhelm and impress average dullards who are too lazy to do their own magical mouse clicking.

Fourth, you must open a public forum and challenge any and all opposition to dispute your proposition.

Fifth, and this is key, if anyone even comes close to poking a hole in your argument, you must delete their input in the public forum with a click of your magical mouse.

Sixth, and never forget this, if deleting their input doesn't quell their resistance, then simply deny any legitimate point was ever made by them. Reinforce this accusation by continual verbal repetition of the original challenge; this makes the challenger appear to have misunderstood, and therefore makes his counter-argument seem illogical and irrelevant. Remember the tried-and-true 'rule of seven' used in marketing.

Seventh, and last, always maintain an air of uncontested superiority. If people think you are victorious, then you are. That's the power of positive thinking!"

[West stops and waits.]

[The audience stands in unison and erupts in deafening cheers and applause.]

[West walks offstage.]

[The curtain draws closed.]

[The entire audience returns home to watch reruns of "Deep Thoughts by Al Franken."]

The irresistable power of delusion

2012-01-20T04:28:00.014-06:00

First and foremost, before you read the successive paragraphs, I wish to remind the reader that I am not defending Ann Coulter in particular, with this spontaneous series of essays. What began as my intent of simply pointing out that YouTube viewers need to be wary of misleading propaganda has now transformed into a case study of the phenomenon commonly referred to as "delusions of grandeur."

Also, I would like to point out that in the big picture, as it were, this silly little argument is about as important to the overall scheme of things as someone's favorite color. That being stated for the record, let's proceed.

I'm not the only person who was moved to create an Xtranormal video concerning the Ann Coulter interview on CBC Newsworld. A YouTube user with the pseudonym "Theobrothers" has also created one, which can be viewed here (and his stance is decidedly anti-Coulter):

History For Morons (Ann Coulter Edition) - Canada and the Vietnam War

Just in case Theobrothers eventually thinks better of his sarcastic phrasing, and removes or alters his video explanation, I have saved the original (as of January 19, 2012), grammatical errors included. I have also exactly transcribed the entire text of his video, for later release on the Internet, should he change his mind and remove it. Furthermore, I have downloaded the video and saved it for others to repost as well.

I will maintain permanent record of these items, because I believe in enforcing integrity, and not allowing perpetrators of agenda-ridden propaganda to run away and hide their misdeeds when the temperature rises. As I pointed out in an earlier essay regarding Tom Green's hypocrisy, in the digital age, forever means forever, not just until lawyers come calling.

On to the meat.

While there is no doubt that Theobrothers has done a decent amount of research on the subject of whether or not Canada sent troops to Vietnam, it should be observed that his bias is philosophically no different than a conservative 'vetting' the same subject with the opposite intent. In other words, just like the purposeful manipulation of statistics, the results will vary depending on the direction one wishes to take one's conclusion.

In this case, Theobrothers apparently wishes to help inspire the angry liberal mob that seeks to vilify Ann Coulter. So, despite the easily verifiable fact that Canadian troops were deployed to Vietnam in 1973 for peace-keeping duties (see my previous essay's video for more details, including some linked sources), he spouts a wearisome collection of miscellaneous facts designed to detract from the main point of contention.

How does Theobrothers seek to inspire? With insults and arrogant proclamations, of course.

Some examples of his invective he included in his YouTube video description, along with my comments in blue:

This video is for all the special people who can't seem to understand what actually happened during the Vietnam War.
I hope he's referencing the aspect of the word special that means unique or superior, and not comparing those who disagree with him to special needs persons.

I especially made this for Ann Coulter, Bill O' Riley and Fox News fanatics although I admit that this is quite illogical as facts and logic is philosophically inverse to their religion of idiocy.
Here he makes the classic blunder of assuming all those who disagree with him must be idiots. A typical earmark of those suffering from a superiority complex.

Please don't hesitate to leave your fallacious arguments, illogical standpoints, and erroneous information below in the comments section for all those who have never seen an insane viewpoint and debate style in action.
Again, a textbook example of grandiose delusion. All opposing viewpoints must be wrong right out of the box. Not exactly a hallmark of an open mind.

Watch how anxiously she attacks the pen in her hand and how much she stutters, as she is forced to admit she was wrong, and then attempts to qualify her wrongness with asinine points.
I can appreciate hyperbole to make one's point, but Theobrothers is making erroneous statements. I have seen the C-Span video he's referencing here, and Coulter's points were not nearly as "asinine" as the ones Theobrothers makes.

Theobrothers lists quite a few links to source materials at the bottom of his video description, lest someone accuse him of committing the cardinal sin of passing along information without exhaustive links to prove that the effort expended was sufficient. The last two links are his attempt to mock a fan of Ann Coulter who may not be as research-obsessed.

However, despite Theo's challenge to all viewers to leave their "erroneous information below in the comments section," he apparently only allows the comments from easily refutable users to remain posted on the page. How do I know this?

As of the public posting of this essay, there were 98 comments on the Theobrothers page in question (see the fourth paragraph of this essay). However, there would have been 100, except the supremely infallible Theobrothers saw fit to delete the two I left there yesterday. Here they are in their original entirety:

First comment:
Nice try... CBC's *own digital archives* support Coulter's statement. See here: watch?v=Q6KiCcixVBI
Your problem is you obsess yourself with defending the official position of the Canadian government, but then easily dismiss the HUGE support the U.S. government gained from Canadian businesses (owned and run by citizens, just like you), benefiting Canada with BILLIONS of dollars. U.S. involvement elsewhere was not the issue.
Coulter said troops were there; she didn't say why. Grow up.

Then, I felt that simply offering my video was not quite enough to get surfers to look it up, so I took a moment to spotlight his venomous bias.

Second comment:
And one more thing, genius: rudeness and arrogance are not equal to intellectual prowess. By assuming your opponents are idiots, you automatically open the door to unpleasant surprise. Though not a diehard fan of Coulter myself, I expect she would dance circles around you in a live, open forum. You publish YouTube opinions; Coulter writes books and devotes most of her waking life to researching the topics she speaks and writes about.

What do I mean by Theo's rudeness and arrogance? Well let's start with the video's transcript.

Digital actress representing Ann Coulter:
"Yeah. That makes perfect sense. I guess I'm happy I learned all this now before putting up some stupid ass video claiming Canada actually sent troops. Or got into an asinine debate because I thought my fallacious argument was enough to prove I was right. Thanks Theo."

Digital actor representing Theobrothers:
"No problem Ann, anytime. Just make sure to check your facts from now on. And maybe try admitting you're wrong once in a while. Otherwise, you might look like a know-nothing c**t."

I added asterisks in order to censor the excessively vulgar word Theobrothers felt necessary to include. His virulent hatred of Ann Coulter is obvious; why he needed to sink to that level is not. But this inappropriate gaffe is only the tip of the iceberg.

Next example...

I posted a link to my refutation video in someone else's YouTube page, and since Theo couldn't delete my comment from someone else's page, he instead posted this reply to my comment:

@spongefreddie
Erm... Perhaps you should fully read the comments section of my video. I couldn't possibly "gloss over" what wasn't her argument. Whether governments help each other covertly, and against their peoples knowledge and sentiment isn't what she was arguing. She was arguing a specific position, "Canada's involvement, openly and friendly, for war in Vietnam by sending a fighting or support force", with a specific contrast, "Our non support for Iraq" LoL, my try is 100% correct.

And then he immediately added his 'masterstroke':

@spongefreddie
Also, your video, lol, makes claims based on what 3 general links with no real details. My video has like what 30+ links, refuting every last bulls**t excuse used to defend Ann. Your 1 hour of work can;t compare to my obvious scouring of the net regarding everything on this subject. Get over yourself. LoLz [profanity censored by me]

Never mind that those three "general" links he's referring to actually carry a great many pertinent and factual details to my counter-argument. Apparently we are all supposed to be so much in awe of his clearly superior research that we shouldn't take notice of someone else playing by his rules and succeeding.

Witness excerpts from his own YouTube page, from his own hand to visitors who disagree with him (my observations in blue):

I like how you stated, "I can't debate the facts", while still claiming yourself as right. I'm paraphrasing of course as your statement was much more long winded and nonsensical. You have learned well from the Fox school of regressive thought.
Anyhoo, good luck with that form of argumentation. It doesn't work for me but I'm sure among your pals you are considered "the smart one" and looked towards with much reverence.
Long winded? Theo's reply actually contained more words than the other user's post.

I really wrecked him, lol, was pretty funny.
Theo making yet another pronouncement of Theo's unassailable superiority. And it wasn't all that accurate.

Concession by refrenation. You do not need to admit you concede as you already have by your actions. Braggart, I am not. The truth? I have proven my point and without contestation.
Theo does not have to admit being a braggart because he has already done so by his arrogance.

You have proven what I desired, that you are essentially a wind bag, full of hot air, and empty of substance.
Translated: Anyone not including multiple Internet source links to buttress every point is clearly not worthy to step into the arena of discourse.

I won't allow you to spam my comments section further, either put up a valid counter to the premise that has been provided or stop responding and concede defeat.
An impressive challenge, albeit without any genuine intention to follow through. Point in fact: I presented a reasonable video response to his premise, and was rewarded with the deletion of my comments.

You are seriously questioning my understanding and use of English? Especially in comparison to yours? Are you a comedian?
Theo's grammatical errors elsewhere notwithstanding, of course.

Any tangent is simply in response to your comments, I have no use for tangents, as I've proven my proposition, it's up to you to knock it down. If you can't you have lost the debate.
Actually, Theo has proven nothing but his stubborn refusal to consider opinions other than his own. And in all practicality, no one need knock his proposition down, as it willingly prostrates itself to the unyielding power of truth: regardless of what he perceives as Coulter's original intention, there were in fact Canadian troops in Vietnam in 1973.

Again, Ad Hom is fallacious. Why continue using it? LOL Do you know what a fallacy is?
Ad hominem is only fallacious when it is in opposition to fact. An argument simply being ad hominem is not proof of fallacy; only that the debater is moved by possibly great emotion. Perhaps Theo fancies himself a robot. Only passionless logic could possibly motivate someone to expend so much time and energy researching and debating an insignificant event like Coulter's comment, right?

"Either Canada sent troops to Vietnam or they didn't." is what we call a strawman. That is and has never been the premise of this debate. Again, quote my counter premise to Ann's, then make your counter to mine. If you can't do that then you are admitting defeat. Here, I'll help, Wiki search these terms; Counterargument, Rebuttal, Inference objection.
Yet another shining display of self-congratulations, replete with pedantic Logic 101 minutiae.

Ok, so are you stating the sky, seen through our eyes would not be determined blue? See that's Ann's argument, she is stating it is not blue, lol, I just pointed out that it is.
Could this be another example of a straw man? No wait! It can't be since it's Theo's own analogy.

That's the entire point, when under a peace agreement there is no "combat zone". Do you understand English? I'm serious, do you?
Try telling that to the people who were shot and killed in that same zone during the peace-keeping troops' occupation.

The debate isn't about the facts. Hmmm, maybe this is where you are lost.
I am suddenly stricken with the nauseating possibility that I've given my attention to a person who cries fallacy in counter-arguments, then claims the debate is not about the facts. Call me dull, but I'm not quite sure what could possibly be debated without some reference to fact.

Very juvenile of me to point out that claims of being right without evidence are merely claims and in no way prove victory on a particular subject? Hmmm...
Could this evidence that Theo seeks possibly be related to the facts that he previously stated were irrelevant?

See, you are so hell bent on winning that you could care less about the truth. I feel sorry for you.
At this point, Theo's 'argument' degenerates to projection, and he briefly feels the emotion most of us already feel for him.

Well I'm glad you see it that way. For if you have cited all you can, and I have destroyed from a logical standpoint all those citations in my comments section, well then I guess you must admit defeat. Thanks for playing "I should understand logic and context before debating".
All hail the fabulously perfect and unassailable logic of Lord Theo!

Logic prevails son. LOL
Translation: the only valid forms of logic are the facts as synthesized by Theo.

I was getting sick of watching people defend her and disregard all logic and evidence while doing so. Thus I created this video, so that people with logic could come here, see that ALL the claims in the video are backed up by facts and links in the comments section, and feel the argument has been clearly won. No more need to waste time on those other biased unevidenced video's.
Translation: I was getting sick of people agreeing with someone I hate. Thus I created this video, so that people who agree with me can pat me on the back for my amazing and perfect logic, which I back up with facts that I have stated elsewhere have no relevance to the argument. No more need to waste time on those other videos that present reasonable opposing evidence, so I wisely delete references to them in my comment section.

Well, I'm finally done.

And Theobrothers... so are you.

Divide and Conquer

2012-01-19T15:12:00.007-06:00

I respectfully request that you put on your Imagination Hats, tinfoil hats, or whatever you prefer, and ponder a possibility with me.

Imagine that you feel you were horribly slighted or unfairly treated. For example, let's pretend you've perceived yourself as loyal to the CEO of a company for the last forty years. Now let's say that your hard work helped make the company incredibly profitable. Lastly, let's pretend you were fired suddenly from your job, with all retirement options revoked, for one serious mistake.

Now let's pretend that due to agreements signed during the hiring process, that you have no legal recourse.

What do you do?

Well, first off, no matter how philosophical you are, you're hurt and upset. And you're angry.

Now let's pretend a little more...

Let's say you have the ability to ruin the company, if you so desire. Perhaps you figure that since the company ruined your life, and you are now left with nothing compared to the pride you used to take in your job, you think you might as well take them down. Sure, the company is made up of a lot of 'innocent' people, but hey, you were innocent too, right? Why should you be the only one to suffer?

But just how do you go about ruining the company? Simply burning down some buildings is a bit rash, and after the dust settles, the company may be bruised, but it will still continue. As a matter of fact, it may be even stronger afterwards due to the usual success that follows adversity. Often the sympathy gathered from others observing a disaster is enough to revitalize those who have been severely harmed.

Back to the question. How to permanently ruin the company?

Well, to do damage that can't be recovered from, you have to be subtle, more discreet. You have to 'sneak up' on the company and dismantle it slowly from within, so that when your machinations are finally discovered, it's far too late to stop the overall effect.

That's where the title of this essay comes from. Originally the phrase was 'Divide and Rule,' but 'Divide and Conquer' has become more common. Wikipedia has a relatively brief page here:

Divide and Rule

Wikipedia lists four elements of the sabotaging technique:

creating or encouraging divisions among the subjects in order to prevent alliances that could challenge the sovereign
aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate with the sovereign
fostering distrust and enmity between local rulers
encouraging meaningless expenditures that reduce the capability for political and military spending

Clever, right? Through much less 'violence' than a full-on assault, you achieve even better results. Why do I say better? Because anytime you introduce oppression to a people, you inevitably foster rebellion. But who can organize a rebellion if the people can't even agree on whether or not they're being oppressed? How can they possibly hope to succeed when the very people they need to help achieve the goal are too concerned with their own distrust of each other? United we stand, divided we fall.

So, now you have a strategy. It doesn't even matter if you get caught, because by the time they figure out what you did, the damage would have been done already. And you're so pissed off, you don't mind going down with the ship, so to speak.

So... on to the real purpose of this essay.

Keep those Imagination Hats on, and pull them a little tighter.

Atheists often assume (and some publicly claim) that because God is a figment of the human imagination, and there are so many humans with their own thoughts and points of view, that it only stands to reason that there would be lots of different religions. And among those religions, there are tons of factions and denominations with often contradictory doctrines. After all, they're all just made-up nonsense to make the believers feel better, right?

Atheists also claim that because God is mere myth, then of course, as a corollary, a lesser entity known as The Adversary, or Satan, must certainly be myth as well.

But what if, maybe, possibly... what if God were real, and what if Satan were real as well?

Is it that much of a stretch of the imagination to wonder if the reason there are so many religions is because that was the intention of The Adversary in the first place?

Okay, take off those Imagination Hats and come back to the real world.

After atheists finish laughing at this essay's rumination, they may be well instructed to dig a bit deeper than their own dogmatic explanations of the universe. Upon closer inspection of the above four listed Divide and Rule techniques, they will find:

Arguing about differing doctrines prevents acolytes from uniting as a whole.
It's long been known that despite a common human desire for fairness in the world, it's usually those who seek selfish needs first who are the most successful in terms of material wealth.
Church leaders' first responsibility tends to be their own congregations, and keeping them safe from 'the others.'
One of our most valuable resources is time. Why spend your time in the pursuit of spiritual truth when there is so much entertainment and luxury to enjoy?

Serendipitous coincidence, cheesy analogy, weak metaphor?

You tell me. Your answer will clearly designate your allegiance.

Money corrupts music

2012-01-16T15:33:00.018-06:00

What would constitute a perfect song? There are as many opinions on this as there are people who listen to music. But what if concerns about potential revenue limited the composer? Could a perfect song still be written and recorded, or could the publishing directives ultimately corrupt the composer's creative choices?

Take the band Evanescence for example.

I love the album Fallen. If you're familiar with it, you know what I mean. It's truly great on so many levels. Amy Lee's soaring and ethereal voice, Ben Moody's guitar and writing, it's all there. The biographical information regarding Evanescence is readily accessible for anyone with an Internet connection, so I'll skip to the chase with the details I wish to highlight for this essay.

Point One: What happened to the solos?

Moody's solo in Going Under (for example) almost hits the mark. The guitar tone is there, the playing is decent enough to get the job done. Unfortunately, the unsatisfying brevity of the solo turns it into a missed opportunity.

How much of current music is dictated by those at the top of the musical food chain, who insist that short guitar solos are better than long ones, and no solos are best of all? This is a trend that has continued almost unabated since Nirvana and Pearl Jam slithered by on their sad excuses for guitar improvisation.

Point Two: what's with Evanescence's so-called "Christian controversy?"

According to sources like Wikipedia, and Evanescence's own liner notes in the CD Fallen, Lee and Moody were best friends. This no longer seems to be the case, as Moody left the band shortly after Fallen was released. Why did this happen?

They publicly claimed it was "creative differences," but I wonder what those creative differences actually were...

When Fallen was first released, it was released on Wind-up records. Wind-up has had more than one band tread the Christian/Secular music tightrope. Creed was another band that matched this description. Moody and Lee first met at a 'youth camp' in 1994, which certainly didn't necessarily have to be Christian of course, but I don't know of too many secular youth camps that refer to themselves as 'youth camps.'

So it seems there may have been some sort of Christian influence from the very beginning, at least from Moody. If the youth camp was Christian, perhaps Lee was sent dragging and screaming in protest, I couldn't say. Whatever the case, fast-forwarding to 2003 and the release of the CD Fallen, besides being played on secular radio stations, the CD was getting a lot of play on Christian stations.

Then, for reasons only vaguely disclosed, the band later decided against such a connection, as the following excerpt from Wikipedia (with four different sources) explains:

Evanescence was originally promoted in Christian stores. Later, the band made it clear they did not want to be considered part of the Christian rock genre, like fellow Wind-up Records artists Creed. In April, 2003 Wind-up Records chairman, Alan Meltzer, sent a letter to Christian radio and retail outlets to explain that despite the "spiritual underpinning that ignited interest and excitement in the Christian religious community," Evanescence are "a secular band, and as such view their music as entertainment." Therefore, he wrote, Wind-Up "strongly feels that they no longer belong in Christian markets." Almost immediately upon receipt of the letter, many Christian radio stations pulled Fallen songs from their playlists. Terry Hemmings, CEO of Christian music distributor Provident, expressed puzzlement at the band's about-face, saying "They clearly understood the album would be sold in these [Christian music] channels." In 2006, Amy Lee told Billboard that she had opposed being identified as a "Christian band" from the beginning.

I'm not sure how many feel the same way, but I wasn't particularly excited about the band's music being possibly Christian per se, but instead I had the feeling that there was sober spiritual metaphor being conveyed in the words and music. In other words, I detected a depth to the songs that impressed me.

Amy Lee further said in 2006, in regard to the band's former association with Christian music:

"Can we please skip the Christian thing? I'm so over it. It's the lamest thing. I fought that from the beginning; I never wanted to be associated with it. It was a Ben thing. It's over. It's a new day."

Lee seems to have forgotten, or never came to grips with, the fact that with any art, the observer will draw what they wish from it, regardless of what the artist wants them to draw from it. In the true words of the astute Anna Nalick, "'Cause these words are my diary screaming out loud, and I know that you'll use them however you want to."

It's not like the Christian status was keeping Fallen from the mainstream; it was getting heavy airplay on radio and cable television regardless.

At any rate, my purpose in bringing the Christian issue up is to pose a question to the reader:

Just what did Amy Lee think she would lose if she allowed Christians to identify with Evanescence music?

For my best guess, see the title of this essay. Industry insiders (and others) know that to be identified as a "Christian" artist is a stereotype that can potentially turn many secular fans off. All you have to do is compare the most successful Christian bands with the most successful secular bands. There is no comparison in terms of revenue generated. So, in some people's minds, being thought of as a Christian band, or being thought of as a band that creates Christian-friendly music, is somewhat of a super-stardom-killer. The same goes with the production and promotion of movies.

We're usually told by successful bands that they merely did what they loved, merely did what came naturally, only followed their true inspirations and muses, etc., and the result was success beyond most people's wildest dreams.

But truly... what is actually going on behind the scenes?

Follow the money.

Ann Coulter was not owned - An Addendum!

2012-01-15T03:36:00.004-06:00

Because I always wanted to make one of those little Xtranormal videos, I decided to create a response to the You Tube propaganda I mentioned in the essay just before this post.

Here's the link:

Ann Coulter Gets Owned - The REAL cold hard facts

Enjoy!

Ann Coulter was not owned

2012-01-12T14:03:00.011-06:00

YouTube can be entertaining, instructional and informative. But like any other form of public media, it should not be automatically trusted. It is just as prone to subjective bias as any other media source.

Take for example this video:

Ann Coulter Gets Owned

Now, this essay has nothing to do with whether or not I think Ann Coulter is smart, stupid, accurate or ignorant. But as you can plainly see, the snippet of video from the news show leaves the impression that Coulter was wrong beyond all shadow of a doubt.

In fact, she was not wrong, she just forgot the complete details of the matter. However, despite the voice-over's smug pronouncement that Coulter "never got back to us," the news program and interviewer were actually presenting wrong information... that is, if historical truth makes any difference at all in matters of dispute.

Canada did indeed send troops to Vietnam in 1973, two years before the Vietnam War ended. However, and this is a point that neither Coulter nor the interviewer brought up: the troops were sent for peace-keeping duty, and did not officially fight alongside U.S. troops.

Furthermore, this was not the end of Canada's involvement. A great many Canadian businesses were knowingly selling raw materials to the U.S. to manufacture napalm and Agent Orange. While the Canadian government did not officially acknowledge these as contributing to the war effort, they certainly did nothing to prevent activity that helped with Canada's unemployment percentage, especially since their financial benefit ran into the billions. See the following article for more information:

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/vietnam-war

Here's a portion of the article, in case the link is down (bold highlights are mine):

At home, 500 firms sold $2.5 billion of war materiel (ammunition, napalm, aircraft engines and explosives) to the Pentagon. Another $10 billion in food, beverages, berets and boots for the troops was exported to the US, as well as nickel, copper, lead, brass and oil for shell casings, wiring, plate armour and military transport. In Canada unemployment fell to record low levels of 3.9%, the gross domestic product rose by 6% yearly, and capital expenditure expanded exponentially in manufacturing and mining as US firms invested more than $3 billion in Canada to offset shrinking domestic capacity as a result of the war. The herbicide "Agent Orange" was tested for use in Vietnam at CFB Gagetown, NB. US bomber pilots practised carpet-bombing runs over Suffield, Alta, and North Battleford, Sask, before their tours of duty in Southeast Asia.

So, while the person interviewing Ann Coulter was correct in knowing that Canadians did not officially fight alongside us, he was incorrect that their troops were never deployed. Assumptions that Canada did not aid the U.S. war effort, or benefit from it, are also completely false.

But of course, no one who views that video will know that particular information without digging for it, because the comments were disabled, and I was unable to share it. I noticed a great deal of people thanked the YouTube user for posting the "Ann Coulter Gets Owned" video, even though, oddly enough, most of his or her uploaded content is actually for the specific purpose of refuting the 'enemies' of Islam. So I left a comment about Canada's deployed troops in the user's channel, but it was subject to approval by the user... and I expect it to never be approved.

Thus YouTube, although replete with instructional videos, educational videos, and videos of important live events, should never be referenced for facts about the world without further research. YouTube, first and foremost, is merely entertainment.

Hypocrisy, Tom Green style

2012-01-11T12:30:00.012-06:00

You can't stop truth from being revealed. You can try to hide it, you can deny it, you can delay it, you can attempt to erase it from history... but in the end, the truth will always surface. And resurface. And resurface again.

Back in 2003, on "The New Tom Green Show," Jesse James Dupree appeared as a guest, complete with his signature chainsaw. This is what the Wikipedia page for Green has to say about the fiasco:

A notable incident included Jesse James Dupree, the frontman of the Southern rock band Jackyl, when he made the ill-advised decision to take a chainsaw to Green's new desk on the show. The unplanned stunt clearly irritated Green and he made no attempt to hide his displeasure. He eventually began his planned musical performance (himself on drums and Dupree on guitar) but continued to verbally spar with Dupree for a short period before abandoning the drums mid-song in apparent disgust and walking off stage. Later on in the evening, he again insulted the band by holding up Jackyl's most recent album and advising viewers to "check it out if you like music that was cool fifteen years ago" and then proceeded to smash it with a hammer.

As mostly accurate as that summation is (I witnessed the video segment myself), it really doesn't fully convey the excessive amount of sarcastic venom that Green vomited toward Dupree. You need to actually see the video for yourself to understand how unreasonably far Green went with his anger. Interestingly, after the recorded incident started appearing around the Internet in blogs with high readership, the users who had posted the video in the first place suddenly decided to pull their own postings. I'm fairly certain they wouldn't have done this without some 'urging' from the copyright police, thanks to an affiliate of the Green camp.

But guess what?

Thanks to the digital age and the Internet, whatever gets recorded stays around forever. Witness for yourself the spectacle of Green behaving like a petulant child:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkIqsD1J_uM

Okay, so here's a few things to keep in mind, just in case this sounds like an attempt to defend the antics of Dupree. Yes, it's true, for all Dupree knew, that desk could have been a family heirloom handed down from Green's great-great-grandfather (it wasn't). Yes, it's true, anyone would be irritated if his or her custom-made desk was ruined without prior consent. Yes, it's true, Jesse James Dupree will not be publishing any papers on String Theory anytime soon.

But do all these things truly excuse Tom Green in particular, for behaving so exceedingly unprofessional toward someone who is, in all honesty, just another attention-seeking entertainer?

The hypocrisy in this incident lies in Tom Green's well known historical penchant for attempting to upset and embarrass unsuspecting people, including his own parents. That's actually how Green gained notoriety in the first place. Green's prior gimmicks sometimes included the defacement or mistreatment of possessions owned by others.

There was another episode where Tom Green has some very uncomfortable moments with Andrew Dice Clay. In this segment, we are allowed to see just how craven Green is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5k-uH3kDOQ

Despite the fact that anyone would be unsettled by Clay's shtick in this kind of situation, where is Green's vituperative here? Answer: nowhere to be found. And why didn't he treat Clay the same way he treated Dupree?

My guess is simply that Green was physically afraid of Clay. The hard-drinking Dupree could probably take Green in a fight as well, if I wanted to make violence a relevant factor in all this, but that's beside the point. I think Green wasn't afraid to make a mockery of Dupree because despite his crazed antics, Dupree was just trying to have fun and make the best of the situation throughout all of Green's harsh jabs.

Green may have perceived that Dupree wasn't going to win a Fields Medal, and thought that gave him unlimited license to be excessively rude. In the end, Dupree, just by trying to ignore Green's childishness and maintain a professional stance, fared far better. Tom Green, on the other hand, exposed himself forever as the person he truly is.

And thanks to the digital age, forever means forever, not just until lawyers send letters of warning.

What game publishers fear

2011-12-29T00:07:00.015-06:00

What is the frightening secret that game publishers in 2011 (and beyond) pray you will never discover?

Cutting-edge graphics have very little to do with how much fun a game is to play.

Witness the impressive success of this website:

Great Old Games

Gog.com now sells over 300 excellent titles, all DRM-free, and most going for about $6. Even games that originally sold with DRM are also included, but the gog.com versions have the DRM removed. Playing PC games without the hassle of DRM is the original inspiration for the establishment of gog.com.

The games on gog.com, although older by one year up to more than a decade in some cases, were all top rated games upon their original release. The only reason you'd find them in the bargain bin now is because they're old, used or in limited re-release.

Here's the interesting part... most gamers' objections to older games are based solely on the relatively poor graphics, as compared to the most current games. Mind you, the graphics may have been cutting-edge at the time the game was released, but it doesn't take long for what's hot today to become yawning material tomorrow due to rapidly forced obsolescence.

These games however, despite their sometimes very dated graphics, are still fun to play! Even with the newest, 'hottest' games, not every game is for every gamer; that's why there are different gaming genres. And so it is with older games; there are five-star titles in every genre. You just have to take a moment and look.

Where to find these great games? You name it. Gog.com, used bookstores, game trading stores, game trading web sites, eBay, Amazon.com, and more. Gamerankings.com is an excellent source of information for figuring out what older games would be fun for you.

Here's an sample search result from gamerankings.com, with the settings as follows: Platform = PC, Categories = All, Released = at any time, Reviews = at least 10, Sorted = best to worst.

A search of all PC games of all genres, sorted by the average ratings from multiple game review sites.

That search list is just scratching the surface of all the gaming goodness out there for all you souls weary of being abused by arrogant game publishers. Take a rest and play games that are tried and true! Games that still give countless hours of gaming pleasure.

So, you say, this is all very fine and dandy, but what proof could possibly justify the original claim in this essay that a game can be tons o' fun with less-than-stellar, even primitive, graphics?

Why, the game called Minecraft, of course.

First released as an alpha on May 17, 2009, then beta on December 20, 2010. The full PC version was released on November 18, 2011... but the game had already sold one million units ten months earlier. Add to this the fact that the game had reached the four million sold mark just eleven days before the official PC release.

And, to top it all off, the gamerankings.com site, which consolidates all the major review sites into one total average score, lists Minecraft as the ninth best PC game of all time.

Why is this particular meteoric rise of any relevance? The game's graphics are extremely primitive. They're completely blocky and simple, very reminiscent of the original Doom. Quite unattractive, really. But the sandbox/construction gameplay makes all the difference in the world. Critics and fans alike rave about this game. I personally tried it and it wasn't my cup of tea, but that's just me.

Visually, it's a throwback to 1993. In gaming years, that's like the Dark Ages. But because the gameplay is so addictive and compelling, it still flourishes at a time when the only games that can successfully command a sixty-dollar price tag upon release are big developer titles that took hundreds of people to produce. Minecraft was originally created by one guy!

As of the posting of this essay, 18,558,513 people have registered to play at the Minecraft web site, and 4,367,543 people have purchased the game.

The statistics in the previous paragraph indicate a possible theft rate of approximately 76% by the way, for those of you who think an independent game fares any better or worse with the Pirate Bay crowd. So actually Minecraft has a more successful sales percentage than most of the big game publishers. Go figure. Score one for the little guy. The DRM used is online activation, one of the least invasive types.

What's the moral in all this?

The DRM-crazed, deep pocket, brass-knuckled game publishers out there haven't a clue about how to best generate revenue in the game biz. They keep bloating games with more and more realistic graphics, but do they always deliver the best gameplay? Do they treat their customers with the respect you give someone who pays your wages?

No on both counts.

Eye candy is undoubtedly a very attractive feature of a video game. But take away the "wow, look at that" factor, and you are left with whether or not the game keeps your attention for more than a few hours. Some hot, new games accomplish this; most do not. I am as impressed by great graphics as anyone, but what games do my wife and I still spend countless hours playing together? Age of Empires II The Conquerors, and Heroes of Might and Magic III.

And... after trying out most of the Call of Duties, Battlefields, Half-Lifes, Team Fortresses, Medal of Honors, Cryses, Left 4 Deads, Halos, Clancy shooters, Star Wars shooters, etc... my favorite multiplayer shooters are still Quake III Arena and Unreal Tournament (the original and the 2004 versions), the original Unreal, and of course, Serious Sam (First and Second Encounters). True greatness in a game is rare indeed, and should be strived for instead of blindly spending so many development dollars on impressive graphics.

Best of luck to the EAs, Valves, Rockstars and Blizzards of the world... you're going to need it if you keep pushing the wrong buttons. Such a pity. You could have been rich and loved by all.

The DRM trail of tears

2011-12-28T13:18:00.030-06:00

For the uninitiated, DRM is Digital Rights Management, or as Richard Stallman refers to it, Digital Restrictions Management.

DRM was once, long ago, a clever idea to insure that more people would buy your software instead of just copying it for free. In the last decade however, it has transformed into a hamster wheel of egotistical and paranoid software publishers chasing their tails in impotent attempts to prevent unpaid copies of their software from being acquired and enjoyed.

From the excessively verbose and somewhat threatening EULA (End User Licensing Agreement) you are exposed to during the installation of software, you are furtively introduced to the concept that the program that you just purchased is not actually yours. Some may think this a minor distinction, but it isn't. The EULA is informing you that although the following things are true, you still don't own the game or program:

paid your own hard-earned money for the software in full
hold the disc(s), box and manual in your hand
retain the receipt for your records
register the software online or by mail
tolerate varying degrees of frustration and irritation from the effects of the version of DRM the publishers decided to foist upon you, the legal customer

Click here for more information about the part EULAs play in copyright "protection." In particular, look at the "Third Generation DRM schemes" three-part system.

Some may feel inclined to point out that just like any other "intellectual property," the data on the disc is owned by the creator, and merely on loan to you, the paying customer. Similar to a book or movie you buy and enjoy; the physical medium is yours to keep, but the content is the sole property of the creator.

This seems like a fair assessment to me, in terms of credit for work performed. I think an individual should be able to decide if his or her labor should be free to use, paid for, or whatever arrangement is most amenable to the laborer. However, how this justifies the use of DRM that can temporarily (or permanently) revoke your ability to use the software you legally purchased, I'm at a loss to comprehend.

For some of you reading this, the DRM issue is a non-issue. You either don't play games on the PC, or you do, but view unwanted DRM installation as a minor glitch in your user experience. I understand. If you don't know your privacy is being invaded, or you don't mind suddenly not being able to play your game when you want to (for a variety of DRM-related reasons), or you really don't care that someone you just paid is dictating what you are allowed to do with your own computer... well then hey, you're correct. All this fuss about DRM is just whiny nonsense.

However, if you are tired of being restrained, constrained, and detained by the people with their hands in your pocket, then DO something about it. Stop buying software that contains unreasonable DRM!

What is unreasonable DRM? Well, common sense would dictate that the following examples are certainly unreasonable... after each example, I give a reason why the specific DRM is unacceptable.

DRM that prevents you from being able to use the software you paid for.
- The whole purpose of purchasing the software is to use it; if software use is intentionally interrupted temporarily or permanently by the DRM, then why would you even want to buy it in the first place? Would you buy a car you knew might not start sometimes, due to factors often out of your control?
DRM that invisibly installs rootkits, which can be used by the proprietor for any number of questionable deeds, such as remotely accessing your computer without your consent or knowledge.
- Is it okay for any software maker or publisher to be given hidden control of your computer at its lower levels? See here and here for more about a past case of a 'legitimate' company installing a hidden, low-level rootkit along with the software the customers purchased.
DRM that invisibly installs unwanted drivers that cannot be removed after the game is uninstalled, without special assistance or procedure.
- What if you'd rather not have invisible and potentially questionable software on your computer? Starforce and SecuROM have both suffered severe public-relations disasters for their hidden hardware drivers. See here and here for instructions on how to remove the offending drivers.
DRM that requires you to maintain a constant Internet connection, even for a singleplayer game.
- What if you want to play the game and you're in a situation where you can't access the Internet? Mobile computing with no available wi-fi comes to mind, for one.
DRM that limits how many times you can install the software.
- What if you regularly reformat your OS drive for security purposes?
DRM that won't let you install the game if other particular third-party programs are installed on your computer.
- Does a game publisher really have the right to force you to uninstall optical drive emulators, even if you use them for convenience and the preservation of original software discs, and not for digital thievery? See here for an example caused by the DRM company SecuROM.
DRM that, even after installation, requires the disc to be in the drive for the game to be playable.
- The risk of disc quality degradation or failure increases with every insertion, removal, and revolution of the disc. What if the disc is eventually unreadable, and the game is no longer sold?
DRM that manifests itself as the removal of basic user experiences, like LAN gaming.
- Taking highly desired features away from the customer might not be the wisest decision, especially if your reasoning is motivated by ad revenue. See here for more about how Blizzard, for example, stuck it to their customers in order to force said customers to log onto a server that carries advertising that would otherwise be absent in a LAN gaming environment. Be sure to take a glance at the many user comments below the article.
DRM that can cause computer hardware failure.
- This is not an urban legend, despite reflexive scoffing from Mythbusters devotees. See here, and read some of the comments below it from people who have experienced not just a need to reformat the hard drive, but actual damage to various computer components.
DRM that doesn't allow you to make a safety copy of your legally purchased game.
- What if the disc is eventually unreadable, and the game is no longer sold?
DRM that limits how many times you can make a safety copy.
- What if all previous safety copies are lost or damaged?

Apparently, statistics indicate that DRM-free games are stolen at the same rate as DRM-laden games. See here for more. So, game publishers: why do you insist on wasting development dollars and risking customer satisfaction, just so you can realize your misguided (and impossible) dream of outsmarting digital thieves?

Also, it seems university research indicates that DRM encourages theft. See here for more.

There are more reasons than human immorality for digital "theft." Witness the success of Louis C.K. with his low-cost, easy to access, no-DRM video release called Live At The Beacon Theater.

To wrap this up, let me state clearly: DRM is acceptable only if the user experience is not impaired.

The best DRM is of course, no DRM at all.

Why I eschew the news

2011-12-20T02:41:00.016-06:00

In the previous essay on December 16th, I mentioned that my wife and I keep cable and dish television out of our dwelling and our lives. In reaction to this information, one could easily cast scorn our way, and conclude with minimal thought that we prefer to sit in darkness and rub two sticks together.

We do enjoy a few select television shows, but Hulu and Netflix are our sources, which means we can skip the other 99.9% of nonsense that fills the remainder of the bandwidth. On streaming content from Hulu, commercials are handled by us leaving the room to do whatever, and returning in the allotted time for the show to recommence. This allows us to accomplish something more pleasant than viewing the unwelcome advertisements, such as the elimination of waste products from our bodies.

Some of those who would judge us for avoiding the news may find brief relief to know my wife likes to torture herself with the New York Times during lunch at work. So, the truth be known, it is I who deliberately shuns the news. Feel free to judge me for the bumpkin I must be. However, if you dare, please follow as I give some examples of why the news holds no interest for me whatsoever, and probably never will.

Here are some 'top' headlines in today's news (courtesy of CNN.com), and the reasons why they hold no relevance to me whatsoever:

Suspect in New York elevator death is charged with murder, arson
Grisly details about the latest addition to humanity's notorious list of murderous psychopaths. Nothing in this article enlightens me, nor edifies me. It merely makes me sad and disgusted, two emotions that can be unfortunately experienced by events in my own life on occasion. How does the knowledge of this despicable anathema's evil deed improve my life? It doesn't.

BLITZER'S BLOG: Tense times ahead as North Korea transitions
Twelve paragraphs of one man's speculation that change nothing, therefore a waste of my time. Much like my own blog, some might say.

CNN Poll: Gingrich lead gone, dead even with Romney
A current poll result, which is meaningless next week, combined with a rehash of previous polls and statistics, and wrapped up with high-schoolish commentary on the ebb and flow of each candidate's popularity. Boring and pointless.

Gingrich explains how much he pocketed from Freddie Mac
A collection of nitpicking facts regarding the underhanded dealings of a political figure who attempts to downplay his malfeasance; a behavior that is not new, not going away, and therefore doesn't illuminate me at all.

Perry: Romney and Gingrich backed the 'biggest act of theft in American history'
Finger pointing and accusation, which may or may not be true. Either contention is meaningless, as the money has already been stolen from the unfortunate victims. Anyone paying attention to history can tell you that when it comes to the corridors of power and the wealthy 'one percent' privileged in society, that money isn't coming back. It will happen again in some way, over and over again. The plugged-in perpetrators will stand a ninety-five percent chance of getting away with it. How does reading about these accusations enhance my life, my knowledge of the world, or my ability to vote responsibly in 2012?

U.S.: 'No firm evidence' loose weapons have left Libya
More unsettling speculation regarding a typical rogue regime, with the added authenticity of numbers thrown in to make it more palpable. The real concern for the reader is whether or not these weapons will ever be used on American soil. I ask: how does worrying about such an international incident prevent it from happening or keep me safer? Does my knowledge of the possible threat of Libyan weapons somehow help our country's NSA, CIA, Homeland Security and multiple branches of the military prevent an attack? I think not.

Chrome overtakes Internet Explorer 8
The latest developments in Internet browser wars are completely irrelevant to me, as I use neither of the two most popular, yet inferior, applications mentioned in the article. The open source Firefox is still the best choice, and the one I've been using for years. Internet Explorer was top dog only due to customer ignorance and exclusionary clauses forced on computer manufacturers by Microsoft. Chrome is top dog now only because they have the most effective advertising for the same ignorant computer users who eventually (of course) tired of Internet Explorer's customer-unfriendly features. Amazing what you can accomplish when you run the world's most popular search engine, right? Not to me.

Tech Check: Could a texting-while-driving ban happen?
Alarmist reactions by whining electronic-crack addicts to pending federal law. Does the realization of such a law affect me, someone who thinks it foolish to fiddle with electronics while one should be paying attention to traffic? Not really. As annoying as it is to be required to fasten my seat belt before driving, for example, I would be hard pressed to produce a convincing argument as to how my freedoms and individual rights are being violated by potentially saving myself from flying through the windshield on impact. Wake me up when someone in Washington decides to put surveillance devices in every electronic device, or better yet, in my own cranium, whether I like it or not. That would be something of interest and genuine alarm. The aforementioned whiners' time would be better spent doing something to stop the latest pile of steaming legislative s*** from the RIAA and others, who seek to limit what you may have access to via bogus copyright 'protection' laws.

Carrier IQ: We don't record keystrokes, but your phone does
More negative fallout from the mobile electronic revolution. Does it surprise me that crooked individuals and companies create applications that invade our privacy? Not at all. The power of computing devices has never been fully understood by the zombies who stand in line to buy them, and may never be. My response to the latest, greatest, hottest, coolest, most awesome device or application? Not interested. My life is full and pleasant without it, just like all the billions of happy people that existed before the iPhone was regurgitated from the imagination of Saint Jobs.

What's really behind Twitter's staff exodus
Do I even need to comment on the myriad reasons why this is entirely unnecessary for me to know?

Stocks sell off as banks tank
More financial blathering laced with inventive terms, all to direct my attention to the rise and fall of the stock market... an entity that has become schizophrenic in the last couple of decades, thanks to genetic algorithms paid for by greedy grinches who like to get as much of the pie as possible. Never you mind that those pies are made up of money from you and me; that the 'rich' make an opulent living out of taking it from us is not new, and therefore not edifying at all.

Ellen DeGeneres buys Brad Pitt's Malibu home for $12 million
Seriously? I suppose my life could be much more enhanced by such knowledge... if what other people possessed was something that actually mattered to me. But alas, it is not. I don't wish to keep up with the Joneses, so knowing anything about their acquisitions is completely meaningless. Just as meaningless is gossip about the 'rich and famous'; these are people I'll never meet or know personally, so why would their various and sometimes bizarre activities hold any importance for me?

Okay, perhaps by now you get the idea. Or perhaps not. Either way, you go ahead and keep consuming all the information that the world can offer you in the bloated 21st century. As for me, I'll spend my time eating, sleeping, working, and loving my wife... mostly free from the burden of thinking about unnecessary nonsense.

The latest offensive defense

2011-12-16T10:00:00.007-06:00

"Because the law, my boy, puts us into everything. It's the ultimate backstage pass, it's the new priesthood, baby ... acquittal after acquittal after acquittal until the stench of it reaches so high and far into heaven, it chokes the whole f***in' lot of them." --- John Milton (Satan) from "The Devil's Advocate"

People have asked me why my wife and I don't have cable television piped into our house, and more specifically, they have often wondered how I can get along without knowing all the latest news in the world. One glance at today's headlines provides a definitive answer.

As I understand it, there is a football coach who has more than fifty felony counts of sexual abuse of young boys. See the article I saw here:

Team Sandusky introduces the 'hygiene' defense

Unfortunately, this manifestation of NAMBLA-sanctioned sickness is nothing new. Also, as the article seems to indicate, lawyers have reached yet another level of twisted deception; all for the sake of winning the case, of course. An excerpt from the article, which is an actual quote from the attorney who came up with the latest disgusting sophistry:

"Some of these kids don't have basic hygiene skills," attorney Karl Rominger said. "Teaching a person to shower at the age of 12 or 14 sounds strange to some people, but people who work with troubled youth will tell you there are a lot of juvenile delinquents and people who are dependent who have to be taught basic life skills like how to put soap on their body."

The truth, as a concept, is an interesting entity. Regardless of subjective views and wishful thinking, there is only one truth in any situation. There are many ways to interpret truth, many versions of the truth, many lies to avoid the truth... but still, in the end, there is only one truth about any given event that occurs in the world. It happened or it didn't. Yes, yes, blah, blah, blah; but fifty felony counts are a bit excessive to be merely a simple case of false accusation.

We have been exposed to the idea for so long that 'subjectivity changes everything' that we are losing touch with a basic moral skill like simply being able to judge between right and wrong. Paid advocates of the guilty have spent many years honing their craft; there has been precedent after precedent which has opened the door to 'anything is possible.'

And that's just the way the evil of the world like it. Truly... how inspiring it must be for any malefactor to ponder the idea that if the best lawyers can be afforded, he or she can most likely get away with anything. Truth matters much less than winning, it seems.

What kind of person honors the 'client confidence' part of the lawyer's oath, but disregards the part that requires the lawyer to never maintain deliberately misleading defense tactics?

I realize there are still human beings walking the earth who desire to do the right thing as much as it lies within them; for that reason alone we're probably all still breathing. But this does not erase the fact that the artifice of law is too often used to free the guilty. In the 21st century, we regard the lawyer 'smart' who can accomplish such a task, even though we simultaneously experience outrage that it actually happened.

Returning to the "hygiene defense," I have but one question for Rominger:

How much do you think it would cost for you to buy back your soul?

Blizzard's Worlds of DRMcraft - A Manifesto

2011-11-24T06:19:00.029-06:00

Note - inflexible console gamers: you're already hopelessly addicted to your electronic kiddie crack, so you can skip this entire essay.

Blizzard Entertainment: a living legend in terms of game creation. The major releases being several highly successful game series - Diablo, Starcraft and Warcraft. These three include the World of Warcraft (or WoW for short) massively multiplayer online role playing game (MMORPG), the most successful subscriber-driven online game ever.

I've played and enjoyed Diablo and Diablo II, the original Starcraft and its expansion called Broodwar, and Warcraft III and its expansion as well. But due to Blizzard's insistence in the last few years to include unreasonable DRM (Digital Rights Management) schemes with their games, I have lost interest in playing their more recent releases. As long as they insist on DRM, I will continue to skip them at the checkout counter, no matter how "awesome" the game appears to be.

Here's an accurate and amusing video on YouTube that cleverly illustrates the wrongheaded approach that Blizzard now uses, specifically (in this case) their decision to not include LAN play in Starcraft II:

The "Real" Reason Why There Is No Starcraft 2 LAN Play

The argument over basic freedoms as a consumer has turned into a tiresome flame war in the Internet, with the majority of the combatants taking my side... and for good reason.

I love PC games. That's right, I said I love PC games. I love them so much, I collect them and cherish them. Regardless of endless EULAs (End User License Agreements) that keep shoving legal vomit down my throat that says the disk in my hand means nothing in terms of ownership, I still love and collect these disks and the boxes they came in. I consider the best ones as works of art.

I also love to play games on a PC because basically... well... playing games on a console just makes me feel like a lazy chump. That's right, a lazy chump, when I think about the lack of total backwards compatibility coupled with non-stop forced upgrades, the severe limitations of the format as compared to PC gaming, inferior graphics, and the insulting marketing analysis that indicates I'd rather use a console because I'm too feeble to figure out something as basic as game, patch and driver installation.

But this essay isn't about PC versus console gaming. This is about Blizzard's (and other companies') dangerous fascination with pissing off their once loyal customers. So back to it...

My love of PC games means I purchase and retain the original disks, manuals and boxes. I am not a thief. I do not download games for free; I do not install games I haven't paid for. I think referring to those particular kinds of thieves as "pirates" is deliberately deceptive hyperbole, but that's a whole different discussion.

I used to join in the aforementioned Internet argument about DRM and throw down with any slack jawed ding-dong who thought DRM was a harmless bump in an otherwise smooth autobahn of gaming joy. But I no longer bother with that waste of my time, as I eventually had an epiphany, which I will now share.

I would like to urge PC gamers out there to do as I have done:

Refuse to buy any new games that contain DRM greater than an initial online activation or perhaps a CD key serial number.

Does this make me stubborn? I suppose it does if you actually believe you can't live without playing the latest game from Blizzard, or any other DRM-crazed company. But the bottom line is the bottom line: if you speak with your wallet, the game companies will listen, plain and simple.

I could suggest that the more angry of you out there should deliberately download the cracked DRM-spoiled games for free from say, a site called Pirate Bay... but no... I will take the high road and not encourage anyone toward "illegal" activities.

How am I able to ward off the compulsion to give in and buy a new game and put up with its annoying, insulting and ultimately ineffective DRM?

Because there are thousands of DRM-free games to play on a PC. Within that group, there are hundreds of A-list titles that can keep you in gaming bliss for years! Most of these games are still available for purchase, and believe me, years after launch, the prices can't get any better! Imagine paying five dollars for a game instead of fifty or sixty.

This is not exaggeration; it is easily verifiable fact. Click the following link for only one example out of many:

This site sells over 300 high quality, DRM free older games, most for $5.99.

Combine that fact with another fact: how much free time do you really have to play video games? If you took a moment to honestly add up the time you devote to PC gaming, you will come up with an approximate number that can easily be addressed by only a handful of the hundreds of existing top-rated games I mentioned previously.

Don't be a sheep! Instead be a thinking, reasonable, wise person as much as it lies within you. Don't reward companies that treat their loyal customers like potential thieves, while the actual thieves download the cracked games for free and laugh themselves silly at all the money and time that publishers waste on trying to show the crackers who is boss.

Wake up, Blizzard, et al: the crackers own your DRM posteriors, and always will. Grow a pair of sensible spheres and treat your legitimate customers with the proper respect.

Keeping his DRM head in the sand

2011-11-22T11:21:00.009-06:00

I have been a fan and subscriber of Maximum PC magazine for many years now. So long, in fact, I recall when "Thomas McDonald" was "T. Liam McDonald."

I've noticed that in recent times I enjoy McDonald's column less and less. There is a certain fanatical ethos that surrounds a magazine specifically designed for diehard PC enthusiasts, and Mr. McDonald appears to have lost it somewhere. Perhaps my perception is clouded, and McDonald never actually had it, I don't know. I may be mistaken, but when a columnist feels it necessary to waste his or her entire monthly contribution attempting to expose and ridicule reader complaints, I'd say it could be a sign that his tenure at the magazine is growing tenuous.

The column in question is in the Maximum PC "Holiday 2011" issue. McDonald's decision to make light of Maximum PC readers' angry letters regarding his November column entitled "The Diablo Is In The Details" was not the wisest of choices. Who knows, perhaps he has secretly wanted out of his obligation to Maximum PC, and figures a mob of keyboard tappers with torches will get the job done for him.

The nitpicker in me will dutifully point out that he's become so sloppy with his journalism, he can't even be bothered to reference the correct magazine issue. His holiday issue column states in the very first sentence that his Diablo III DRM commentary was from the December issue instead of the actual November issue. Petty detail yes; just one more indicator of his apathy, also yes.

Petty details aside, Mr. McDonald does not have the best interests of his readers in mind anymore, if he ever has. No one concerned about major issues such as Right and Wrong in regard to how software companies treat their paying customers would have been so flippant regarding Blizzard's (and other companies') decision to require a constant online connection for the upcoming Diablo III. Multiplayer? Of course that is necessary. Singleplayer? Completely unreasonable and wrongheaded.

Witness currently successful companies like 2D Boy and Stardock, who have won the hearts and wallets of millions with no DRM at all. In life, theft is unavoidable; it is merely a percentages game, since individual and collective human nature dictates that there will always be those who feel entitled to something for which they haven't paid.

I don't want this essay to go on too long, so I won't be individually attacking all of McDonald's ridiculous statements defending DRM, such as the "millions" of dollars publishers spend on their "loss-prevention schemes." How much code was actually necessary to require a constant online connection? Even the most expensive network programming contractors wouldn't charge anywhere near that amount to get the job done.

The ugly wake up call that many publishers seem oblivious to: DRM of this nature is not successful. It does not stop those who wish to play the game without paying for it! The long history of quickly cracked DRM is unblemished. So why expend so much effort including something in your game that will annoy your paying customers and ultimately not affect the thieves at all?

Ego.

The DRM-crazy publishers all live under the arrogant delusion that they can find a way to permanently thwart the crackers, and end theft of digital "property." Based on the structure of digital information, this is impossible. Unfortunately, some people who make important decisions still haven't learned this simple truth.

I do agree with one particular comment by McDonald (despite the sarcasm included in his version): if the DRM pisses you off, then don't buy Diablo III. Excellent advice I plan on following, despite my love of Diablo and Diablo II.

Am I missing out? Not really. There are so many great games to play out there, I won't even think about Diablo III, and I'm sure the invincible Blizzard won't miss my money either.

I'm also sure that Runic Games, the makers of the superb Torchlight series, will enjoy receiving my money. They treat me with the simple respect any paying customer deserves.

Beware The Motley Fool's advice

2011-11-20T18:13:00.027-06:00

While checking my local weather forecast this evening, I found the following text advertisement from The Motley Fool financial investment web site:

Okay. Aside from the obvious advance of technology, which dictates a high probability that some day personal computers as we know and use them today will no longer be the standard... we are nowhere near that day.

There are many reasons why these tired pronouncements of PC death are foolish; most obviously, these so-called PC-killers are really just PCs with different window dressing, as they contain the same technology our PCs already contain, albeit with much less power and adaptability. iPhones, HTCs, Blackberries, tablets, etc... they're all just comparatively weak and specialized PCs. So the notion of PCs permanently replacing PCs is a bit silly.

After actually laughing out loud at this latest croaking of impending doom, I then had some quick thoughts.

Yes, this was merely an advertisement for The Motley Fool, and as is so typical of marketing agency hyperbole, it shouldn't be consumed as fact. Yes, this was just one more prognostication of death for the PC, which has become a popular techno-legend, much like the previous propaganda about "the cloud" usurping PCs with billions of dumb, Internet-reliant terminals. There is no statistical evidence backing these proclamations in terms of dropping PC sales; the real reason we are occasionally treated to this poppycock is because some upstart company is trying to generate investor capital.

More significantly, beyond those observations, what became quite clear to me was this:

If this advertisement's message is what passes as wisdom from The Motley Fool web site, I won't ever be utilizing their financial advice, unless I wish to be a motley fool with empty pockets.

"The X Factor USA": petty and revealing censorship

2011-11-18T14:39:00.005-06:00

I encountered something revealing on the following page:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYY4zyiRwq8

If any of you read the blog essay just prior to this one, it is the same link to the same excerpt of "The X Factor USA." It's the episode segment where Simon Cowell calls "Astro" on his arrogant attitude.

What I found fascinating was that I left a simple comment thus:

"Astro" is not an a**hole; he's a symbol of the 21st century.

Now, I realize this isn't a glowing praise of the fourteen-year-old rapper, but it is far from anything near as caustic as many of the vulgar and rude comments being left by others, many of which contain the f-bomb. Many of the comments are disgustingly and unabashedly racist. My comment was actually a reaction to someone calling "Astro" an a**hole.

"mariana5791" another YouTube user, left the following comment before TheXFactorUSA deleted mine:

@spongefreddie i dont wanna live in the 21st century then... (HOW COULD YOU SAY THAT)

So I have to ask: Why bother to remove my comparatively tame comment?

I can only speculate on the why, as I have no access to the individual who clicked the 'remove' button on behalf of The X Factor USA (it's their YouTube channel).

As I don't want to get too wild with my suppositions, I'll simply observe that the decision to delete my comment was most likely based on anger, and that anger motivated by fear.

Fear of what, you ask?

Truth can be a lot more unsettling than cynical sarcasm and ignorant vulgarity.

"Astro's" Defining Moment

2011-11-18T12:14:00.015-06:00

"Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall."

I just happened upon an excerpt from a television show called "X Factor," which consisted of Simon Cowell (one of the judges) sternly reprimanding an arrogant fourteen-year-old rapper who calls himself "Astro."

Here is a link to the full incident (The excerpt in question begins around 2:50):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYY4zyiRwq8

First off, other than viewing the clip, I don't watch the show, neither do I have any interest to start. Secondly, I'm not particularly interested in whether or not "Astro" deserved to escape elimination versus a forty-two-year-old woman. Thirdly, at this point I'm not going to expend any time with the perpetual argument between those who think 'rapping' is singing, and those who do not.

What I am going to point out is that on a very small scale, this televised incident, and the burp of controversy that erupted among some anonymous and angry Internet troglodytes, have both effectively demonstrated a problem that is becoming more and more evident in the 21st century: the negative results of hyperactive subjectivity.

I would lean toward arguing that "Astro" is merely emulating the idols he's grown up with... 'stars' who similarly have fooled themselves into thinking subjective opinion is all that matters. In a philosophical sense, this can be correct; however if a person is at all paying attention to cause and effect as it plays out around them, then they will observe that this way of viewing the world is ultimately wrong due to inevitably destructive effects.

Five years from now, very few will care much about the X Factor incident. "Astro" will most likely become a big 'star' with legions of human beings endlessly reassuring him via electronic blubbering and record sales that his every word and action is a gift from heaven.

Thus, the delusion is enforced, time and time again:

If we believe it, it must be true.

That works just swell... until someone comes along with a bone to pick with the human race and decides to take matters into his or her own hands.

There's a difference between the two? Yes, but only in magnitude of the destructive effect, not in the core reason the arrogance is wrong in the first place.

Read the first sentence of this essay again.

Capitulation, Netflix Style

2011-11-17T11:09:00.009-06:00

Reed Hastings released this blog entry to the world on October 10th:

http://blog.netflix.com/2011/10/dvds-will-be-staying-at-netflixcom.html

This much shorter, less apologetic post gets right to the point. Qwikster has been abandoned.

This was a good decision, of course, so trying to put a negative spin on it is pointless.

The one thing I am moved to say is that I hope Netflix's exorbitant price hike in July has sufficiently offset their resultant poor stock performance, otherwise how will all of us millions of slavish subscribers be able to keep Hastings living in the manner he is accustomed?

The Netflix Downward Spiral

2011-10-09T01:00:00.014-05:00

The mighty may still fall; even in 2011.

If you tried to access the Netflix web site last night, for about three hours you encountered a static page displaying a total of 264 streaming movies from 11 different categories. Now, 264 movies may seem like a lot, but compared to the entire Netflix catalogue, it's a very small fraction.

It didn't matter if you tried to access the home page or the member sign-in page, or any other page. All that was available was the one static page with 264 streaming movies. No queue, no settings, no nothing. At the top of the page was the following terse, non-explanatory message:

"We're currently experiencing a technical issue."

Below that was a bit longer subtext, that read, "While we get things back to normal, some features aren't available - but you can play select titles on this page."

Interesting. While this could be the result of any of a number of possibilities, I would like to suggest three that immediately stood out to me.

Possibility Number One
(the most plausible to me)
This is merely the beginning of sorrows for Netflix customers, as Netflix attempts to permanently separate the DVD rental and streaming service into two different online entities. Oh yes, there will be more outages as they bumble their way toward their goal of justification for charging customers nearly twice as much as they did previously. One possible future 'apology': "Sorry, we have to alter rates as we see fit; we're dealing with two different companies now."

Possibility Number Two
The technical difficulty isn't technical at all, but merely an annoying way to temporarily gauge what people will be willing to stream in to their entertainment screens on a Saturday night. This may be the night many people like to hit the town, but it's also the night many more people like to curl up with a movie on the couch. The value of pulling such a stunt would be in examining on a small scale how users will react to less selection, such as when Starz pulls out permanently in February 2012.

For those who have their own DVDs, or use RedBox, Blockbuster, or Netflix for their DVD rentals, the temporary inaccessibility of the Netflix user account interface is a minor issue.

But for those who have elected to go with streaming only, and who don't use any other service, such as Hulu Plus, having such a limited access to streaming content is quite irritating. Especially on the heels of rate hikes and the company-spawning prestidigitation that was sold to customers as unavoidable.

If this is what happened (and I actually doubt that it was), then Netflix has dug themselves even further into a hole that they already may not be able to crawl out of, in terms of customer opinion.

Now, on to what I'm hoping actually happened, whether or not I am correct.

Possibility Number Three
Quite simply stated, Netflix pissed off the wrong people with their greedy antics.

The wrong people: those with the savvy to wage an attack on public or private Internet servers, with the intentions of doing anything from minor mischief to completely corrupting the data of the entire legion of cloud-connected networked computers managed by Netflix.

Any company the size of Netflix surely has almost equally savvy individuals who constantly monitor server activity and design plans that allow for data recovery in the worst of scenarios. That's what data redundancy is all about, especially backing up data to off site locations. In the networked digital world, only a fool maintains no backup of his or her company's data.

So what I propose happened is that the entire Netflix online 'empire' was compromised and corrupted to enough of a degree that emergency measures were activated by Netflix to temporarily point their IP address to a server cluster not on their normal network. A server cluster capable of streaming 264 movies until data is restored and the point of entry is discovered and patched.

So there you have it. I could easily be wrong about all three proposals, but the romantic part of me, the part that cheers for the underdog who battles against the greedy monarch who devirginizes the brides of peasants on their wedding nights... that part of me wants to think that a handful of highly irritated and highly talented individuals decided to send Netflix a message:

You are not invincible, and your decisions do have consequences, both good and bad.

CEO doublespeak, courtesy of Netflix

2011-09-19T12:37:00.015-05:00

On Sunday, September 18, 2011, Reed Hastings, Co-Founder and CEO of Netflix decided to post a blog entry in an effort at damage control. Somehow a person who has created an extremely successful DVD rental empire has supposedly overlooked the possibility that effectively doubling rates could possibly make his customers angry.

The original post is here:

http://blog.netflix.com/2011/09/explanation-and-some-reflections.html

As I've grown weary of endless spin from those in power, I've decided to provide a translation for any who may be interested. What follows is the text of Hastings's blog entry in italics, with my paraphrasing afterward in bold text:

I messed up. I owe everyone an explanation.
I messed up. I'm going to give you an explanation that justifies my greed as CEO of Netflix.

It is clear from the feedback over the past two months that many members felt we lacked respect and humility in the way we announced the separation of DVD and streaming, and the price changes. That was certainly not our intent, and I offer my sincere apology. I'll try to explain how this happened.
We've pissed off too many customers since announcing our rate hikes, so I'm doing the standard customer-service apology as damage control.

For the past five years, my greatest fear at Netflix has been that we wouldn't make the leap from success in DVDs to success in streaming. Most companies that are great at something - like AOL dialup or Borders bookstores - do not become great at new things people want (streaming for us) because they are afraid to hurt their initial business. Eventually these companies realize their error of not focusing enough on the new thing, and then the company fights desperately and hopelessly to recover. Companies rarely die from moving too fast, and they frequently die from moving too slowly.
My greatest fear is the loss of our virtual monopoly on rented home video entertainment, now that Starz is pulling out. Here's two examples of failures of once-successful companies to arouse sympathy. Please understand that because Starz is taking away about one thousand movies from our service, I need to get ahead of the game and charge you more money to make up for projected losses.

When Netflix is evolving rapidly, however, I need to be extra-communicative. This is the key thing I got wrong.
When Netflix is altering price structures to produce more revenue, I need to spend more time apologizing and giving simulated heartfelt explanations if I want to keep people from transplanting my money tree.

In hindsight, I slid into arrogance based upon past success. We have done very well for a long time by steadily improving our service, without doing much CEO communication. Inside Netflix I say, "Actions speak louder than words," and we should just keep improving our service.
In hindsight, I should have paid Starz what they wanted.

But now I see that given the huge changes we have been recently making, I should have personally given a full justification to our members of why we are separating DVD and streaming, and charging for both. It wouldn't have changed the price increase, but it would have been the right thing to do.
But now that I see how a significant portion of my user base is pissed off and close to either scaling down or canceling, I realize I should have started my spin sooner, and the rate hikes more gradually. I'm still going to insure my personal wealth, no matter how much you don't like it, so I've decided to make it sound like the real offense is a lack of communication. That way my feigned humility is validated and hopefully you'll be less angry about being charged too much, since now I'm so willing to have a fireside chat with you.

So here is what we are doing and why:
Here is what we're doing, and what I want you to think is the reason why:

Many members love our DVD service, as I do, because nearly every movie ever made is published on DVD, plus lots of TV series. We want to advertise the breadth of our incredible DVD offering so that as many people as possible know it still exists, and it is a great option for those who want the huge and comprehensive selection on DVD. DVD by mail may not last forever, but we want it to last as long as possible.
Here's a list of things you love about our DVD service, to get you thinking about how great we have treated you in the past, and hopefully lessen the sting of how we're treating you now.

I also love our streaming service because it is integrated into my TV, and I can watch anytime I want. The benefits of our streaming service are really quite different from the benefits of DVD by mail. We feel we need to focus on rapid improvement as streaming technology and the market evolve, without having to maintain compatibility with our DVD by mail service.
We can't currently offer all our DVDs as streaming selections, and I want you to think that's the reason why I'm charging you more. I feel the need to tell you about our evolving market, because somehow that's supposed to explain why having more DVDs than streaming content justifies the rate increase.

So we realized that streaming and DVD by mail are becoming two quite different businesses, with very different cost structures, different benefits that need to be marketed differently, and we need to let each grow and operate independently. It's hard for me to write this after over 10 years of mailing DVDs with pride, but we think it is necessary and best: In a few weeks, we will rename our DVD by mail service to "Qwikster".
We are splitting our services into two different entities, because later on we can raise rates as we see fit, without the customer making inconvenient connections in their heads about the disparity between the two pricing models.

We chose the name Qwikster because it refers to quick delivery. We will keep the name "Netflix" for streaming.
We chose the name Qwikster because it rhymes with 'trickster.' We will keep the name Netflix for streaming because if it goes under, we can more quickly disassociate ourselves from our past mistakes with a different name for our original service, and our stockholders can't completely dismantle our money machine.

Qwikster will be the same website and DVD service that everyone is used to. It is just a new name, and DVD members will go to qwikster.com to access their DVD queues and choose movies. One improvement we will make at launch is to add a video games upgrade option, similar to our upgrade option for Blu-ray, for those who want to rent Wii, PS3 and Xbox 360 games. Members have been asking for video games for many years, and now that DVD by mail has its own team, we are finally getting it done. Other improvements will follow. Another advantage of separate websites is simplicity for our members. Each website will be focused on just one thing (DVDs or streaming) and will be even easier to use. A negative of the renaming and separation is that the Qwikster.com and Netflix.com websites will not be integrated. So if you subscribe to both services, and if you need to change your credit card or email address, you would need to do it in two places. Similarly, if you rate or review a movie on Qwikster, it doesn't show up on Netflix, and vice-versa.
I'm finally going to provide a much-requested video game rental service, for more money of course, which I like to call an 'upgrade.' DVD by mail has always had its own team, but since we added streaming, we've had to hire more people, so we're going to charge you more. We're doing separate websites for DVDs and streaming, and I'm telling you that it's for simplicity, while I simultaneously inform you that you will have to double your efforts sometimes.

There are no pricing changes (we're done with that!). Members who subscribe to both services will have two entries on their credit card statements, one for Qwikster and one for Netflix. The total will be the same as the current charges.
There will be no more pricing changes until we decide to buy another yacht or summer estate.

Andy Rendich, who has been working on our DVD service for 12 years, and leading it for the last 4 years, will be the CEO of Qwikster. Andy and I made a short welcome video. (You'll probably say we should avoid going into movie making after watching it.) We will let you know in a few weeks when the Qwikster.com website is up and ready. It is merely a renamed version of the Netflix DVD website, but with the addition of video games. You won't have to do anything special if you subscribe to our DVD by mail service.
I want to create an additional CEO for the company, with commensurate pay, and you need to help shoulder the cost.

For me the Netflix red envelope has always been a source of joy. The new envelope is still that distinctive red, but now it will have a Qwikster logo. I know that logo will grow on me over time, but still, it is hard. I imagine it will be the same for many of you. We'll also return to marketing our DVD by mail service, with its amazing selection, now with the Qwikster brand.
For me, the Netflix red envelope has always been a source of cash in my pocket. I want you to think I have a sentimental attachment to the Netflix logo, so that you won't notice how raw I've rubbed my hands in anticipation of increased revenues.

Some members will likely feel that we shouldn't split the businesses, and that we shouldn't rename our DVD by mail service. Our view is with this split of the businesses, we will be better at streaming, and we will be better at DVD by mail. It is possible we are moving too fast - it is hard to say. But going forward, Qwikster will continue to run the best DVD by mail service ever, throughout the United States. Netflix will offer the best streaming service for TV shows and movies, hopefully on a global basis. The additional streaming content we have coming in the next few months is substantial, and we are always working to improve our service further.
A huge portion of our members are very unhappy about these recent developments, but we're going to continue with them anyway. We want you to think that creating an additional business, which requires more staffing, compensation, etc., will not only make us better at streaming, but also better at DVD by mail... even though historically speaking, our previous attention to that service is why we're driving sports cars in the first place. We will be the best because we say so, and all the additional money we rake in from global streaming will make us very happy that we raised your rates.

I want to acknowledge and thank our many members that stuck with us, and to apologize again to those members, both current and former, who felt we treated them thoughtlessly.
I want to thank all my customers who would rather pony up the extra dough than simply take a moment and look elsewhere, like Blockbuster or Hulu Plus. I want to pretend to apologize again, with no intention of fixing the problem. I also want to phrase my apology so that I don't actually admit that I treated my customers thoughtlessly.

Both the Qwikster and Netflix teams will work hard to regain your trust. We know it will not be overnight. Actions speak louder than words. But words help people to understand actions.
Both the Qwikster and Netflix teams will work hard to produce me revenue. As far as your trust... as long as you enjoy sitting around and watching movies and recorded televsion shows, and we make it as easy as possible for you to do so, your trust doesn't matter. You'll still pay us and keep me rich.

Respectfully yours, -Reed Hastings, Co-Founder and CEO, Netflix
Deal with it, -Reed Hastings, Video Pimp Daddy

The Netflix-Starz Reminder

2011-09-16T13:10:00.016-05:00

Netflix and Starz have decided to end their partnership in bringing us, the viewers and subscribers, collective content for us to enjoy. Currently as of the writing of this essay, the partnership is projected to end on February 28, 2012. This means that approximately one thousand movies will no longer be available via Netflix. To view a few more details, go here:

http://www.screened.com/news/starz-ends-relationship-with-netflix/2832/

and here:

http://paidcontent.org/article/419-why-netflix-subs-cant-stream-sony-movies-from-starz-for-now/

While this is a small matter in the scheme of things for most people, it is disturbing for the same reason so many other events and situations are disturbing: greed.

Starz wants more money for the streaming content it provides Netflix, and Netflix doesn't want to pay that much. That's the whole issue in a nutshell.

Perhaps you don't care about this development in streaming content. I use Netflix streaming, and I'm not even all that upset about it. I view it as just another inconvenience foisted upon me by the 'powers that be.'

But what does make you angry?

The price of gas? The price of food? The price of basic utilities and other necessities? The unjustifiably extravagant lives of CEO's, movie stars and professional athletes? Identity theft? Robbery? Rape? Murder? War?

Do the harshest of these things compare to a financial dispute between two business entities, in terms of how it affects us?

No.

Does the Netflix/Starz dispute remind us how little we actually matter in the decisions made by the powers that be?

Yes.

Despite our feel-good mantras and delusions, human beings are ineffective when it comes to proving to the universe that many of our most shining examples of successful people are more worthy than spiders; creatures that cunningly spin webs and drain hapless victims dry.

Follow the money.

Watching a Starz movie on Netflix at midnight on February 28, 2012 is very much like watching our own world develop year after year:

Because of the decisions of the few, that we didn't make but still condone, it will end unsatisfactorily mid-stream, with no proper resolution.

No Compass, Will Travel

2011-09-09T16:43:00.013-05:00

Somehow I ended up vortex-clicking some Dear Abby archives, and came upon this article:

Dear Abby: "Niece is flirting with real danger"

Now... this is the 21st century, of course. Thanks to decades of pop culture and social engineering, sex has no mystery or sacred status any longer, and has been banished to the unceremonious bucket of human endeavor, along with eating, sleeping and using the toilet. Thus, the currently politically incorrect word 'morality' has all but vanished from conversation regarding sexual matters.

So why is it still disturbing when one reads about a mother who's actually proud of her fourteen-year-old daughter's fellatio skills and frequency?

Somewhere between our incessant defiance against any perceived roadblocks to our personal freedoms, and the undesirable former system of leeching and witch-burning, you'd think there could be some sort of agreeable, common sense middle-ground for everyone.

Interestingly, despite our 'enlightened' efforts toward removing judgement from many of life's perplexities of character, a person such as the mother in the article still causes the average adult to clench teeth and shake head in disgust. This is a direct result of an easily identifiable deviation from a universally understood moral compass.

Perhaps, as a sentient and sports-stadium-building species, we will one day 'evolve' or mature to the point where we no longer attempt to ignore the sometimes ugly truths about ourselves by sticking our middle fingers in the air and declaring:

"Who the f*** are you? You don't know me!"

We don't need to know you; your behavior speaks for itself.

Steve Jobs is no genius

2011-09-02T16:27:00.012-05:00

On August 29th, 2011, the New York Times published an article by Andrew Ross Sorkin, which tentatively points out that Steve Jobs, billionaire, is not much given to public charity. If Jobs wants to shun donations to charitable organizations on a personal and professional level, that's his business, and I'm not interested in judging that behavior. Here is the link to the original article:

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/the-mystery-of-steve-jobss-public-giving/

However, Sorkin proclaims at the onset of the article that Steve Jobs is a genius.

Genius is a word too often ascribed to individuals based on our admiration of them, instead of being based on empirical evidence. Empirical evidence being the ability to do extraordinary mental feats, often with no preparation or extended time to perform them.

There actually are people on this planet who can, for example, perform mathematical magic like the main character in the movie "Good Will Hunting." These are the true geniuses in the world. They are people like Steve Wozniak, who conceived, designed and built the first Apple computer. This was an exceptional accomplishment, especially at the time in history that he did it.

Steve Wozniak is a genius. Steve Jobs is not.

Jobs has many admirers. I may have counted myself among them, had I been born earlier, and also if I had remained ignorant of the horrible way he's treated people, including his own daughter in her formative years, and his own loyal employees.

Sure, you can point out that geniuses aren't always nice people. That's beside the point. Here are some honest ways to summarize Jobs's different hats:

Technological innovator (of electronic crack), hippie generation demagogue, and intrepid salesman (master manipulator of the cash cows known as Apple customers).

He has, through the cult of personality, brought Apple back from the brink of disaster and generated much revenue for the company and himself. These are impressive accomplishments, but they don't necessarily qualify for the title genius.

A mistaken idea that has trickled down from the one percent of the wealthy to the person-on-the-street is: if you get paid more, you're smarter. If you've achieved considerable material success in the world, you are regaled with all sorts of knee-jerk descriptions, such as genius, visionary, brilliant, etc.

Certainly, it takes more than a 75 I.Q. to amass great wealth. But seriously... is it sheer intelligence that is required, or the cunning of a sociopath?

I see Jobs as he is: a clever human being who, by one part vision, one part serendipity and one part opportunism, managed to carve himself a place in the history of computing. His part was significant, but hardly worthy of the title genius.

If you look in the dictionary for the word 'genius,' you will see a picture of Linus Torvalds or John Carmack before you will ever see Steve Jobs.

Our King's Disguise

2011-08-28T00:54:00.004-05:00

"Pieces of Eight" is a song written by Dennis DeYoung, and recorded by the band Styx, of which DeYoung was once a member. The song itself was on the album of the same name, released in 1978.

Here is a link to the words of the song, from a lyric site that will spare you the obnoxious popup ads that most of them subject web surfers to:
http://www.elyricsworld.com/pieces_of_eight_lyrics_styx.html

Written many years ago, the words of the song seem out of date. The lyrical format is classic seventies rock, but rather than an excuse for sub-par quality, that particular distinction is a label worthy of praise. The ethos of the time may have included the often-cited sex-and-drugs excess we've all been taught to associate with the 1970's, but in comparison, the song lyrics of today tend to lean too much toward the shallow and jaded.

What are the words of the song speaking about? Basically, they're addressing the materialistic path we've taken as a society (western civilization in general, I would assume). DeYoung's experience is as an American who has visited abroad enough to appreciate the different ways people view money and material possessions.

The fact that DeYoung was extremely successful and became wealthy by virtue of his career with Styx, is easier to put aside, when one ponders the general stance of most of his lyrics. He would have written the same words for his songs, regardless of material success... to call him to the carpet because he sings of the evils of greed is not hypocritical. There's a huge difference between an artist who makes good, and a CEO who manipulates the retirement funds of his hapless employees.

Back to the song.

It's possible that some who have listened to the song may have missed the most important line in it. The line is, "I'm just a prisoner in a king's disguise."

While most of the song deals with someone's literal workaday events and somber ruminations regarding the absurdities of our materialistic 'rat-race,' the line I quoted pretty much sums up the crux of the problem DeYoung addresses in the song:

We think we're conquering the world with every additional crown of acquisition and fleshly achievement, but in fact, the more we devote ourselves to such materialistic and shallow pursuits, the darker the spiritual cell we're incarcerated in becomes.

We've spent so much time deceiving ourselves with our "king's disguise," we've arrived at a place in our hearts and minds where spirituality has acquired a reputation as a worthless philosophical crutch of the weak and foolish.

How else could you explain so much justified greed and theft? We think no one is watching our hands dip into someone else's cookie jar, and modern wisdom dictates that if we're not caught stealing, we're the smart ones. There's no answer to that prepossession, other than to continue attempting to 'do the right thing,' and suffer the laughter that ensues.

Why are aspects of the world so dark? Stop pointing fingers and look in the mirror.

Typical Misdirection

2011-08-27T23:07:00.004-05:00

My wife sent me an article from her favorite online newspaper, the New York Times. The August 25th, 2011, article was entitled, "Dr. King Weeps From His Grave." It was an op-ed contributed by Cornel West, and she (my wife) relayed to me a passage from Herman Melville that West quoted.

Here's a link to the original op-ed:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/26/opinion/martin-luther-king-jr-would-want-a-revolution-not-a-memorial.html

I read the article, and immediately emailed my wife the following:

I agreed with the majority of what the writer was saying, but even in his mostly accurate appraisal of our "sick society," there is interpretative propaganda sprinkled throughout:

"... a morally bankrupt policy of ... lowering taxes and cutting spending for those already socially neglected and economically abandoned"

"Arbitrary uses of the law - in the name of the "war" on drugs - have produced ... a new Jim Crow of mass incarceration."

"... right-wing populists ... seize the moment with credible claims about government corruption ... This right-wing threat is a catastrophic response to King's four catastrophes; its agenda would lead to hellish conditions for most Americans."

"As the talk show host Tavis Smiley and I have said in our national tour against poverty" and "... this means support for progressive politicians like Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont and Mark Ridley-Thomas"

Let's see what Wikipedia says about each of these three people:

"Tavis Smiley is a ... liberal political commentator"

"Sanders is a self-described democratic socialist".

"Ridley-Thomas has been criticized ... for his proposal and personal defense of plans to remodel his office through the spending of $707,000 in discretionary funds. "

Last, but certainly not least, is Wikipedia's report on Cornel West (the author of the op-ed) himself:

"Cornel Ronald West ... is ... [a] prominent member of the Democratic Socialists of America."

So, in conclusion, "Dr. King Weeps From His Grave" is just another example of legitimate emotional appeals delivered for the more furtive purpose of hidden agenda promotion via misdirection.

I highlighted the snippets to make the specific point that propaganda is often best delivered under the guise of appealing to the average individual's anger about identifiable injustice. In this way, an illogical connection can seem logical; especially to a reader who shares Mr. West's political sensibilities.

However, I would like to state officially for the record that this kind of clever misdirection is perpetrated by all political squawking heads, be they liberal socialists, like Cornel West, or the right-wing populists whose "catastrophic responses" West attempts to steer us away from.

DRM analogy

2011-08-23T18:12:00.008-05:00

I've concocted a simple analogy for all those DRM cheerleaders out there in the web-o-sphere, who can't see the forest for the trees.

Let's suppose there is a car manufacturer out there (we'll choose GMC, due to their incredible track record of inane company decisions). Now let's suppose that GMC decided to release all their pending new car models with a special kind of theft security, called DRM (instead of Digital Rights Management, we'll use Richard Stallman's interpretation, and call it Digital Restrictions Management).

This DRM is a computerized form of theft control that is installed in the automobile's electronic assembly, in such a way that trying to defeat it or remove it only results in the car being unable to run. It works by using wireless network communication between it and either satellites or cell phone towers, whichever are more available. As long as the online server successfully "handshakes" with your little electronic chip, all is well.

This DRM is marketed as the safest, most effective, and most "non-invasive" DRM you can have installed in a car. You don't have to worry about key fobs or any other hardware, you simply have to speak a quick code-word into a voice-recognition module mounted on the dashboard.

Now comes the good part, for all you ding dongs who still view DRM as tolerable...

One fine day, you go out to use your car. It really doesn't matter what you're using it for in this analogy, just that it's pretty important to you that you get in and go.

You get in, press the button to start the car, speak the code word...

...and nothing happens.

Now, it doesn't matter to you how easy and invisible the DRM is purported to be, all you know is you just want the car to start and take you where you want to go. Thus you're not entirely thrilled about the spider web of online FAQs, forums and community support pages you must navigate through on the dashboard display in order to troubleshoot the problem.

In this sort of situation, there is no contingency plan X, Y or even Z for starting the car. It doesn't matter to the company who designed the DRM, or the company that bought and implemented the DRM (in this simulated case, GMC) that it may be very important for you to drive your car right now. At one point, you find a page that informs you to call a cab, the police, fire department or an ambulance if you absolutely must go somewhere and the car refuses to respond.

As you endlessly tap at the dash buttons, trying to find an answer to this dilemma, your anger builds as the ugly truth presents itself:

You paid thousands of dollars for this car, and should not have to play help-desk bingo just to use it.
You begin to realize that although you paid for the car in full, and it sits in your driveway, and you pay for all its gas, insurance and upkeep, you don't actually own it.
You start to hate the company that created this car, because you realize they're only in the business of creating users instead of owners. You're like a cow that's being milked with the illusion that your stall is the entire world, or better yet, a hapless drug addict who keeps the drug dealers living in palatial mansions.

So my question to you, reader, is this:

Even though the DRM car is new and looks "really cool", just how long do you think a car company like that would stay in business, when car companies B, C and D still use "archaic technology" like a metal key to start the car?

Answer:

Not very long.

So why would you embrace equivalent DRM technologies in your software?

Still not okay...

2011-08-23T15:49:00.006-05:00

As I am the sort of "computer person" who isn't known for giving up, I finally discovered the so-called problem with Steam. I needed to temporarily turn off my anti-virus (only for the tiny update, not for any other network communication between my computer and Steam), which isn't that hard to understand, but it is inappropriate, when faced with the fact that I never had to do this before, through many previous logins and updates from Steam in the past.

As Duke Nukem Forever loaded, and I played for a few minutes to verify its stability, I felt that particular sort of relief that washes over you when you solve an aggravating computer-related issue.

However, a moment later, I again frowned about the process, and the original point I was making, which is still just as valid:

Being at the mercy of a 3rd party, when all I want to do is play the game that was legally payed for, is disturbing, annoying... and just plain wrong.

It truly drives home the message that so many EULAs (End User License Agreement) relish trumpeting (paraphrase provided):

"This game (software) is not owned by you, even though you paid full price to a retailer and hold the disk in your hand. It is merely on loan to you, and if we decide you no longer have a right to access the content, we can revoke that right immediately and permanently."

Hey, game publishers: way to show respect to the people who make it possible for you to continue creating software for a living! It's not like the game publishers' controlling behavior is motivated by something selfish and loathsome, right? All hail the mantra of the corporate vultures disguised as 21st century game publishers:

"The bottom line is all that matters."

The Evil That Steam Does

2011-08-23T13:30:00.006-05:00

After spending two hours post midnight fighting Steam's own little brand of draconian DRM, I went to bed. Later the same day (today) when I woke up, I figured, hey, it's sunny outside... perhaps Steam just had some temporary problems with their network. I'll give it another go.

Long story short, it was another bust. Kept getting the same messages, etc. So, in utter frustration and resignation, I uninstalled Steam, thinking that perhaps a clean installation would end these problems.

Wrong-o, my friends.

I had four legally purchased games installed on my computer: Duke Nukem Forever (DNF), Left 4 Dead 2, Counter-Strike: Source and Counter-Strike: Source Beta. DNF alone takes over six gigabytes of space. Not to mention all the Orange Box games, which I previously installed (again, retail disks) but hadn't played in a long time.

Guess what? When you uninstall Steam (an online verification system), you also uninstall EVERYTHING else that goes with it. This means if you have an intractable problem, such as the problem I was having, and you decide to uninstall Steam, you are penalized for this decision by losing all the data on your own computer that pertains to the games that you are forced to use Steam in order to play.

Furthermore, to make matters more insidious, when I performed the re-installation of Steam (which of course magically experienced none of the previous "network" problems), I am greeted by the ugly reality that I must re-download ALL of the games I had already installed, configured and was successfully playing before all this crap began.

Doesn't anyone else out there see the problem here? Two of these games were bought as retail disks, installed as such, connected to Steam to verify their authenticity, and were played for X hours apiece. Then, because of some unexpected error by Steam's own software, I am forced to re-install them.

How can any customer have confidence that this will not happen again and again?

One of the most disturbing aspects of this debacle is that when I reinstalled Steam, I had to enter a special code, which was sent to my email address. This code was necessary, I am told, because I'm trying to use my account an a different computer. This happened not once, but twice!

This is the same computer I've been using the entire time! No new parts, no new network configurations, nada.

Clearly, I am suffering the consequences of Steam's mistake: they have overshot their own ability to provide proper service, because they have simply grown too large for their resources to successfully address all the myriad problems their service has eventually produced.

I ask you: is it "good and right" that an online company, which can fail not only by network problems at their end, but also by their own poorly planned software, be allowed to decide that I can't play a game on my own computer, that I installed on my own computer, and that I legally purchased from a retail outlet?

Every one of you game publishers who have granted Steam so much power, have no right to complain when it continues to generate unhappy customers. And if your bottom line is good enough for you to not be concerned, then shame on you.

The Evil That Game Publishers Do

2011-08-23T03:33:00.011-05:00

I just spent an inordinate amount of time fiddling with Steam, in order just to play Duke Nukem Forever (DNF). I'm not talking multiplayer, I'm talking singleplayer.

I've heard both sides of the online verification argument. Yes, it's less "invasive" than some of the highly questionable DRM's (Digital "Rights" Management) such as Securom and StarForce, and when all you need is a single online activation (such as with a Windows OS), this sort of DRM doesn't seem all that bad.

However, the wisdom of forcing paying customers to put up with the unreasonable requirement of having to verify online every single time you want to play is also highly questionable.

Steam offers many "features." Some of these are somewhat fun, such as having a gaming friends list and being able to chat with said friends. But let's not be under any illusions here. All the content Steam offers is worth nothing if the game you purchased can't even be played.

Yes, this evening, I had some time set aside, and all I wanted to do was play DNF. Was it a wise decision for 2K and Gearbox to rely on Steam for their copy protection scheme? I think not, as witnessed by tonight's ultimately squashed attempts by me to play the game.

First, I was informed by Steam popup windows that DNF wasn't currently "available" when I attempted to start the game from an icon on my computer, that is linked to a legally purchased game that is installed on my computer. I then went on an odyssey of searching Steam forums for advice to get the game to work.

The next of many less-than-welcome messages:

"Incomplete installation of Duke Nukem Forever (55)"

I'm told by Steam's "support" page that:

"This issue can also occur on computers with Avast installed. You will need to configure Avast to ignore Steam itself and all Steam game files. Some users have had to uninstall Avast to resolve the issue."

No dice on this one, sorry. So they happen to include their secondary option, which is probably the most common:

"This may also indicate a Steam Service failure. Please try enabling the Steam Service:"

The steps to enable the Steam service are of course not applicable, because all attempts were failures (I have a professional IT background, so it's not likely user error; typing commands in the Run box are not exactly rocket science).

This led to several things, like trying to update the game, verifying integrity of game cache, updating again (this time automatically, with no help from me), then more than one reboot of Steam. After doing these things, upon a reboot of Steam, I get another popup window (normally reserved for their annoying and endless sales pitches for other games I have zero interest in), but this one informs me that DNF is now officially updated.

But, like the rest of this sad joke on me, and everyone else who legally purchased DNF, when I attempted to start it again, I get a popup that tells me:

"Preparing to launch Duke Nukem Forever..."

Then it freezes permanently at the following progress report:

"Completing installation ... 1%"

After two hours of this needless nonsense, and the feeling that I've been robbed somehow, I gave up and wrote this essay.

So there you have it. My wife purchased the game (new) at Amazon.com, I installed the game on my computer, previously I was able to play it, I've made no changes to my Steam or DNF configuration... and I'm out of luck.

Good job Steam, by pulling a Bill Gates and convincing the world that you will be the standard for game DRM. Nice job with your DRM choice, 2K and Gearbox. Smart attitude, all you clueless, spineless wonders who sit back and babble about how you don't mind online activation every time you start a game, even in singleplayer.

Somewhere in all this, there is genuine evil, but we're all too sophisticated to recognize it anymore. All in all, I'd say we deserve the theft of our freedoms via the disgustingly lazy complicity we practice every day. Hey, someone got rich during the process, right? That's a nice cup of hemlock for a philosophy.

The truth about Duke Nukem Forever

2011-08-19T04:32:00.009-05:00

Once upon a time, there was an empirically gifted trio of musicians from Canada who called themselves Rush. Despite the undying loyalty of millions of fans who swooned over Rush's technical excellence and conceptual acumen, there was a cabal of well-placed, cliquish curmudgeons who took a twisted joy from denying Rush their proper recognition. These self-appointed arbiters of taste, most prominently the fop rag known as The Rolling Stone, had consistently blocked the world from officially regaling Rush with appropriate honors.

Why?

You see, if you want to be a genuine rock star, where every exercise of poor personal judgement is seen as a profound and revolutionary statement, then you must be either alcoholic, strung out, dissolute, controversial, crazy, or just plain bad. If you're an exceptionally talented musician who prefers to maintain a "normal" personal life, and have no interest in nefarious activity or political activism, well then... you're simply not cool enough for the Hall of Fame.

Much like the cynical grinches who refuse to induct Rush into the Hall of Fame, the "journalists" who have gathered themselves together to burn Duke Nukem Forever (DNF) at the stake are entirely in love with their own biased arrays of creative defamation. I was going to take them all on one by one, but the huge list isn't worth my time. If you're seeking the most even-handed and honest review out there, the only one you need to read is the PC Gamer review by Dan Stapleton:

http://www.pcgamer.com/review/duke-nukem-forever-review/

In the spirit of full disclosure, yes, I am a Duke Nukem "fanboy." I have not only played Duke Nukem 3D off and on with some frequency since about 1998 (I discovered FPS fun two years after Duke Nukem 3D's release), but I've played several ports, and I have collected thousands of user-made maps. I was crushed by the news back in May of 2009 about the lawsuit by Take-Two Interactive, and the subsequent dissolving of the DNF development team. Then a year and a half later, I was ecstatic beyond measure when on September 3, 2010, Gearbox Software made their totally unexpected announcement to release DNF.

But these facts about my personal love of one of the gaming world's most iconic characters are beside the point. The reason I wrote this essay is because I'm quite tired of agenda-ridden poppycock passing itself off as legitimate journalism.

For years, up until the release of DNF, Gamespot was my most trusted source for PC game reviews. This is sadly no longer the case. Kevin VanOrd of Gamespot gave DNF a rating of 3.5 out of 10. While everyone is entitled to their opinions, no matter how accurate or erroneous, and although plenty of VanOrd dittos will line up and throw rocks at anyone who disagrees... well, objectively speaking, VanOrd's review is largely inaccurate, and misguided as well. Seriously, he should know better.

What the 3.5 rating is saying, without qualification, is that according to past Gamespot reviews of other PC games, that DNF is worse than the following games:

Beachhead 2000 (3.9 rating)

Torrente (4.3 rating)

Mall Tycoon (4.6 rating)

Purge (5.1 rating)

Die Hard: Nakatomi Plaza (5.7 rating)

Dominion: Storm Over Gift 3 (5.9 rating)

Something tells me the actual list of crappy games considered by Gamespot to be better than DNF is much, much larger than this. I listed these particular games because I've actually played them, thus I am qualified to make a somewhat objective comparison, regardless of my love of Duke Nukem.

Each of those six games I listed is clearly inferior to DNF in a multitude of ways, which include user interface, user controls, gameplay, graphics, sound, and fun factor. I challenge anyone who doesn't begin with a biased hatred of Duke Nukem to come forward and attempt to convince the reasonable gamers out here that these games are all better than DNF. They won't even try, because the effort would be futile.

I could go on with this essay far too long, picking apart the absurdly sissy-pants rubbish that Ben Kuchera at Ars Technica penned, or the endless whining of Jim Sterling at Destructoid, who should remain forever wrapped in the womb of the Pathetic Excuse For FPS Play, also known as the console. In fact, there are so many of these overly-eager-to-rape-The-Duke faux journalists that have left themselves open to honest criticism by going too far, I could spend the next six months burning them all at the stake.

But what's the point? I would not only be wasting my time (and yours!), I would also being performing that cliché reaction of the hypocrite: lowering myself to their standards.

The most compelling reason for me to post this reaction to their collective witch-burning is my empathy for the developers who sacrificed so much to bring this game to fruition. While Gearbox committed the last-second slam dunk, it is actually the nine brave individuals at Triptych Games who carried the vision over the land mines known as Broussard's never-ending search for perfection and Take-Two's impatient ploy to swipe the DNF intellectual property for their own financial windfall.

Triptych Games is comprised of former employees of 3D Realms who worked on DNF all those years, since it was first announced on April 28th, 1997. When Take-Two attempted their resource-grab back in May of 2009, and 3D Realms laid off the entire DNF team in a stubborn expression of defiance, guess what happened?

These nine brave souls continued to work on DNF in secret, without pay! For over a year! And furthermore, they continued what could have only been a labor of love born from pure passion for the Duke, with absolutely NO promise of any compensation. Just the undying belief that Duke was worth keeping alive for themselves, and for all those out here who love him.

Sure, I get it. The passion of a developer is not enough to give a video game a higher rating than it deserves; with that I agree. But... the disgusting lack of respect these stalwart and talented developers have received from the "official" game critics on the Internet is indeed pathetic. For certain, regardless of whether or not you like The Duke, DNF is nowhere near a 3.5 or a 2.0, or whatever worthless rating these ding dongs dared to ascribe to an entirely better-than-adequate game.

For those out there who would like to put some names and Internet entities with these comments I've been making, go here:

http://www.xentax.com/?p=303

This is an EXCELLENT exposé of these journalistic hacks, complete with charts, stats, names, ratings given, and web sites these reviews appear on. Not all of the objectionable critics made the list, because some serendipitously avoided inclusion due to the non-numeric rating system of their site, such as Ars Technica's rating of "Skip," and Game Revolution's "D+" grade.

One last thing... unlike the majority of the politically correct mosquitoes who played for five minutes and merely parroted the feminist and new-game-whore party line, or endlessly whined about how long DNF took to be released, I've actually played the game.

And Dan Stapleton was one hundred percent accurate.

Noah’s Ark is slick!

2011-08-18T22:32:00.017-05:00

A news story out of Hebron, Kentucky today reported that a group is rebuilding Noah's Ark to biblical specifications. As usual, the atheist killjoys disguised as activists-who-are-only-looking-out-for-your-constitutional-rights have decided this is one more example of the "religious people" of the world attempting to completely dismantle the entire edifice of modern science, and send us all ignorantly and happily back to caves with flint-head spears and poor hygiene.

http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_18710712

I've asked this question countless times in my mind, but now I'll ask it aloud of atheist activists, because it begs to be asked:

"What are you so afraid of?"

Answers in Genesis ministries is the group that has decided to take on such an ambitious project as rebuilding the mighty seafaring vessel which is supposed to have carried the majority of the world's existing land-dwelling species during a world-wide flood that covered the entire earth. This supposedly happened at a time when the skies rained for forty days and nights continuously, and the "fountains of the great deep" also sprang forth with apparently deluge-like flows. (This is according to the biblical account, specifically Genesis 7, verses 11 and 12, for those of you who are curious where these statistics come from).

Nonsense? Well, the beauty of human subjectivity is you can believe what you wish. Make no mistake however; no one who was there back then is here to speak, so making assumptions about the past is a sucker's bet. However, I digress... so back to the focus of the essay.

This time around, the atheists are using the separation of church and state as their angle of attack, due to the project being approved for $40 million in taxpayer-funded incentives. The ark is only part of an entire theme park, which is estimated to cost around $155 million (the article's picture caption says $170 million).

The activists are squawking because they don't think public tax dollars should be used to fund a religious enterprise. This would have been a viable argument, except there's an extenuating circumstance that comes into play: 900 jobs. State officials approved the $40 million on the contingency that the park achieves its projected attendance (1.6 million visitors during its first year).

There will be hundreds of people working on the ark project, including a team of Amish builders and Patrick Marsh, who helped construct various Universal Studios attractions. They're even building it the "old world" way, with wooden pegs instead of nails, and by straight-sawing the timber. They're going to include lots of animals in the finished ark; some live, but most will be stuffed or mechanical.

The ark project manager is quoted in the article as saying, "There's a lot of doubt: 'Could Noah have built a boat this big, could he have put all the animals on the boat?' Those are questions people all over the country ask."

He also said, "When you get to walk through the boat and see how big this thing really was, and how many cages were there, and how much room there was for food and water ... our hope is people start seeing that this is plausible, that the account could be believed."

So, into all this visionary effort, walks the intellectually smug exclusionist, also known as the Talking Head Atheist.

This time one of the more prominent players is one Mr. Edwin Kagin, a ex-Christian who now devotes his J.D. assignment to less jurisprudence and more activism. Some of his efforts are an anti-God printed gem called "Baubles of Blasphemy," and a camp for "protecting" the children of atheists from such horrendous summer activities as contemplating the glory of God's beautiful creation, also known as Nature.

He's a longtime critic of the ark-building group, and he says the public attraction will convert people to creationism by challenging scientific findings about the world's history.

Excuse me... but just how is building a huge boat, and demonstrating that it could carry and sustain many animals a challenge to science? I don't recall learning anything in science class about the impossibility of building a ship large enough to carry several thousand species of non-aquatic creatures.

And if some former skeptics experience the ark for themselves, and come to the conclusion that the premise is at least possible, how does that produce the earth-shaking and science-destroying revolution he and his kind apparently fear?

God will never leave the imaginations of human beings, and this so-called "debate" has been raging for millennia... it wasn't sprung on the human race suddenly by Darwin, as some would have you believe. Understand that fact and move on to other more fruitful activities... all the venom spewed by the vocally aggressive atheists is so much wasted energy and talent. They need to get lives and leave others to their own thoughts for a change.

I digressed again, oops. Back to the essay proper.

Another quote from Kagin (italics mine):

"Many think that since creationism is so irrational and so unscientific that nobody really could believe it, but that's not so." He says that the new park will be "so slick and so well done, you can get people to believe in anything. Creationism, when you're ready to believe anything."

Let us not ignore the deliberate use of the adjective "slick." I will take the high road and assume he meant the professional quality of work that's designed to lure tourists, and not the more petty possibility that he's attempting to make the visionaries involved in this project look like shysters out to hijack your independent thought with smoke and mirrors.

The ark article also mentioned another gadfly atheist association, the Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU). This is an organization that has, since 1947, performed the prestidigitation of claiming to protect your religious freedom, while simultaneously making sure not one American student will ever be exposed to such an objectionable idea as the possible existence of a creator god. Again, a wonderfully productive expenditure of one's time and resources, similar to the "Abimelech Society." The AS "freethinkers" are those clever loose cannons that attempt to make the world a better place by tossing any bibles found in motel or hotel nightstands summarily into the trash.

Regardless, the AU seems convinced the theme park will be beaten to a pulp by constitutional law. However, Kagin says the case would be a loser, due to the way tax incentives are structured for organizations that seek to increase tourism in Kentucky.

In a chuckle-worthy moment of schoolyard logic, the AU actually said in a public statement:

"Noah didn't get government help when he built the first ark, and the fundamentalist ministry behind the Kentucky replica shouldn't either."

This essay has run on long enough, so I'll leave the easy job of ripping that last statement apart to you, reader.

"Poor" Believers

2011-08-04T09:01:00.008-05:00

I will likely go to my grave as a mere sweaty-brow pawn who made The Man richer... but if the God of the scriptures exists, there's an excellent chance that the eye of the needle will be a bit too small for the camels of indulgence.

One of the supremely confident, generation-whatever agnostics at work informed me that she "didn't believe in magic"... to her, evolution made more sense than just "poof, and some people appeared."

I told her that's all very fine and dandy, but her initial premise was convenient nonsense, because in fact she *does* believe in magic. She said, "How is that?"

I asked her, for example, when she turns on her television set and all those moving two dimensional images and sounds stream into her living room as though they were the most natural thing in the world, could she actually explain how the technology works? Of course her answer has to be "no," since her background does not even vaguely resemble anything speculative.

So, I told her, she therefore believes in something she doesn't understand, yet still has faith it will continue to do what it does.

Then I quoted Arthur C. Clarke: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

And of course, being a proudly tattooed and debauched product of the 21st century, she couldn't (or wouldn't) connect the dots.

Bah... why do I bother... I look forward to the moment I'm finally scraping out a living in front of my own home computer, instead of weathering daily disappointment in the smug and vacuous.

Don't wait for 'someday'

2010-10-09T09:05:00.002-05:00

I just discovered some horrible news. A friend of mine died on May 30th of this year. This being October 9th, I'm asking myself: how good of a friend was I if I'm just finding out about it now?

Robert O. Smith was an amazing man. My first memories of him were his performances in the early 1970's, on local TV channel KTVW 13 in Seattle. The show was called Dr. ZinGRR's Projections, and it was something I looked forward to all week long. Robert would introduce a couple of classic (and some not-so-classic) late-night horror movies, and in between commercial breaks, he would appear as various original personas, all hilarious and memorable, even to this day. During these breaks in the show he would display his comedic genius with rapid-fire comments and jokes in a sort of stream-of-consciousness monologue that would leave my stomach hurting from an inability to stop laughing.

He was also a voice actor who had many, many accomplishments to his credit in that field. He was a world-record-holding power lifter. He was a clever digital artist. Try googling his name and reading the comments left by his friends and fans. He was so many things, and now that he's gone, I feel a big hole in my life. The world at large really has no idea what kind of person has left the planet, and that is a tragedy.

His show was on that local station a couple of different times, the last time being in 1974, I believe. That was the last I heard of him for many years because he moved on to other projects, and I was only 12 years old, and didn't have the acumen to figure out what he was up to.

Fast forward to 2001. I had just moved from Seattle to Columbus, Ohio, and one night, very late, I suddenly thought of looking up Dr. ZinGRR on Google. Lo and behold, Robert O. Smith had a site, and a page on it was devoted to Dr. ZinGRR! I was so happy that he was 'found,' I immediately sent him a gushing email, talking about how much his show meant to me when I was a kid.

Robert, being the thoughtful person I eventually learned he was, replied to me immediately. He even posted my email to him on the page.

Fast forward to 2006. I decided to write him an email regarding a book I had written and published in 2004, with the somewhat selfish intent of possibly gaining his professional endorsement. My book never went anywhere, but he and I became friends via emails back and forth. He was always thoughtful, kind, and sincerely interested in me. That never ceased to amaze me, simply because he was a television star when I was 12 years old, and I would never have imagined that someone with that status would want to know a 'nobody' like me.

We traded around 100 emails or so total, before the last one I sent him in December 2009. He always emailed me back within a day, and I would sometimes take a month to email him back. At one point we had agreed that the next time I visited friends and family in Seattle, I was going to drive up to Vancouver to have dinner at one of his favorite spots.

I feel horrible that I hadn't thought to email him sooner. I now have deep regrets that I never made that trip to Vancouver. And because I kept putting it off until 'someday,' I will never know the pleasure of sitting across from one of my childhood heroes, and just talking about whatever.

Robert O. Smith was a great man in so many ways. He will be missed by his family, his many friends, his many professional associates through the years, and his countless admirers. I will miss him terribly for the rest of my life.

Robert, if there's a heaven, I'm pretty sure you're there.

Reader of this blog: you've heard this before from other people, but I'm adamantly saying it again: don't wait for someday, because someday doesn't always arrive.

For the sake of clarity

2010-09-16T14:18:00.014-05:00

I think it's time for me to post a manifesto regarding my past and future musings on the existence of God. There is every chance to suppose that someone who agrees or disagrees with my views may never find this particular essay, but I thought it prudent to post it anyway.

Despite the fact that my family never spoke about God, and we never went to church (that I can remember, anyway), I still developed a keen interest in the existence of God. That's the most accurate way I can describe my early journey toward the 'undiscovered country.'

I certainly didn't acquire any exposure to the subject at school, for reasons that remain obvious, thanks to the ACLU, et al. I also didn't have any friends back then who invited me to church. So, the point here being, I do not fit the supposedly typical mold of a believer who is indoctrinated by authority figures or peers. I made my decision on my own, and in fact it was in odd contrast to the other members of my family at the time.

How many people actually believe in the existence of a Creator is mostly up for grabs these days; the numbers I've heard quoted seem to be highly affected by who's quoting them. The shifts in opinion appear to be somewhat generational, because anecdotally, I've noticed that more older folks are believers, and more of the younger people I've encountered (I work with many adolescents and twenty-somethings) tend to be either atheists or agnostics. The kids are mostly agnostic, in my experience; I think that may be due to an overall desire to avoid the issue. It's way too confusing to know what to do with an inclination to believe, when so many of their 'heroes' in popular culture are prancing on the atheist promenade.

Pardon my digression.

I am not affiliated with any denomination, nor do I wish to ever join a particular religion. I believe very strongly in the God that the Hebrews chronicled in the collection of books that non-Jews call the Old Testament. I also believe that the New Testament is very possibly an extension of the Old Testament, therefore I give it almost as much gravity.

Now, to clear a few things up:

I do NOT believe anyone knows the entire truth about God (yes, that obviously includes me). However, this should never be an excuse to avoid trying to learn whatever that truth may be.

I do NOT believe anyone can buy his or her way to heaven (if it exists) by money nor deed, because those very acts smack of selfish intent.

I do NOT believe God is a wise old man residing somewhere in the clouds or in space or on some distant planet.

I do NOT believe the scriptures should ever be used as an excuse to treat other human beings with disrespect or abuse. Any people doing so, clearly do not understand nor appreciate the invaluable written content they're besmirching before the entire world by their actions.

I do NOT believe people begging for money in God's name on television have anything to say that is worth listening to. That goes for anyone publicly invoking God's name for personal gain, or for the purpose of sowing discord.

I do NOT believe human beings need other human beings to teach them about God. If God is almighty, then a pastor, priest, rabbi, mullah, imam, televangelist, sponsor, cult leader or any other affiliate are all completely unnecessary. Those who seek truth in genuine sincerity will always find it. And no, I'm not selling my views, nor do I have any interest in proselytizing them. This essay is for the sole purpose of preventing a possible misunderstanding by any who think they agree or disagree with me on these matters.

I do NOT believe God needs to be defended in any way. I once had a friend angrily call God an asshole, and then he was shocked that I didn't react with indignation. My take on the matter has always been: any Being capable of creating and sustaining life in every way does not need my puny little attempt at defending God's honor. Perhaps the fundamentalists (of every religion) in the world might take a clue here; resorting to arguments, fighting and murder don't convince anyone of anything except that the combatant's faith is a exercise in fragile self-delusion.

I do NOT believe God answers prayers like a cosmic Santa. Try asking for a cookie to appear on your plate. I do believe God is aware of everything that transpires in the universe, however.

I do NOT believe God enjoys the suffering that human beings visit upon each other. This includes the nasty little caricature of God relishing the final toss of a human being (or soul) into burning flames of eternal torture. It's unfortunate how many people can't seem to see the way this traditional (but biblically inaccurate) depiction of the Second Death detracts from actual eternal separation from God - the true punishment that a human being should fear, for a life of unrepentant sin.

I do NOT believe human beings are clueless children or puppets on spiritual strings who are not responsible for their decisions and actions. Come on, let's be honest, at least on this one issue. The individual's desire to relocate blame to anywhere else but on his or her own shoulders is why so many can't seem to fathom that there are true consequences for the things we do. It's way too easy to push the blame on a faceless Creator, especially when we want to do our own thing. Never mind that our own thing often merely adds to the ills of the world by way of selfishness.

"Hey God (who isn't really there), you supposedly made us this way, so why should I be expected to rise above my own selfish instincts?" or the ever popular, "You supposedly created this world, so why should I have to take responsibility for anything that happens in it?" Somewhere in all this childish logic, the proponents seem to gloss over the whole 'free will' thing. Mix in a robust ingratitude for the statistical miracles they call their lives, and you have a recipe for delusion and potential disaster.

I do NOT believe a lack of miracles or an 'imperfect world' are evidence that God does not exist. I do think it's incredibly arrogant (and amusing) for the created to presume to set the ground rules for the Creator.

We see the world, we see the results of positive and negative decisions. We don't live in behavioral stasis; we adapt. Therefore, the foolishness of constantly trying to swim against the current never ceases to amaze me. People continue in this way, day after day, year after year, millennium after millennium.

The bottom line? When the rules are known and they're still broken, it's not much different than knowing the edge of the cliff holds certain death, and deciding to step on the gas instead of the brake. Yet human beings have done this for as long as they've populated the earth!

And lastly:

I do NOT believe it is worth my time to try and change anyone's mind on this subject. Whether or not others wish to be atheists, or to pursue a belief in God, is entirely up to them, not me. That doesn't prove my opinions correct, but it also doesn't prove them wrong. I do care what happens to people, I simply recognize that human beings are more than able to make their own decisions... and indeed they do.

There will definitely come a time when the word "but" will no longer make a difference.

The Necessity for Justice

2010-09-10T14:37:00.029-05:00

My wife and I had a lively debate about the previous essay regarding the criminal mind. She has always felt that my approach to the issue is much too harsh. While I admit that in life there is rarely any kind of incident where the facts are all black and white, I still bristle at the endless permutations of an event spun by lawyers who are merely trying to win 'the game.'

During our conversation at our favorite burger place, she pointed out some questionable behavior by police officers (documented by FBI investigation, I'm told) during the Hurricane Katrina disaster. We tossed that subject back and forth for a bit, and it did make me realize that there are situations where the usual measurements of virtue are 'adjusted' by an unfortunate change in rules.

Simply stated, due to the intrinsically selfish nature of human beings, it is often the case that when a segment of society breaks down during a time of emergency, many previously 'law abiding' citizens seize the opportunity to act out. Looting is one of the more common behaviors witnessed. However, according to the Frontline program my wife had watched, many of the rumors regarding citizens assaulting, raping or killing during the Katrina aftermath were merely that only: rumors. These dark suppositions were spoken by people on the street, picked up by media, and then reacted to by local government.

So where does that leave someone who would like some sort of consistent way to mentally deal with criminal behavior?

When one is being forthright and exercising the best intentions, it becomes difficult to obtain accurate answers, one hundred percent of the time. The truth of the matter is that despite legal arguments and pleas of innocence, the genuine facts of any incident (that we aren't personally involved in) are rarely known with certainty.

I would take this moment to suggest that without an absolute arbiter of justice (God), human beings must resign themselves to lives of good fortune or bad fortune alone, as that becomes the only form of moral resolution available. Without God, there's no point in shaking a fist or crying out that something is unfair.

I think when people view God as either Invisible Santa or Cosmic Bully, they miss the mark in both cases. God would be neither, in the case of meting out true justice. Many of us tend to presume that only the individual has any true idea of what he or she deserves; unfortunately, too many of us suffer from the occasional or permanent delusion that the universally understood, yet unwritten (or written, depending on your beliefs), rules of acceptable behavior don't apply to us personally.

We're not even the best judges of our own behavior, much less anyone else's.

If ever there was an argument for the existence of God, out of pure necessity, that would be a significant one. The alternative, being merely a random string of events of apparently good fortune and suffering, is enough to drive a reasonable person insane if examined too closely.

Without some form of ultimate justice, all the most humane accomplishments and evil deeds in history are both members of the same ill-fated group, consigned to be lost forever in the black hole of forgotten memories, reducing life itself to nothing more than a meaningless collection of pointless interactions.

Just the fact that almost all human beings instinctively recognize the difference between good and evil should be enough evidence that there is a difference, and that hopefully there is a reason to choose good over evil in one's own life.

I know some people insist that human beings need nothing more than their own moral compasses to attain virtue for all of humanity, but the atrocious historical record of humanity's attempts at justice is a pathetic display of navigation, as far as I can tell.

The Toxic and Useless Criminal Mind

2010-09-08T02:50:00.012-05:00

How many times have you read or heard about some random crime, such as property damage, illegal drug activity, theft, assault, rape, murder, whatever, and found yourself asking that basic question, "Why?"

This is the most troubling aspect of all. Anecdotal or documented, the evidence must overwhelmingly point toward some strange defect in the minds of the criminally inclined. Those of us (the majority of the population, I both hope and assume) who don't find criminal activity attractive are constantly faced with the unfortunate necessity to find some sort of rationalization to deal with the reality of unlawful behavior.

The classic question has always been: what goes through the mind of someone who decides to commit a crime that is altogether unnecessary? By 'unnecessary,' I'm referring to anything that is not required for a person's survival. Stealing an apple from the market because one may literally have no money for food is not the same as taking it because one wants it and wishes to dismiss the fact that it should be purchased. Anyone with an ounce of mercy would find it highly objectionable to convict someone who wasn't blowing money on drugs, gambling, etc., who truly was starving, and who found himself or herself faced with the decision to steal an apple or perish.

Unfortunately for those sleazy advocates who insist on the perpetrator's innocence in the above fashion, this exceptional situation is virtually impossible, especially in this country. There is always a way to get food, even if one has no money. A penniless person can also obtain medical attention, for that matter, but this essay isn't concerned with Obama's dubious healthcare imbroglio.

The bottom line is that there are people 'out there in the world' who, against all propriety and common sense, make decisions that cause everything from simple annoyance and discomfort, all the way up to loss of life, to other human beings.

We are told by the supposedly benevolent leaders in society that the perpetrators of the world are just misunderstood, disenfranchised, victims of prejudice and that they are all potentially good, no matter what they may be responsible for doing. We are cautioned to not be too judgmental, because we ourselves are not perfect. We are told that unless we can walk a mile in someone else's shoes, we have no right to sentence another human being to shame, imprisonment or death. Often, as the legal blathering goes, the perpetrator just wasn't ultimately responsible for the crime he or she did actually commit.

People debate ad nauseum about controversial subjects such as whether or not to utilize a death penalty. This is not the important issue. With or without a death penalty, justice is still not being served by our system, because we as a society have taken a bizarre direction that says habitual offenders are still able to reform and rehabilitate. I say bizarre because the actual repetition of criminal behavior is clear empirical evidence that the person is not capable of reformation.

Why is it the people who shout the loudest about criminals' rights also happen to be the ones who haven't had a sister raped, or a child kidnapped and murdered, or a brother die of an overdose? What was it Ronald Reagan once said? Something about how today's conservative is yesterday's liberal who got mugged.

Here's what I say:

Anyone can make a mistake. Anyone can make two. But when a person has proven time and again that he or she prefers to make decisions that produce a detrimental result for others, this person eventually forfeits any mercy that a reasonable human would gladly grant.

I don't care that the violent offender is loved by his mother. I don't care that the drug dealer spends some of her dirty money to buy shoes for her toddler. I don't care that the crooked CEO seems like a nice guy. It makes no difference to me that all human beings have a potential for being "good." Potential is an utterly worthless proposition if it isn't properly realized.

To all those in the world who habitually make others miserable in innumerable ways, I have only this to say:

If you were to all disappear overnight, and never return, I would not lose one wink of sleep.

After your hapless families and friends finished grieving, they'd realize in all honesty that the world is a better place without you anyway.

Revenge of the Nerds

2010-09-04T13:59:00.016-05:00

The title of this essay is a reference to the 1984 movie of the same name, but the revenge I'm referring to is more accurately characterized in terms of a future shift in world power, as opposed to adolescent high jinks on an idealized college campus.

We are entering into an interesting time in history. I apologize for not currently being able to remember the source, but I once read about how the way that the world functions will eventually become so complex, only engineers will understand how anything works.

The basic premise of such a prediction is that the mechanical aspects of the world will eventually become too complex for the average human being to effectively fathom. Our inexorable migration toward a 'push button' world is the direction of the slippery, downhill path we're all collectively skating on. What does this mean in practical terms?

You can observe an excellent example of this phenomenon in the television set. Pretty much everyone in the world knows what one is, and is exposed to one with some regularity. Of all these thinking, sentient individuals, very few understand what is happening mechanically inside the electronics of the object. There are some who grasp, in a general way, how electricity enters the unit via the wall outlet, and through a mystical combination of nondescript components and circuit boards, a picture somehow forms on either the cathode ray tube, liquid crystal display, plasma screen, etc.

However, the amount of human beings who actually understand, and can explain, these technologies in familiar detail are extremely few. Now extrapolate this common situation against all other existing and emerging modern technologies, and you begin to get a clue about how much a practical knowledge of the world is becoming more and more rare.

"So what?" you may ask. As long as there are people 'out there' who can continue to develop and fabricate these convenient technologies, then what difference does it make that the person on the street has no clue about how they work?

I assume most people reading this have heard the old cliché‚ about knowledge being power. The way this currently plays out is by dividing the world into three distinct groups:

1) Those who possess the vital knowledge [the smallest group].
2) Those who have enough money (power) to employ (or force) the people from group number #1 to provide these technological wonders [the slightly larger group].
3) Those who consume and (and more significantly) depend on these technologies for their daily lives to function properly [the truly vast, largest group of all, literally comprising the rest of the world].

Within these groups, there is some crossover, such as the talented person from group #3 who becomes, through extraordinary application of effort and education, to become a person in group #1. There is also crossover of gifted people from group #1 to group #2, by virtue of their own attempts at entrepreneurial enterprise.

The interesting thing is that while someone, through laziness and poor decision-making, can move from group #2 to group #3, the movement from group #2 to group #1 is so extremely rare that it wouldn't be too hard to imagine it has never happened in all of history.

Why is that? The answer to this important question also provides the answer to why the future will not look exactly like the present, in terms of the balance of power in our global civilization.

Simply stated, the power elite are intellectually lazy, as they consider their efforts at gathering wealth (and power) as the most valuable knowledge in the world. They imagine that because they can successfully buy the loyalty of those who possess true talent, they are therefore the smarter of the two, because they ultimately still retain control of both.

Ayn Rand wrote a book called Atlas Shrugged that addressed this phenomenon in a fictional, yet still relevant fashion. The heroes of the story were engineers and inventors who eventually freed themselves from the dullards with power who tried to maintain control of their talent through money and politics. The story was a bit fantastical because the engineer heroes eventually created a secret, hidden place in the world where they could create without the greedy thumbs of the elite pressing down on them.

While the creation of a mystical Xanadu for nerds is not likely to occur in the real world, there is an important message that Atlas Shrugged sends, and I'm hereby sending once again:

If you want to live in a more humane, more just world, you must take power away from those who control others by their will alone. Instead of leading the masses by inspiration or honorable example, the power elite uses legislation and societal manipulation to maintain its position of authority. Their unrepentant mantra of "Greed is Good" is more and more falling on deaf ears, as those 'unwashed masses' they wish to instill with envy are instead growing more and more angry at the inevitable inequity of the philosophy.

Because the people of earth can communicate in more effective ways than they ever have been able to before, the political and monetary elite are having more and more trouble manipulating the person on the street with propaganda. This is significant because the decentralization of information means that edifying facts are more and more difficult to keep away from those grubby little hands that hunger for knowledge and freedom from tyranny.

The societal model of Have's and Have Not's, while becoming more pronounced than ever, is nevertheless unprepared to prevent a total reversal of the distribution of power. As the true destination of our technological progress becomes more evident to the elite, there will inevitably be measures taken to prevent the solidarity of the truly gifted. This will ultimately fail, and the reason for that failure is mentioned in the fifth paragraph of this essay.

While there are smug persons out there who dismiss this kind of talk as wishful thinking, the real world is already showing powerful evidence of this way of thinking. The open source software movement is a very real and established entity whose efforts have given us superior (and free!) technologies that will eventually eclipse the current computer stagnation of Microsoft and Apple.

These talented Linux (and other) hackers commit themselves to creating superior technologies with the expectation of nothing more than respect of their peers and the knowledge that they have contributed to the betterment of the world. These motivations not only fly in the face of the greedy, power elite ideal, but as it turns out, they more effectively address a far more deep-seated desire for relevant existence in the world than merely sitting on a wallet fat with Benjamins.

Revolution is only possible when a certain leverage is available to those who would change things. Prior to the 21st century, this meant fists, rocks, clubs, spears, arrows, bullets, explosives, poison gas, degradation of biological cells via engineered pathogens, destabilization of atomic structures by nuclear fission. These objectionable and often atrocious entities are the progeny of those who wish to control the population through an aggressive will to power, instead of egalitarian reason and common sense.

For centuries, the proletariat of the world have been under the sway of those who possessed nothing more than the charisma to lie effectively and wield loyal armies who ironically were made up of the very people they oppressed. This situation was intractable for one simple reason: knowledge is power, and the knowledge required to usurp tyrants was possessed only by the tyrants themselves, or obtained by brute force.

The power base of the elite is built on a foundation of buying knowledge from those who actually possess it. To this, I pose a question:

How much longer do you truly think those who actually possess the knowledge of how the world functions will continue to defer to those who have no other claim to power other than the silver spoon or grenade pin in their mouths?

A good laugh regarding "Cloud Computing"

2010-08-16T00:16:00.042-05:00

I recently clicked my way to an article on techi.com from June 21st, 2010, called "Three reasons the PC era is coming to an end."

This Fantasy Land excursion can be found here:
Three reasons the PC era is coming to an end

Now, keeping one astute eye on the cave-dwellers who were still writing editorials about the impossibility of "heavier than air" flight, even after Wilbur and Orville had successfully accomplished it, I would like to speak about the aforementioned PC article. It's just too funny to pass up.

Navneet Alang, the writer of the article, is utterly convinced that "cloud computing" will replace PC-based computing. What I don't understand is how a supposedly respectable techno-site like techi.com could let this ungrounded and nonsensical poppycock get by them unchecked.

Hilarious claim number 1:
Navneet says that 'outsourc[ing]' our computing power to the network (Internet), and using just a terminal at home (replacing allegedly useless artifacts, such as hard drives, video cards and CPU's) will make much more sense, in terms of vital aspects, such as speed and convenience.

What's wrong with this attractive sounding prediction?

Supposedly the Internet is already overtaxed in terms of usage, according to all the greedy, controlling ISP's who want to charge us by the megabyte, and who say that they must do so because peer-to-peer usage gobbles up too much bandwidth. How, then, will this overtaxed Internet network be able to accommodate the increased activity of millions of terminals simultaneously transferring exponentially greater amounts of remote data over thousands of miles, back and forth, to their terminals? This is an action that is currently performed locally on PC's, only inches from the hard drive(s) to the RAM and CPU in the same PC, and at a bus rate (speed) that makes broadband look like the covered wagons of the Oregon Trail.

Navneet's strong suit does not appear to be logistics.

Historically speaking, the processing community already made the move from mainframe computing to the distributed system model two decades ago. To assert that our computing experience will be more reliable, and faster, if millions of us all use the same collection of remote processors at the same time, is more than just a little ignorant.

Hilarious claim number 2:
Navneet wrote:
"... once broadband speeds are fast enough, it will be one more nail in the personal computers' coffin."

So Navneet's vision of the future requires faster broadband. Okay, that's fair. I'm sure Internet speeds will continue to increase. The only problem is Navneet forgets that PC hardware is the forefront of Internet technology (to even exist, Internet technology actually depends on PC technology). No matter how fast broadband becomes, a PC built with technology from the same time frame will always be more powerful.

The objection to my statement that Navneet could certainly raise is the prospect of parallel computing. Just like specifically structured server clusters, if the entire Internet somehow managed to be utilized as one huge parallel processor, then the processing speed would indeed be much faster than a single home computer.

However, the processing model for that kind of computing would require a complete restructuring of how home computers are currently built and used. Add to that the fact that if we were all using 'dumb' terminals, without CPU's, then the ultimate potential of the Internet as supercomputer would be unrealizable. There's no way to convert a bunch of YouTube and porn surfers into a parallel processing resource by merely key-tapping and mouse-clicking all day long.

Hilarious claim number 3:
Navneet says cloud computing will be much more "convenient" than PC computing.

Is it even necessary to remind computer users that running (any program at all) on a dumb terminal will require a constant and continuous Internet connection the entire time? This means that when the user's Internet connection suffers any type of interruption, there will be moments of frustration with dumb terminals that make current PC troubles seem like a visit to the spa.

The recent hullabaloo over the draconian DRM (Digital Rights Management) on the PC game "Assassin's Creed 2" should be enough of a cautionary tale regarding the requirement of a continuous Internet connection. Yes, many people went ahead and bought the game anyway, but a vast and significant portion of the game's potential user base publicly told Ubisoft to stick their DRM where the sun doesn't shine. In forum after forum, they justifiably proclaimed that it was moronic to require a constant Internet connection just to play a single-player game.

Then, they did what any self-respecting, righteously indignant, and normally honest PC gamers would do: instead of buying the game and being complicit with the unreasonable DRM, they downloaded the pirated version off the Internet, and played it with no DRM... a simple freedom the paying customers weren't even allowed to enjoy!

But I digress.

One thing that enrages many home computer users (PC and Apple alike), is the feeling of helplessness when something goes wrong that they don't know how to fix. How much more will this emotion of helplessness be magnified by being at the constant mercy of the Big Brother ISP's in Navneet's version of our digital future?

Clearly, any reasonable person can appreciate that handing over all control of our ability to run programs, perform computations, communicate, etc., to a handful of ISP companies (or potentially the government, for that matter), would be a significant step toward taking away our ability to protect our own freedoms. Not to sound like a militia/survivalist nut, but cutting us all off from each other would be as simple as the click of one mouse... especially in a scenario where all mobile devices (including phones) might eventually require connection to the Internet to function.

Hilarious claim number 4:
Navneet lists collaboration, document & file movements, communications, scheduling, and ease of accessing data as advantages of cloud computing, as compared to PC's.

The amusing aspect of that list is those activities are already (and have been) extremely accessible with PC's and the Internet; thus the list is redundant and empty as a sales pitch for cloud computing.

Hilarious claim number 5:
Navneet compares letting a company store your most personal data on their server(s) to depositing your money at the bank for safety.

Last time I checked, it was much easier for a cracker to break into a particular box on a network than it is for someone to steal money from a bank. In fact, when money is stolen from your bank account these days, it's not appropriated by a masked gunman, it's stolen by a digital criminal (someone who has used a computer to break into a bank server somewhere and access your information; a server 'guaranteed' to be secure from naughty people).

The truth of the matter is that the information technology robbers ('black hats') are always one step ahead of the cops ('white hats') when it comes to Internet crime. It's much harder to force your way (undetected) into a steel-and-cement structure than it is to breach a computer connected to the Internet.

Hilarious claim number 6:
Navneet says tablet-style personal computers are "the last piece of the puzzle," in terms of bringing the PC era to an end.

Most obviously, how can a PC (regardless of platform) bring the PC era to an end? Nice chunk of nonsense there, Navneet. Tablets are simply personal computers with different window dressing and input mechanisms.

Tablets are groovy gadgets, novel and useful in many ways. But have you ever attempted rapid typing on one? Ever tried to play a serious video game with one? Desktop computers, the most dependable workhorses in the home-computing world, don't usually fall out of your backpack, pulverizing their displays on the asphalt.

To sum this up:
While I do agree that one day the current form of home computing will change (simply because technological progress itself usually dictates those kinds of developments), the idea is ludicrous that dumb terminals, hooked into a cloud we can't control, will please anyone but porn addicts, email junkies, and evil dictators.

Navneet's entire future vision is predicated on the assumption that most users would rather give up consistency of use and personal data security, in order to avoid ghastly indignities like an occasional PC upgrade.

The bottom line is:

Anyone with a real working knowledge of PC's and how they function would never risk the security of their data and the guaranteed promise of local hardware's consistent performance, just to satisfy the latest Orwellian ploy of techno-tycoons.

Technology does not equal Wisdom

2010-06-08T13:24:00.025-05:00

Human beings too often mistake technological progress for evolution of mind. We possess the same thought processes as far back as we can remember; we know this due to recorded history. Technology advances because new knowledge is produced by using previous knowledge as a foundation. That is one of the wonders of the way human beings think. Other living creatures on the earth don't produce innovative knowledge beyond their natural instincts. Humans can change that temporarily, via instruction to individual animals, but the knowledge is lost forever to the species when the individual animal dies. Non-human animals certainly haven't shown any innate ability to expand on human-given knowledge, despite cute anomalies such as primates trained in sign language.

The knowledge I speak of is our technical knowledge of the physical world. This knowledge persistently grows and expands because of our natural curiosity, coupled with our desires to make our lives easier, more lucrative or more fun. This type of knowledge is not at all synonymous with wisdom about the behavior of human beings or about the nature of existence. However, these two particular areas are of vital importance because human beings can't change their collective reality, despite centuries of philosophical creativity.

Although we have advanced technologically, recorded history has clearly shown that the human issues of today are the same human issues of ancient times; yet we are certain that we are wiser than people who lived in the past.

This doesn't mean we are doomed to make the same mistakes. What it means is we shouldn't abandon wisdom from the past just because we have cell phones and they didn't. Yes, our speeds of communication and travel have increased, computers have drastically changed the world, and yes, our ability to record our observations allows us to amass incredible amounts information. These examples of our mental prowess don't erase the fact that the same behavioral issues that troubled human beings from the ancient past are still with us in the 21st century.

The thoughts of supposedly 'primitive' people of the past should not be entirely dismissed just because they couldn't turn on the television or radio and have marketing drivel and cultural poppycock influence their minds for night after night, year after year, and decade after decade. Remember, way back in those ancient days they had much more time to actually think about their reason or purpose in the universe, due to far less extraneous distraction. Survival and human relationships were more the focus.

If you lived somewhere on earth where there was no access to 'modern' medicine, would that mean you were a primitive idiot because you died for lack of receiving an immunization? Would it mean your observations about the world and ability to interact with people were all suspect, simply because you didn't know how to create penicillin? Of course not.

As technology has advanced, survival has gone mostly into the background for the average human being. At the same time, as technology has advanced, the idea that our relationships with other human beings are vital to our interaction with the world has become secondary to our belief that we don't truly need others anymore. This is an ultimate result of thinking our technology can address all issues. Human beings produce problems via behavioral disharmony. Devices are merely mindless artifacts that only do what we use them for. There is no device that could permanently change the human condition without actually physically changing the human being so much that the being itself no longer retains truly human status.

What we have told ourselves is that the people of the past were primitive beings who lacked the ability to understand how anything in our modern world works. This is a blatant lie. Our minds back then are the same as our minds now, and the fact that we build on previous knowledge to produce the technological wonders of the present has everything to do with the time line of history. You could pull someone (who understood your language) out of a cave from the past, and explain computers and the Internet to them. Once the wonder of these items subsided, he or she could use them just as effectively as you do.

Technological issues are separate from human issues. We are not our technology; our technology is a physical manifestation of our natural abilities. Human issues are still in the same state they were in primitive times; we are not enlightened in this regard, despite our amusing self delusion that our gadgetry and philosophical sophistry equals greater wisdom.

Take a hint from the people in the past who spent a great deal more time thinking about human existence and purpose than we do. Arrogance is not equal to wisdom: "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall."

Here's the point:

We are not smarter than the millions of people who have lived and died before us. The sooner we stop pretending that our collected knowledge of physics and science have evolved us mentally as a species, the sooner we can properly address the real problems that plague our existence.

The Movie "Knowing" Exposes Ignorance

2010-06-04T15:03:00.023-05:00

I recently watched the movie "Knowing" with my wife. It stars Nicolas Cage, Rose Byrne and others. Then, out of curiosity, I read a bunch of the viewer reviews on Netflix. That was an education indeed.

One point that was raised on many of the negative reviews was the way the movie ended. The complaints were all some form of the following: the ending didn't make any sense, it was completely inappropriate, it ruined the movie because it didn't gel with the rest of the story, it was nothing more than an a big, fat 'deus ex machina.'

I was dumbfounded by how so many people could miss what was to me obvious. Then I remembered something: actual knowledge of the contents of the Bible, as opposed to spurious anecdotal knowledge provided by atheists and popular culture, is steadily being lost to the very societies that were founded on its principles.

It's interesting the movie wasn't released as a Christian film, or at least as a 'spiritual' one. I think the producers must have feared the work being pigeonholed, and thus automatically garnering less box office success. So-called religious movies have long been saddled with lesser production values, acting and writing included. Plus, there's the common standard most moviegoers seem to possess, of steering away from 'preachy' movies.

As a person who spotted a lot of biblical symbolism in the film, I greatly appreciated a decently budgeted movie that wasn't afraid to make a clever connection between our fascination with disaster movies and the Bible's own commentary regarding specific events and entities. That the movie was still just entertainment is not in question; I wouldn't presume to indicate to anyone that it is truly prophetic with its story.

What the movie was though, was an excellent exercise in 'what if.' It not only took concepts directly from the Bible, but also from the possibility that the experiences of the Bible patriarchs may have been interactions with 'Ancient Astronauts,' as theorized by Erich von Däniken and others. Or better yet, the writers could have been advancing the idea that the 'technology' of God might, in some instances, appear to us as the technology of some other advanced civilization, given our current scientific knowledge. Who knows? If the Rapture actually occurs as expected by Christians, who can really say for sure if the chosen will rise from the earth by personally defying gravity, or via spaceships?

There were many subtle visual touches that brought the whole story into focus, such as the picture of Ezekiel's wheel in the mother's abandoned house, and what could be discerned as wings on the backs of the space entities at the end of the film. Even the blinding light and trumpet-like sound that emanated from the stranger's mouth in one scene are concepts that were culled directly from biblical texts.

Nicolas Cage's character (a college professor) is clearly conflicted; the writers chose to have the one lecture to his class in the movie be about random chance versus organization (design). His father just happens to be a pastor, so the internal struggle for someone whose wife recently died could easily be imagined. This struggle is actually stated out loud by Cage's character later in the film.

Subtle examples of biblical influence appear throughout, such as Cage's character finally realizing that certain death with his own family during the coming cataclysm is not something to be feared. The many visual clues, such as the centrally featured tree in the midst of a beautiful golden field, seem to be lost on people who don't know what is actually in the Bible.

What was truly the saddest aspect of this experience for me though, wasn't the mere ignorance of the reviewers. It was the tragically misled anti-religious comments posted on the Netflix site by some reviewers. It seems likely that most individuals tossing darts at those who believe in God are simply jumping on a bandwagon. I find the high level of acrimony of the anti-religious very disproportionate to the meager amount coming from the opposite direction.

The debate over the existence of God has been raging as long as people have been able to argue with each other, and it didn't require the Bible or "On the Origin of Species" as a catalyst. The recent rise from obscurity of certain publicly vocal proponents of atheism has only given one side of the debate more fuel to continue squawking. Their intellectualized nattering is proof of nothing more than our own tendency to avoid whatever we don't find amenable to our own selfish desires.

What's my bottom line on all this?

In this 'wondrous' digital age of instant information, the false idea that history can't be rewritten is even stronger. How ironic that the original written source of the highest aspirations for human beings has been earmarked for complete abandonment, via socially engineered and agenda-ridden vilification, for several decades.

The Bible is not a dispenser of falsehood, ignorance and evil. Those things are what the absence of biblical tenets produce. Keep your eyes on the rotten fruits of apathy regarding God, and you will see, through the years, how the only thing that prevents the world from slipping into total chaos is a return to the values in that unsinkable book.

The values themselves are not exclusive to the Bible, but for any person to claim that the Bible is a (or the) cause of humanity's problems only serves to clearly display that person's intentional ignorance of what is actually written in its pages.

For any reader of this blog who's never really taken an earnest look in the Bible, I offer a challenge:

Be brave, be different, and think for yourself; find out for yourself, once and for all, what is really written on those pages. Don't make the common blunder of letting others interpret them for you.

The Bible will change your life in the best of ways... unless you really don't want it to. As it was in the beginning, so it shall be unto the end of the world: the choice is yours.

The Dangling of the Carrot

2010-05-28T12:52:00.005-05:00

The pursuit of power or wealth is an insider's joke, and many people don't seem to understand the punch line, or even realize that one exists.

The 'common man' and the 'elite': how do most view the widening gap between these two groups?

One way (an oddly popular way for the less privileged) is to say, "More power to those in power, I'd like a piece of that pie myself."

Another way to view the situation is to recognize injustice at the way the poor and middle class are manipulated and used to generate never-ending wealth for the rich.

For a poor or middle class individual to doggedly embrace the same obsession with acquisition that the wealthy have devoted their lives to, is an equally amusing and sad state of affairs. Amusing because the strings of manipulation are obviously invisible to them, and sad because they are blind to the detrimental results.

What strings of manipulation am I referring to?

I believe it was a Chinese proverb I read years ago that said it best: that which the eye does not see, the heart does not bleed for. This line was originally written in recognition of the human weakness of envy. In most cases, it is not until we know something exists, and that others apparently enjoy it or value it highly, do we begin to strongly desire it for ourselves.

It is this proclivity of human nature that is exploited relentlessly by the wealthy, in order to produce more wealth for themselves. How so, you ask? Envy is how the phenomenon of advertising has gone from clever street-corner hawking to a trillion-dollar industry. We humans are pathetically predictable when it comes to wanting what we see. Unfortunately, this emotional transaction does not stop at television, magazines and billboards.

Long before there were televisions, magazines, billboards and other forms of mass communication, there was the simple act of flaunting one's good fortune. Although not as many people would be affected by each individual act of ostentation, the results were the same for those exposed. I mention this because advertising is not the only generator of envy. Anyone who has attained the vaunted status of material 'success' spreads envy like a virus.

Every time an entertainer is photographed sporting the trappings of wealth, every time an overpaid athlete is in the news for an indiscretion, every time a CEO or politician is exposed for malfeasance, an entire generation of viewers and listeners are served up a huge portion of envy. We don't envy the negative results of their overindulgence; we oddly ignore those and lust after the assets that made them possible.

On a daily basis, we are given concrete examples of not only how money does not provide happiness, but that it often does quite the opposite.

Yet still, the carrot is dangled, and we predictably stretch for it, over and over again, day after day, year after year... never seeming to appreciate the fact that we are allowing ourselves to be manipulated by those who ultimately are using us to produce more wealth for themselves.

Human beings are a proud bunch. We're infinitely confident, as individuals with our own minds, that we're not able to be manipulated by others. Most of you reading these words would instantly scoff at the idea that you could ever be manipulated by someone else without your knowledge.

Well, I'm giving you that knowledge right now. Every time you buy the latest gadget or accessory, every time you schedule another expensive vacation, every time you spend your time and money at a bar or casino, every time you buy a lottery ticket, every time you insist on the best of something, every time you get yourself further in debt by buying things that aren't necessary to live, every time you buy something that your favorite public personality wears, eats, drives, owns, lives in, sails on, etc. etc., every time you think you're not getting laid enough, every time you think you're not getting paid enough, every time you think life's unfair because you don't have that particular thing you really think you deserve... well, hopefully you get the idea.

You are being manipulated during these situations because the end result is a corporate mogul's dream: you do whatever you can to acquire whatever it is you think you need. Extra hours at work, maxed-out credit cards, lying, cheating, stealing, selling drugs, murder. While some of those activities are a bit extreme for most people, be aware that they are not limits for the richest people on earth. That's how they became rich and stay that way; don't let anyone convince you differently if you wish to remain honest.

The Bible compares a rich man entering heaven to a camel going through the eye of a needle. It doesn't make any difference which way you interpret the phrase; either a camel and a sewing implement, or a camel and the special gate that lets people in and out but keeps larger animals in. The point is that in both cases, it is impossible.

A bit of a harsh judgement, you say? Sure, and since there's no way to prove there's life after death, and since I'm no one to claim I have those kinds of answers, I'm not qualified to tell you for certain if the saying is accurate or not.

What I am in a position to tell you is that it doesn't take an exceptional dose of common sense to understand that wealth is never acquired and maintained without an equal loss to others. Simple math. The assets of the wealthy were not materialized out of thin air. They actually came from somewhere, and that somewhere is your pocket. While some of this loss is agreeable and acceptable, such as paying one dollar for a McDouble hamburger, most other loss is not. Even those who claim earth's natural resources for their own, an apparently 'victimless' way of producing wealth, will not give it away for free. Thus your pocket, or the sweat of your brow, is still the real source of the elite's wealth.

Most items (and services!) available for purchase are priced astronomically higher than they need to be. Look at the brazenly exorbitant pricing for services provided by doctors and lawyers. There has been (and still is) much marketing research devoted to figuring out just how much you can charge someone for a particular object or service before that potential customer tells you to shove it because it's too expensive. In addition to unreasonable pricing, there's a gargantuan mass of cleverly marketed crap that is entirely unnecessary to life and the enjoyment of it. Inexplicably, the utter complicity of the consumer seals the deal.

All these poor and middle class people, who make personal sacrifices of time (and often integrity) simply to feel as though they've achieved some important level of status in their own eyes (and in the eyes of others), don't even realize that their indulgence in this cycle of wealth production assigns them the mere status of revenue generating sheep. They not only dance vigorously to the tune of the elite puppeteers' whims, they help strengthen the connection of the strings by accepting and promoting the lie that captured them in the first place.

"Aw, come on! These guys are just getting paid, what's your problem?"

If in fact, your opinion is similar to the previous line, then this essay is a waste of your time. You have no conception of the pathological absurdity of pursuing status, and you will likely live the rest of your days saddled with Pavlovian desires that leave you feeling empty despite the efforts you make to satisfy them. You participate enthusiastically because you'd like to be the one pulling the strings? Shame on you.

If instead you see and understand the picture I'm drawing, then know this... if there's a God, and if our actions matter, then there's something you can have high confidence in:

The endless injustices in life that are originated by the 'love of money' have not gone unnoticed, and they will bring to fruition the prophecy, "But many that are first shall be last; and the last first."

The Puzzle of Modern Love

2010-05-13T15:39:00.006-05:00

For most people, sex is a complicated issue. The complications are many: confusion, delusion, restriction, addiction, fidelity, infidelity. I think it safe to observe that sex rarely manifests itself in a completely trouble-free and happy environment. How could something so wonderful and natural become so complicated?

You don't have to look hard to find advocates of extremes on both sides of the political sex fence. The entire spectrum, from if-it-feels-good-do-it all the way to sex-is-something-to-be-ashamed-of, is prolifically represented in life and on the Internet. There are a lot of people out there who would love to give you advice on how to best live your lives in terms of sexual activity.

However, neither extreme, nor the myriad variations in between, properly address the basic human instinct and need for procreation and sexual intimacy. Rather than a person submitting himself or herself to potentially harmful direction from biased sources, perhaps a simple question posed to one's self might be more edifying.

Question:

Why is sex considered in the 21st century to be just another biological function, similar to eating or going to the bathroom, when it is also the method by which new life is introduced to the world?

Ask people who are in love in a committed relationship such as marriage, how they feel about their children. Especially, ask them how they felt when their children were born. The answers come back with absolute consistency: their children are the most important aspects of their lives, and the births of these children were life-altering.

Why is that? Listening to the materialist exponents of the world will enlighten you to the chemical processes involved that, in their expert opinions, arose from millennia of evolutionary change. But that conjecture leads to a chicken-or-egg debate that doesn't truly answer the question.

The fact that this intangible bond exists consistently between parents and their offspring speaks much louder than any scientist's attempts to reduce the gravity of it with biological statistics. What we are still left with, since the question isn't sufficiently answered by science, is the simple reality of the strong attachment of parents and their children. It is that reality which plays the most important part in solving the puzzle of modern love.

There are many out there, for selfish (and ironically, some unselfishly mislead) reasons, who will speak unendingly about the joys of sex. These joys embrace all kinds of permutations, including sex within marriage, sex outside of marriage, sex before marriage, sex with the opposite gender, sex with the same gender, sex with animals, sex with corpses, sex with machines, sex with children, sex with one's self, sex with toys, sex with master/submissive role play, sex with pornography, sex with cameras, sex in public, sex with all sorts of odd, strange, or bizarre fetishes.

What does all this information and activity really say? Does it prove that sex is supposed to be a ripe fruit just waiting to be picked and eaten whenever the mood strikes? Does the excessive proliferation of sexual awareness prove that sex is something that should be experienced by everyone, anywhere, anytime, for whatever reason? Does it support the concept that sex is something that is everyone's 'right' to enjoy?

What of the other side? Does the puritanical backlash against such a sex-obsessed culture prove that we're all better off abstaining from sex except to produce children? Are human beings better served by not acknowledging their own biological urge to procreate, and instead living lives filled with shame because their hormones are doing their jobs?

Somewhere, somehow, at some time in the past, human beings in the predominant cultures of the world adopted the concept that sex was no longer a mystery. The physical processes themselves were examined and revealed by science. The emotions attached to sex were also dissected and analyzed, and the results reported were as variegated as the imaginative 'professionals' who presented their own conclusions with supposedly clinical accuracy. We were left to deal with the spurious assumptions that all these data were allegedly suggesting.

How have we dealt with this information? By pounding away at the delicate nature of the mystery of sex until there is nothing left but dust that blows away at the first strong wind of opinion. Try to imagine the excitement and anticipation that vanishes when something is made commonplace and sometimes vulgar.

Think about this. Our genitalia were once considered a mystery, something special, something sacred. That's exactly the sort of respect you give something that causes such a miraculous event as the birth of a child.

But now, in the enlightened, informed, educated and evolved 21st century, what you now possess between your legs is a recreational device. A toy that potentially exposes the rest of your body to disease, disappointment, guilt complexes, addictive behavior, marriage-destroying decisions, emotional anguish, monetary ruin, questionable reputation... and the greatest result of all: the depressing truth that the more you try to manipulate or control it, it manipulates and controls you even more.

I challenge anyone reading this to deny the negative results of the 'sexual revolution' without making yourself look disingenuous and foolish.

We humans are indeed masterful at deluding ourselves. Our popular culture promises that sex will fulfill and satisfy, but in reality sex has become an abused aspect of our existence that won't generate its natural state of bliss unless we close Pandora's Box. We need to once again imbue our sexuality with the respect and reverential mystery it had in our more 'primitive' past; otherwise the situation will only continue to digress and degrade until our ability to truly love others drowns in a cauldron of rational convenience.

"Server" does not equal "Servile"

2010-01-11T10:50:00.034-06:00

I can't keep this to myself anymore. My wife will probably disapprove of this blog post, as the contents are less than positive, but I will ask her forgiveness later.

At the end of 2000 I left the city I had lived most of my life in, and headed east for a "Razor's Edge" odyssey of self-discovery. Yes, that sounds a bit corny in 2010, but that's what I did, nonetheless. I left behind a solid job in IT (Information Technology) and purposely entered customer service jobs for the experience of more human interaction. It's been almost ten years, and I've finally had my fill of 'the people.'

The conclusions I've arrived at regarding human beings are, oddly enough, pretty much the same conclusions I had as a network and systems administrator, before I began my journey. My desire to avoid most people was not softened by actual interactions with them in the 'real world.' The jobs I worked put me right into the trenches, so to speak, and although I was seeking some sort of positive revelation regarding the nature of mankind, that expectation was sorely beaten down time and again within depressing work scenarios.

I purposely took 'menial' labor jobs. I worked in small offices, grocery stores, mail rooms and restaurants. The restaurants being the last two jobs I've held, they also happen to be the most people-intensive. The restaurant I currently work at, which shall of course remain nameless, features Italian food, 'classy' atmosphere, and more financially accessible menu for those on a budget.

Before I begin the focus of this post, let me include a disclaimer: I have encountered plenty of kind, decent, merciful and generous human beings as a restaurant server; therefore please do not mistake the contents of this blog entry as the typical ravings of an incorrigible misanthrope. The events I'm about to describe actually occurred last night, and they occur to restaurant servers day in and day out, all across the world.

For reasons that will probably remain unknown to me, last night's shift became a preposterous parade of every sort of horrible guest that can possibly frequent an eating establishment. I'm not clear how many of my fellow servers were facing this onslaught of nonsense, but I became convinced at some point that my section was cursed for a night.

Let's jump in now, shall we?

First off, I seem to have gathered the most illiterate boob-tubers last night, because I lost count with how many times I had to explain the very straightforward and easy-to-read menu. I came close to using baby talk at times for the dullards who can't discern the difference between items they see on the menu and items they assumed would be on the menu. Keep in mind that when things don't magically appear on the menu as these guests see fit, the server and the restaurant are automatically relegated to idiot status.

We're the idiots... and yet just a month ago, I had a guest come in and get extremely upset at me and two managers for "not being very accommodating" because she was allergic to garlic (huh?) and we didn't have anything to offer her that she wanted to eat. Excuse me? We're not the ones who possess an alleged allergy to garlic and have the audacity to go to an Italian restaurant and complain that there are no garlic-free dishes. After being yelled at in front of other guests, our manager comped the entire table's bill just to get her the *bleep* out the door.

FYI - using the term "guest" instead of "customer" is a generic convention that most restaurants use, in a transparent ploy to pretend that the individuals who walk through the front doors are somehow worthy of more than common courtesy. Is it any wonder that these pampered patrons sometimes take unscrupulous advantage of their status?

My first table last night was a woman who seemed as though she might emotionally crumble any moment, and an overbearing lothario who insisted on sitting kitty-corner from her instead of across from her. Keep in mind that this was a small two-top (two person) table, so what could have been an intimate setting was instead an uncomfortable exercise in how effectively he could breach her space bubble and talk her into bed back at his hotel room.

At another table, one guest resolved to take little jabs at me all evening. Every time I returned to the table, another snide remark. He apparently had ordered something other than he actually wanted, simply because he didn't bother to pay attention to the name of the dish he was ordering. There were no technicalities or tricks here; just an inebriated joker who always has to be right, despite obvious evidence to the contrary. The ladies who accompanied him must have been genuinely impressed by his attention to detail as he chugged down his second twenty-ouncer of Michelob Golden Light.

A third table contained a bearded wonder from Green Acres and his mail order China bride, as well as daughter, hapless son-in-law and relentlessly screaming baby. While judging people by their appearance is a losing venture because people will often surprise you, this particular table held no such pleasant conclusion. I was treated to backwoods barking, shrewish micro management, ultimately uneaten (but requested) refills and continuous demands on my time that considerably ate into my other guests' experience, like hot water in a bowl for the wailing baby's unheated pabulum.

Let me pause and remind the reader that it's normally not a problem for a server to fulfill special requests by guests. However, the guests making the special requests often don't seem to have a realistic perception of the server's available time, and usually make multiple special requests. The result, of course, is that these myopic guests unduly overburden the server with time demands that inevitably subtract from the other guests' dining experience. This isn't about good or bad servers; it's about simple math. Unlike electrons, servers can't be in two places at once, let alone three or four. And by the way, apologizing to the server before you overburden him or her does not magically justify the offense.

Another table began their string of uninterrupted poppycock by demanding that the host remove their chairs and go to the other side of the restaurant and bring back some rolling chairs that are normally used for persons waiting to be seated at a table. So before I even get the chance to greet these special guests, they have already set the very busy host about three squares back, so to speak.

I finally get to greet this couple whose posteriors are too wonderful for a normal chair, and then I really get a feel for how picky they are. At his request, I take the time to explain our soup selection (information clearly visible on the menu he's holding open in his hand), only to have him settle on salad instead. I must explain, in painful detail, why the bottomless salad that comes with the entrees can't be split without an additional fee. Then I have to wait and smile while the grunting, malcontented man hems and haws over the menu selections... all the while asking me repetitive, mind-numbing questions that even a stoned teenager can easily grasp the answers to. The woman in this precious pair took great care (and joy?) informing me about all the particular special food-related needs she requires because, well, she requires them.

The man also wants some sort of "drink I had before," and these two spend a ridiculous amount of time trying to decide if it was vanillla before, and if he wants almond now. They explain to me, as though I'm supposed to find it infinitely fascinating, how he doesn't want any ice in his Italian cream soda, because he doesn't want it, it ruined his drink before, and we put too much ice in our drinks.

Then he goes on another time-eating excursion blathering about some other dish he had before that he didn't care for (at this point I'm wondering why they came back - perhaps because somewhere else, say McDonald's, Ronald himself would have firmly placed his red boot up their anal canals?). Then he wants to know if our Parmesan-encrusted tilapia can be made without the Parmesan.

His salad must of course be without dressing, and his counterpart (wife?) must have inordinate amounts of dressing on the side. He can't have black olives or yellow peppers in his salad, so there's yet another dish with extra goodies for his wife that must be provided at a table that's destined to be supplied with enough dishware for a eight-top table. They were incredulous that I brought them two salad plates and a single large bowl of salad without dressing, instead of their requested individual plates with salad that I would have had to replace every two minutes.

Two other tables of mine are forced to wait for their initial greetings and are twiddling their thumbs while these selfish, picayune patrons waste not only my time, but as a result, everyone else's in their vicinity as well.

I find myself going on non-stop miscellaneous errands for these two black holes of my shift. Multiple piles (and I mean *piles*) of cheese, freshly grated (by me) on separate plates. Handfuls of lemons (also on separate plates) for their waters and her diet soda. Bread stick requests every time I return to the table (do the math on that one). I had to box every morsel of food on the table, including the salad, which will be soggy and inedible by the time they get home.

The aforementioned drains-of-patience were not the only unreasonable guests I dealt with last night, not by a long shot. I don't want to turn this post into a novel just because I was treated to a collection of thoughtless human beings. So, just one more is 'worthy' of mention.

The capper of the evening was the obvious first date of a tightly wound lemon with the glare of a hawk, and a disingenuous cherub who found himself a great deal more interesting and amusing than he truly was. He can't just order a martini, he must order, "Stoli Martini, chilled, no ice, no vermouth, served up in a birdbath, two olives, and a side of club soda." By itself, not so bothersome; combined with his incessant pretension, one more thing to add to my irritation. The hawk-woman drank so much hot tea, for the third round I brought her an entire large carafe of hot water, instead of the usual miniature tea kettle.

This man was another time-consuming, self-important guest who seemed convinced that the best way to impress a date is to inundate her with endless pontifications about whatever happened to enter his gin-blossomed cranium. My interactions with him were saddled with fake-chuckling at his lame excuses for humor, and buttressing his desire to seem important in her eyes by bringing items to their table as quickly as possible, at his magnanimous demand.

This table stayed so long past the dinner hour that I was forced to do my final section detailing (condiments, carpet, etc.) while they continued to converse. At one point, I had the carpet sweeper (a relatively quiet apparatus), and was trying to pick up the remaining detritus underneath the surrounding tables in my section. I sensed that their oh-so-important discussion about market equities was halting due to my presence.

Not wanting to make these special, entitled, cherished guests feel uncomfortable, I made the mistake of trying to finish up quickly near their table, in an effort to give them back their vital cone of silence. I came too close to the man's chair, and his true colors came out when he turned his attention directly toward me and aggressively requested that I give him some space. I looked him directly in the eye, wanting to take the pole portion of the carpet sweeper and unhesitatingly insert it deep into that same smug eye socket, and said "Yes sir" instead, leaving the carpet sweeper leaning next to a nearby table.

And therein lies the paradox I have faced throughout this entire journey of rubbing elbows with the public. I philosophically reconcile the situation as the penance I must pay for making such a foolish decision to leave a job I am more suited for, and walk for a while in the muck that many people are forced to wallow in for their entire lives.

Make no mistake here; I'm not placing myself above anyone else. I have just learned the hard way that for the most part, human beings can be thoughtless, rude, cruel, selfish and completely oblivious to the feelings of others. It's not about crying in my beer that someone wasn't nice to me; I'm recognizing that human beings, when allowed to act out at others' expense, eventually come to believe their own delusions of self-importance are justified in the ill treatment of others.

So there you have it. Until I return to IT (which I'm actively facilitating), I am forced to serve lunch and dinner to a menagerie of mental midgets who ironically treat me as though I'm their intellectual and societal inferior.

But no worries; at least I have another path I can take. I feel great sadness for the hardworking people out there who don't feel like they have any other options than to be pin cushions for hypocrites who can't face the truth about their own pathetic lives.

And I feel a great deal of respect for my fellow laborers; much more than for those who casually stroll the 'corridors of power.'

The Darwin Fish

2009-12-28T12:05:00.019-06:00

You've seen them, I'm sure. Those 'Jesus Fish' attachments on the backs of people's cars. Perhaps you agree with the Christian point of view, perhaps you don't. Perhaps you think it's silly to attach things to the backs of cars, such as bumper stickers and the like. Or, perhaps you are the kind of person who enjoys sharing sentiments with the world via the back of your car.

There is something I have kept quiet on, but I can't remain silent any longer.

Why do some people feel the need to attach the 'Darwin Fish' to the backs of their cars?

At first glance, one might ascribe to the Darwin Fish the basic purpose of sharing one's thoughts, same as the person who displays the Jesus Fish. But once you begin to think more about it, the Darwin Fish becomes insidious.

Ask yourself this:

If all the person wants to do is state that he or she believes in evolution, then why take a religious image and distort it? Wouldn't some other method, such as a new graphic, or a clever bumper sticker message, better serve that purpose?

The Darwin Fish is nothing more than a sarcastic mockery of what has become recognized as a Christian icon. Is there something wrong with disagreeing with Christian beliefs? Of course not. We should be free enough in this country to believe whatever we wish to believe. If you want to believe that all life on this planet originated via a statistically impossible accident of chemistry, then you should be able to cling to that idea.

However, the Darwin Fish is not just a simple statement of belief; it is an easily recognizable derision of someone else's belief system.

The Darwin Fish is indicative of something that the people who use it would never admit to. Rather than supporting their own beliefs by the simple action of tacit adherence, they feel the need to defend their ideas by attempting to denigrate a belief system that they think represents the opposing view.

Ironically, what the Darwin Fish accomplishes is the exact opposite of what is intended. With the exception of the cynical atheists who find it amusing, most people seeing it can discern the message it sends quite clearly:

"You threaten me, so I'll make myself feel more secure by mocking you."

Perhaps the frightened Darwinists can let go of the idea that the big, bad God-Wolf wants to blow their house down.

Especially since instead of a house built on a firm foundation, it's actually a houseboat without motor or sail, and it impotently shifts with the tide of public opinion.

One day it will sink from all the holes in its hull anyway, so angry gods aren't really necessary.

The most inconvenient truth of all

2009-12-23T12:35:00.005-06:00

Much discussion has arisen from Al Gore's pet project, which culminated in the book and movie entitled, "An Inconvenient Truth." The 'inventor of the Internet' wants so badly for us to believe in his cause, but I suspect his motivation is more for generating research funds and political publicity, than actually saving the world. Just like so many other tree-hugging polemics, he is attempting to save our collective skins under the guise of the more altruistic goal of saving the entire planet.

I find it hard to believe that there are still persons out there who think the planet can't survive the influence of our species. Long after we're extinct, this planet will continue to adapt and generate life. It's obviously designed to do so, and withstanding known past catastrophes that are reflected in the geological record, it will most likely continue to do so, with or without our assistance.

Rather than throw in with the silly global warming debate, I will instead point out a more inconvenient truth in daily life; perhaps the most inconvenient truth of all in modern western culture:

God.

While God is not a truth in the sense of a tangible object or entity you can point to, God is a truth for many people in the way they perceive existence and reality. The existence of this belief itself does not automatically make God a 'physical' fact; one can reasonably admit this simple conclusion.

But the place God currently occupies, in the minds and lives of individuals living in modern western civilization, seems to be more one of uncertainty and embarrassment than comfort and joy. In other words, modern mental attitudes are becoming less and less amenable to the existence of a higher power.

There are possibly many different reasons why this phenomenon is occurring, but I think it actually comes down to one.

Peer pressure. No one wants to look foolish when the official authorities of science and intellect keep harping on the same line over and over again: that all the physical evidence points to nothing out there but random chance and blind evolution.

So God, once a foundation for purpose, existence, wisdom and moral clarity, has slowly drifted into the role of childish fantasy and cosmic boogie man. Our new, popular approach to meaning in life is based entirely on the physical 'facts,' because we've been told by state-sponsored experts for decades that only a child continues to believe in Santa Claus after the true origin of Christmas gifts is discovered.

The facts are all summed up by simply observing that you can't produce evidence of God in a lab. Of course, assuming things are not there because you can't see or measure them has never been exposed as spurious before; humanity, without benefit of special technology, has always known about bacteria, the complexity of biological cells, quarks, photons and dark matter, right? Wrong.

Don't we all feel so much more comfy knowing that we're better off with the ugly truth: that God is a delusion? Aren't we better off now that all those through history who were inspired to great acts of altruism and self-sacrifice for the sake of others have been exposed as foolish, silly people who wasted their emotional and intellectual lives on a ridiculous notion like God?

Wouldn't the world be better off without the horrible institution of religion, when we all know what happened during those heinous crusades or on 9/11? Especially when we've got other, much more successful atheist mass-murderers to look up to, such as Hitler, Mao Zedong, Stalin, Pol Pot... name your historical atheist dictator. All the atrocities of past churches can't really compete with these maniacs' bloodshed, but that's not what the average atheist would have you believe.

Why is it such a stretch of the imagination to put on our humble hats and admit that although the existence of a higher power is currently impossible to physically qualify or quantify, that we might simply be technologically lacking in the ability to do so? In all our amazing accomplishments and self-congratulatory arrogance, have we lost touch with the fact that we still don't know everything?

I submit to you that the atheist's objection is not based on physical facts at all. I think it comes from a desire to avoid the 'inconvenient truth' that there is Someone in charge of it all, and that one day, every one of us, regardless of earthly stature, will have to answer for what we've done to ourselves and each other. Ultimately we'll have to answer for what we've done to the aforementioned Someone, by our ever-increasing intentions of purposely ignoring the wisdom that the rest of the 'educated' deem as foolishness. Behind closed doors, is it truly only the victim who is offended?

"What kind of God would make such an imperfect world?"

This common objection to the possible existence of a creator god is stunning in its poor logic. The logic is entirely based on the assumption that God must create a perfect world, and furthermore that this perfect world must conform to our human notions of what a perfect world would be.

"What about all the suffering in the world? All the unfairness?"

I don't have conclusive answers for those questions. Easy answers to those questions tend to sound like products of tunnel vision. I will say though, that the vast majority of the suffering in the world is obviously caused by how we treat each other. The rest of the unfortunate suffering of those we deem 'the innocent,' is as confusing to me as anyone else. However, I fail to see how that same suffering is indisputable proof that God cannot exist.

Some people in the world go beyond just believing that God exists, they attempt to obey God. Too bad for them, I suppose, because obeying God in the 21st century is synonymous with being an ignorant sucker. And no one wants to be thought of as an ignorant sucker.

The 'joke' has to be on somebody, but I'll tell you one thing: I'm not going to let a bunch of arrogant know-it-alls turn me away from Something that ultimately gives life meaning. Opt for cynicism, spiritual vacuity, depression and mollifying psychoactive drugs instead? No thanks.

I prefer to do my own thinking instead of having it dictated to me by the opinions of others, popular or not.

The Game Collector

2009-12-17T15:49:00.013-06:00

I currently have 129 games installed in my computer.

It has been pointed out to me that I have spent more time finding, researching, purchasing and organizing games than I have spent actually playing them. At first, I didn't take that observation seriously; then upon closer inspection, I realized it was true.

I live a relatively simple existence. I maintain a vocation that allows me to pay my bills, and put a little away, but that's about it. My desire to collect things has been satisfied by three particular kinds of items: PC video games, books, and brainteaser puzzles. All three allow me to succumb to the hoarding instinct without a big hit to my liquid assets.

Will I ever play all the games I own? All the way through to the end of each, perhaps not. I am currently trying to install them all, one at a time, and test them out to see if they hold my attention more than a minute. I've been keeping track of what I consider to be the hits and the duds. I will eventually work my way through the 600+ games I own.

These games were all purchased at brick-and-mortar stores because I prefer to have something I can hold in my hand, instead of a mere promise from an online company that they'll always be there to allow me to install and play my game in the distant future. The ugly truth about Steam is that they have taken the EULA one more step, in the sense of reminding their consumers that they really don't own the games they just bought, they're technically only renting them. A rental status that can be easily and permanently revoked.

Yes, that's right. Owning the disk, manual and box still doesn't mean you own the game. But that's a subject for a future post, and it's not important here.

For me, video games are a form of art. That's why I collect them more than I play them. I'm not the only person who feels this way, and game design is no different than any other art form: given enough publicity and exposure, the cream eventually rises to the top.

I have decided that once I've culled the crud from my game collection, and spent sufficient time playing all the remaining games to gauge their "worthiness," I will then publish an annotated list of what I think are the greatest PC video games ever released.

My apologies in advance to developers of (and devotees to) racing games, flight simulators, sports games and MMORPGs: I don't get the allure of those genres, and I probably never will.

As for the legions of the console-platform obsessed, well... enjoy your limited, cute little toys. You can always sell them on eBay as nostalgic kitsch, ten years after purchase. Your desire to keep up with the latest console technology has effectively fulfilled the game console manufacturers' desire to milk your bank account on a regular basis.

The Meter of Civility

2009-12-09T13:20:00.040-06:00

In the future, when the (hopefully) cyclical nature of educational standards swings back toward well-instructed public school children, what will people of the world think about the United States, circa 1967-2010?

They will likely remember only a few shining lights that cast a shadow over the rest of the bulging masses of lazy, "entitled" slackers who cared more about comfort and entertainment than knowledge acquisition, work ethic or basic human purpose.

We will be remembered as not only the "me" generations, but also as the "me too" generations as well. Original thought, for the most part, seems to be on hiatus, and it won't be generated by staring at YouTube for hours on end.

For many years, we have been socially engineered in our culture to celebrate everyone, regardless of achievement; then we pause and wonder why so few people strive to actually achieve anything of worth. It does seem a bit pointless to press forward when everyone around you tells you that the smart way to get things done is to just mellow out and take it easy.

Or better yet, why bother to try harder at anything, when "everyone's a winner!" We can all just sit back, get poor grades, have pre-adolescent sex at recess, practice lazy work ethics, let our bodies soften to jelly, partake of whatever recreational drug we think will paint a brighter face on our lives, play video games or watch television all day instead of doing something constructive, go to the casino and dump another paycheck into the hands of those who know you better than you know yourself. I'm sure we could all come up with more examples to add to this embarrassing list.

If all else fails, move back home. Hey, you can always depend on your parents' work ethic to save the day, right? They're used to working for a living. All that "get up and go to work" stuff every day is just way too boring, right?

I don't know about you, but I'm fed up with watching the generations after me think they can make their mark on the world by some future, magical cosmic wish fulfillment. They will learn the hard way, as generations before them have, that there isn't always time to do later what needs to be taken care of now. All too often, time runs out.

We've now experienced decades of what appears to be a social experiment: no real consequences for under-par scholastic achievements, no serious standards for our school children to aspire to or to be held accountable for, physically and emotionally mollycoddling our youth out of fear of "trauma," taking authority away first from teachers and then parents, and allowing our popular culture to dumb down first our minds, then the minds of our kids.

Because of the sorts of jobs I've held for the last ten years, I've seen countless families in public settings. All I can say without going on too long, is basically that the vital art of parenting has been lost to all but a few. We have allowed the Enlightened Class of Psycho-babbling Intellectuals, The State, and the unscrupulously omnipotent Media Machine, to turn us and many of our children into selfish, lazy, whiny, angrily disenfranchised, unproductive consumers.

What's the answer to this dilemma? We can't put the ills of the world back into Pandora's Box, so hoping for one thing to turn it all around is naïve. There is no single answer that everyone would find acceptable.

We have, in the last three generations, set the stage for the final act. However, I still believe that the show does not ultimately have to be a tragedy. I think there is still a way, however it may be accomplished, to insure that more inspiring possibilities can be wrought from this present disappointment.

Perhaps the new "playwright" will rise from the current consumer-zombie trash heap and find a way to get us looking at the world through each others' eyes again. Because definitely, when I look around me and try to find a common denominator in all this mess, I keep coming back to our collective lack of common courtesy.

Trivial as it seems, it may be a meter of how ill our society is becoming, since general civility consistently decreases year after year in the United States.

But isn't that something you can turn back up with your latest gadget?

No... and it never will be.

The Relentless Penguin

2009-12-04T09:58:00.022-06:00

Microsoft has screwed its users again. That's right, I said it! Other than its historical accomplishment of greatly contributing to the reality of an affordable computer in every home, the T-Rex of Redmond has a lot to answer for.

The list of offenses has grown too long. Microsoft conned Seattle Computer out of the original "86-DOS" that ended up renamed and distributed with IBM computers, engineering a machine of multibillion dollar wealth, of which Seattle Computer ultimately saw only $75,000. Microsoft Windows 1.0 was "inspired" by a preexisting Apple OS; many of the programs that ran on those first Windows iterations were equally "inspired" or stolen, depending on your point of view. Internet Explorer, which could have been an honest attempt to compete with Netscape, instead became a method to destroy Netscape via installation agreements with OEM computer makers, then later was an affront to many Windows users by needlessly integrating the browser into the operating system.

Before I get too carried away, I will fast-forward to the reason I wrote this post.

Games for Windows and Vista? Microsoft, tell me you were only joking.

Back in the days when the Games for Windows rollout would have meant something (in other words, back when console gaming was beginning to seriously encroach on the PC gaming market share), what did Microsoft do?

They gave the world yet another gaming console, and called it Xbox.

Instead of doing something revolutionary that kept their own end users' best interests in mind, they simply repeated their predictable knee-jerk behavior, and produced another "me too" product that they hoped would grab them their own piece of one more previously non-Microsoft pie.

Back in 2001, if Microsoft had instead introduced Games for Windows, and supported it more effectively than the PR disaster they foisted on the public in 2007, they would have garnered much more loyalty from the gaming community... thus ultimately insuring their OS preeminence for at least a little while longer.

Did Microsoft truly think that users would cheer and gladly pony up the dough for the (then) new OS called Vista, just because the release of Halo 2 was inexplicably restricted to Vista support only? I say 'inexplicably' because the decision defies common sense in terms of respecting the Windows consumer base; it makes perfect sense in a scenario where the faithful Windows users are merely a means to a lucrative end.

One bitter irony regarding the aforementioned decision is that Vista eventually came to be recognized as an OS that offered somewhat lousy support (in some cases, no support at all!) for many games created for previous Windows operating systems, including XP. But then again, Microsoft has never been praised for their efforts to maintain backwards compatibility. Where's the money in that, right?

I will never tire of reminding the world (and myself) of this fact:

If the vast majority of current, mainstream computer video games were not written for Windows, I would ecstatically abandon Microsoft operating systems and never, ever look back.

MS OS's are, still in 2009, intermittently unreliable and user-defiant. The much more stable (and secure!) Linux operating system has become so user-friendly and accessible, that the previous restrictions on mass migration, based on the average user's computer savvy, are almost completely extinct. Other than the gaming issue, there is no longer a compelling reason to continue using an inferior product when a superior one is literally FREE to everyone! There just hasn't been an effective marketing campaign for Linux, since the nature of open-source is more word-of-mouth, and no one "owns" Linux itself in a commercial sense.

Thanks to an eager and innovative, worldwide open-source community, there will eventually be more software available for Linux than Windows. This trend, which will continue unabated, is strengthened by Windows emulators like Wine, and will steamroller Microsoft eventually. Once a wishful pipe dream of malcontented computer users, this pending reality is now only a matter of time. This means you too, Jobs. The only thing saving Apple right now is attitude, myth, and mall shops filled with cleverly marketed electronic crack. Jobs has apparently forgotten the famous mistake in judgement by IBM, regarding hardware versus software. Anything X can do, Linux can do better, and for free.

Furthermore, mark my words very carefully, Redmond: the day that an open-source Linux emulation for Windows games is seamless and leaves no games unsupported, you will experience such a massive exodus from your operating systems that your share of the PC market will incrementally dwindle down to even less than Mac-ish proportions.

Perhaps, Microsoft, you will then finally take your lip-service project named "Games for Windows" much more seriously. Have your collective intellectual faculties actually lost track of the fact that gamers are the principle force that drives the PC hardware market? The gaming world doesn't need another console, it needs a reason to stay with Windows for PC gaming. If that reason gets taken away by an all-inclusive Windows emulator in Linux, it will only be a matter of time before the ripples of the geek reaction extend to every square inch of surface of the entire computer pond.

Then it's good-bye 90% market share. Hey, it was a great run. Though Microsoft's OS division will certainly flounder and thrash about with the predictable assistance of legal actions against specific individuals in the open-source community, these efforts will merely be the final convulsions of a once-great idea that was lost to basic greed and myopia.

Microsoft and Apple are not controlled by stupid people. I think that deep down inside, both Microsoft and Apple leaders have known for some time now that their shares of the computer operating system market would eventually bow to Linux (or some other open-source OS).

Perhaps that's why their interests have diversified into hardware and other non-OS ventures; they can't control the game anymore, but they'd still like to maintain a seat at the table.

Backup Yourself!

2009-12-03T15:58:00.011-06:00

Windows Backup is a half-assed program disguised as an administrator's time-saving tool. I made the blunder of relying on Windows Backup recently, and I must admit that because of the way it is structured and organized, I had gained some confidence that it would come through for me when the chips were down.

I was mistaken, and the backup was useless as a recovery tool. For those fledgling computer geeks out there, yes, there are viruses that can actually defeat your prized Norton Recovery Tool or proprietary System Recovery Disk. All you need to do is visit the wrong place on the Internet, and you can say buh-bye to all your precious registry entries you amassed over months or years of software installation. Or worse yet, to other important files not residing on your C:\ drive.

A side note: for those delusional Apple users out there who are laughing right now and then later swarming around the Apple store at the mall to drool on all the latest electronic bling that Jobs is hawking via Geek Squad clones... yes, you too can suffer from unrecoverable data.

Observe an 8-year-user Apple yes-girl who finally gave in to reality:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dohuX9Ij38

Okay, enough of that. Let's move on to the purpose of this post: I'm going to demonstrate, for my fellow unfortunate Windows users, how to write your own backup program that leaves Windows Backup flipping on its own impotent bits.

(Linux users also using Windows can skip this tutorial, if they already have knowledge of bash, xterm, konsole, etc.)

TUTORIAL:

First things first: you don't have to be a real programmer to utilize the Windows Command Prompt in XP!

Next, if you view yourself as computer savvy, but you're still using a single partition on your hard drive, then don't bother reading this tutorial - you're only kidding yourself and you need to clock "a few" more hours on the workings of your rig. Just buying the latest computer from Dell, HP or Alienware, and using P2P programs to pirate games or download porn doesn't make you a hacker.

Especially in these days of 500GB and 1.5TB hard drives, to assign the entire drive to C:\ is an error you will live to curse. If for no better reason, create smaller partitions for the sake of Defrag; do you really want to wait until the year 2019 to finish your defragmentation? Nevertheless, the most important purpose served by multiple logical drives is having a "neutral" place to store your important files.

Indeed, the essential precursor to this tutorial is a simple admonition to add multiple partitions as soon as you get your new computer or hard drive. I highly recommend a C:\ drive of no more than 20GB for Windows XP. Then, only *rarely* install new programs on C:\. Choose a different logical drive (or drives) instead for programs you install.

If you're distracted at this point because you're using Windows Vista, and still faithfully defending it because it has those super-duper awesome 3D windows... well, look again at the second paragraph of this tutorial. Vista sucks. The jury isn't out on Windows 7 yet, either; Microsoft needs a good calendar year of unofficial beta-testing on their paying customers, before they can approach a somewhat stable OS (with the ubiquitous service packs, of course). Long live Linux!

Okay, after all that, if I still have your attention, then go to Start > Run, and type in "cmd" (always without the quotes!) and click the OK button.

Do NOT type in "command" - this is an 8-character-filename vestige that won't work for our purposes here.

Once at the prompt, you can navigate to any drive and any folder on your computer. For example, just typing "C:" and hitting the Enter key on your keyboard will move you to the C:\ drive. You will probably notice on trying that out, that all you did was get a repeat line of what you already had in the window. This is because the default folder displayed when the "cmd" window opens is *already on* your C:\ drive.

Okay, I could go into much more depth, but to avoid scaring you away, I'd rather just show you the simple backup "batch file" I created for myself, with explanations along the way. The beauty of this is you never even have to open up the command prompt if you've written the batch file correctly.

A batch file is a simple text file (created with Notepad, not Wordpad or Word!), where you eventually rename the file as backup.bat instead of backup.txt. The other two programs include binary formatting that will render your batch file unusable.

This batch file assumes the user name "freddie."

Each new line of a batch file is a separate command. The whole point of making one of these is to automate the copying of your irreplaceable files on the C:\ drive. That way, if a virus hoses your operating system, or you just want to start over with a fresh format of C:\, you've got all your created files saved to a neutral place for retrieval. Things like MSOffice files, mail folders, wallpapers, game saves and settings, etc.

Download the following text file, which is a copy of the batch file I actually use (including a few filename and drive adjustments to protect my computer's security without corrupting the functional potential of the file). Scan it with your Anti-Virus program for your peace of mind (I encourage that for *any* file you download from the Internet!).

backup.txt

I've renamed it backup.txt, so that when you double-click to open it, it doesn't actually run. Just remember to rename your own batch file "backup.bat" before you run it. There is another way to view a batch file without changing the extension (by right-clicking), but I'm trying to keep this simple for batch file initiates.

After you download it, open it and I will explain what's going on, so that you can alter it for your own use, or make your own from scratch. It's super easy, I promise!

Each new line is a new command, so the batch file runs each command in sequential order, from top to bottom. Examine the file closely, and don't take anything for granted (such as placement of spaces).

The first line "c:" (remember, *NO* quotes!) is to change the prompt to the C:\ drive, in case you're running it from a different logical drive (something I highly recommend!).

The next line "cd\" moves the prompt to the lowest folder of the drive (called the "root"). You need to do this to guarantee that your navigation is not situation-dependent.

Next, you'll see "cd WINDOWS" - this makes the prompt enter the C:\Windows folder, where your operating system resides. In this case, I have wallpapers (.bmp) and an Office file (powerpoint.ini) that I wish to backup.

The next line is more interesting. You're actually doing some copying. Always remember that when you execute a command that affects files or folders, you must place a space between the command and the files, as well as spaces between file types and switches. Switches are those letters at the end that have a slash next to them; they are special instructions regarding how to handle the files.

You can learn more about these switches by going to the command prompt and typing the function "help" then a space, then the name of the function. For example: "help xcopy" will display all the switches associated with xcopy, as well as an explanation of what it does. (If you'd like to view all the available commands for the Windows command prompt, just type "help" in the command window and hit Enter).

The other command you'll see used in the batch file is "cd.." - that's two periods! The function of this command is to move down one folder. What does that mean? The closer you get to the root, the further "down" you go. Example:

If your batch file is at the following folder:

C:\Documents and Settings\freddie\Desktop

And the next command is "cd.." then you will now find yourself at:

C:\Documents and Settings\freddie

Get it? "cd\" goes all the way to the root no matter where you are, but "cd.." only goes to the next folder "down."

One last thing, so the batch file makes sense to you:

"*.*" is a way to tell the command prompt that you're referring to all the files in the folder. Therefore, "*.bmp" refers to all files that have the extension ".bmp" (these are bitmaps, a format for pictures, which are what most of your wallpapers are). When accessing a single file, always remember to include the extension (as in "powerpoint.ini").

Now, after you've studied the batch file and understand the concept, then all you have to do is use Windows Explorer to seek out all the folders where your vital, irreplaceable files reside. Navigate the batch file to these folders, and copy the files you want to copy to the drive and folder(s) of your choosing. In this example my backed-up files get copied to the E:\ drive, to the folders named in the batch file.

That's it! When you're ready to backup, simply double-click on your "backup.bat" file.

Now, here's the $64,000 question:

How is it that a simple text file can be more specific (less wasteful), faster, more robust and more user-friendly than the official backup program that's included with Windows?

No Harm, No Foul?

2009-11-16T11:11:00.019-06:00

I had a conversation the other night with a friend from my old stomping grounds who was in town for a national conference. We had about an hour chat over soft drinks before she had to get back to her hotel room.

The interesting part of our conversation was when we discussed a mutual friend who has been forced to deal with circumstances beyond his control. Our mutual friend is worthy of great respect for many things, including his decision to structure his life around taking care of his daughter.

The reason why that part of the conversation was interesting was I came face to face with a phenomenon I hadn't thought that much about in recent days. It's a specific flag that some human beings fly regarding freedom: absolute freedom for freedom's sake.

My friend who was attending the conference is of the opinion that as long as adults are consenting, and their behavior doesn't outwardly hurt anyone else, that it's not only their right to pursue this behavior, but no one should judge their decision to do so.

On the surface, I agree with this precept. I agree that human beings should be free, and that freedom should include the right to do whatever they want to do, as long as others aren't harmed in the process. The founding fathers of our country also seemed to be in agreement, because they featured this sentiment in the second sentence of the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Be that as it may, as in most cases of black-and-white thinking, gray that is ignored can bite you on the posterior.

My friend from out of town is a libertarian, and I am also. This means we both place individual liberty very high on our list of things that are important in life. Where we disagreed the other night, however, is how far one may follow the letter of the law before reason is lost.

The crux of my argument was based on a simple observation. While I agree that (for example) adult women should have the right to be strippers or prostitutes if that's how they wish to earn a living, I also believe there are good *reasons* why those kinds of vocations are not wise to pursue. The "judgmental" opinion of the average person regarding these vocations is typically based on these reasons, not merely on a personal vendetta against the morals of the practitioners.

To give honest evidence of this concept, I merely asked my friend if she would endorse her daughter's possible future decision to become a stripper. When my friend said yes, I admit I was surprised. Call me delusional, but I would venture that if she is ever literally faced with this possibility in the future, she would recant her consent for the sake of her daughter's well being. I may be way off base, but I think she said yes merely to remain in line with her conceptual convictions.

Now, is it judgmental of me to assume that persons performing those jobs are living lives that usually become unnecessarily complicated, stressful and sometimes dangerous, therefore making the career choice an unwise one? Certainly. My opinion *is* a judgment. Therefore, anyone performing that job would be subject to my inclination to judge his or her career choice as unwise, unhealthy, and generally foolish.

However, despite the defiant response that free people have toward anyone who supposedly rains on the parade, is my judgment actually wrong?

You tell me. We don't have to include sex workers in this discussion. There are many, many non-professional devotees and practitioners of alternative lifestyles, such as BDSM, fetish and other "underground" communities. We can simply observe that it's common knowledge that everyone is wired differently, sexually speaking, and our buttons are all different to some degree. Therefore it would be inappropriately judgmental to comment on someone else's decisions behind closed doors.

Fine, but riddle me this:

How much thought is truly given to what spurs individual deviant sexual behaviors in the first place? Is being "good and right" really just a matter of letting people enjoy their personal freedoms in any way they wish, or are there elements in the world that gratify in the short term while simultaneously reinforcing negative or detrimental views of ourselves and others?

I have no desire to prevent anyone from pursuing whatever they wish under the banner of "no unwanted harm done to others." What I would like to see though, is more forthrightness regarding the reasons why we do what we do, and more integrity regarding the actual long-term results of incorporating perversions into the basic human drives for touch, propagation and love.

Tools of Manipulation

2009-10-30T02:07:00.017-05:00

We live in what we like to refer to as a modern world, but certainly the experience of being human never seems to change. Despite our evolving informational, technological and material environments, our interactions with each other (and ourselves) remain as they have since the dawn of recorded history.

One of the most obvious aspects of being human that has withstood the process of time is our intellect. Call it intelligence, smarts, sentience, sapience, whatever you wish... our mental inclination toward abstraction and conceptualization far exceeds any other observable living creatures on this planet.

For perhaps this reason alone, the idea arose at some point in our history that we must be the final result of a mindless and inexorable process of development; a process of development that Charles Darwin is typically credited for discovering. We call this process Evolution, and although evolution as an algorithm can be successfully applied to much more than the development of life on this planet, it is most frequently associated with Darwin's "world shattering" idea.

But is there really such a process in regard to the origin of all biological life, and if so, are we truly the final result?

I've done my share of Internet surfing, seeking out both sides of this stalemated argument. It can't be expressed effectively enough that the arduous fervor of both sides is ultimately not a proof of either concept: God or Random Chance as the originator of life as we know it.

The simplistic view of this debate is that only the Science side has all the documented and researched facts, and the Creationist side merely has conjecture, wishful thinking and "bad science." Proponents of the Scientific view never seem to run out of examples of facts that refute the "deceptive, ungrounded objections" of the Creationist view.

I have looked over reams of bulleted, detailed counter-arguments designed to drive home the "truth" of the matter: that Creationists never know what they're talking about. Science insists that if these Creationists have the ignorant audacity to refute the BodhiDarwin, they're only begging to be exposed as populist charlatans with a hidden agenda to send us all back to the dark ages.

We're informed that Jonathan Wells has cherry-picked the examples in his book Icons of Evolution, and that his arguments are "intellectually dishonest." But while the arbiters of truth are busy trying to drown Wells's assertions with a flood of facts, they're not spending very much time explaining why these inaccuracies are still present as seminal examples of evolution in modern textbooks. The best explanation Wells's critics can muster is that these textbooks are mostly used at the high school level. Apparently, high school students don't deserve the same access to scientific accuracy as college students.

We're expected to accept the proclamation that Michael Behe's argument regarding irreducible complexity in his book Darwin's Black Box is just plain silly, because we're told that gradual evolution can do more than just add parts.

To sum up for those reading this who aren't as familiar with this particular debate, Behe points out (correctly) that certain structures vital to life (biological cells), contain such intricate and complex interdependence between their constituent parts that the entire cell can't function with any one of those myriad parts removed. Thus, Behe asserts that gradual evolution could not have produced those structures, since the cell can't perform its principle functions with only part of its contents.

The Scientific detractors of this argument claim that Behe's observation is invalid: the simple version of their counter-assertion is that it only seems like a cell couldn't survive and function without its myriad interacting parts.

What the Scientific fact spewers are actually doing here is vending faith, not science. They maintain the presupposition that because the origin and development of all life on this planet had to be congruous with Darwin's theory, that of course the cells must have found some way to develop myriad, intricately cohesive functions one unique interdependent part at a time, never missing a step.

These same statistically miraculous and ingeniously evolving cells never failed to continue existing and replicating during this multi-million year process. And furthermore, these aimless yet resilient microscopic entities never failed the larger organisms they eventually became a part of, despite their non-existent ability to engineer their own future structures.

Regardless of what you or I choose to believe, and no matter how strong the urge to call the other side wrong, try to remember this:

Facts are never truly self-evident when it comes to matters of theoretical controversy; they are merely subjective tools of the persons manipulating them, as any litigator or marketing analyst can attest.

Obtain A Clue

2009-10-23T00:55:00.037-05:00

For all those starry-eyed, lemming-like consumers out there with an iPod in one hand, an iPhone in the other, and the mistaken idea that Apple computers are better because Steve Jobs says they are, I will now provide you with a simple seven-step program to free yourself of your expensive delusion.

Perform all seven of these steps, and you will be able to jettison the hive-minded fantasy that if something is:
a) the latest technology,
b) expensive, and
c) cool-looking,
it will automatically serve you better in every way.

Lastly, but perhaps most importantly, you will finally be able to break the transparent marketing spell that Jobs has cast over two generations of gadget gobblers.

The Seven Steps of Computer Freedom

1) Go back in time and convince Jobs not to be such a control freak, so third-party manufacturers back then could have contributed to the robustness of Steve Wozniak's brilliant engineering. This would have allowed Apple to more effectively compete with the Japanese computer companies of the early 1980's... the same Japanese computer companies that almost completely buried Apple underneath Microsoft's IBM-compatible onslaught.

2) Stop pretending that the "insanely great" marketing hype that Jobs endlessly empties out of his pie-hole is any sort of substitute for utilitarian value combined with lower prices.

3) Let go of the outdated notion that the Apple OS (operating system) is easier to use than the Microsoft OS, when one has been effectively mimicking the other now for over 20 years. These days they both steal ideas from each other.

4) Abandon the myth that intelligent, informed, evolved computer users must own Macs instead of PCs. If the car owner who only knows how to turn the key and step on the gas is superior to the owner who also knows how to do a ring job or install a new transmission, then we must be living in Bizarro World.

5) Take a second look at the Apple/Jobs mantra of "Think Differently." Ever since the 21st century arrived, and the distributions became more user-friendly, Linux users have become the computer users that truly deserve the distinction of thinking differently, not Apple's devoted minions.

6) Stop perpetuating the nonsense that Apple retains autonomous superiority in a sea of OS mediocrity. Since Jobs came back to Apple to "save" the company, he:
a) sold a significant portion to Microsoft, then
b) made the Apple hardware more friendly to third person peripherals, and then later
c) changed the allegedly "more powerful" proprietary circuitry to one that uses x86 architecture.

Thus, all the most significant variables that were originally listed to insist that Apples were better than PCs have, through time, proven that IBM-compatible hardware is a wiser choice. Now a Mac is nothing more than a PC with a more expensive OS and a "sexier" outer shell.

7) Start thinking more like a computer user, and less like a department store mannequin.

Here's an awesome little video I found on YouTube that pretty much spells it out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42YGj20qO8U

DRM continues despite growing objections

2009-10-16T09:33:00.013-05:00

I am (and you should be also) greatly disturbed by more and more invasive DRM (Digital Rights Management) software, which literally walks all over my rights as a legitimate consumer of PC games. I still possess not only the original disks of my games, but the manuals and boxes as well. Yet companies producing software like SecuROM are not allowing me to take measures to protect my investment. Not only are my efforts being thwarted to preserve my legally purchased property, but the very idea that I must format my hard drive to remove software I didn't want in the first place is beyond offensive. If any of this sounds new to you, go here to find out how bad the situation is becoming:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SecuROM

SecuROM is a software, and software is created by developers. In this case, the developers are Sony DADC. The game publishers have an interest in protecting their investments in game developers' work, so they turn to whomever promises the best possible copy protection.

Starforce is another insidious form of DRM. Observe the depths to which copy protection developers sink, in order to defeat software pirates...this blurb was a part of a forum post by someone who also included a total list of games that use Starforce:

"Under Windows XP, if packets are lost during the reading or writing of a disk, XP interprets this as an error and steps the IDE speed down. Eventually it will revert to 16bit compatibility mode rendering a CD/DVD writer virtually unusable. In some circumstances certain drives cannot cope with this mode and it results in physical hardware failure (Most commonly in multiformat CD/DVD writer drives). A sure sign of this step down occurring is that the burn speeds will get slower and slower (no matter what speed you select to burn at). Starforce, on a regular basis, triggers this silent step down. Until it reaches the latter stages most people do not even realise it is happening.

Moreover, the Starforce drivers, installed on your system, grant ring 0 (system level) privileges to any code under the ring 3 (user level) privileges. Thus, any virus or trojan can get OS privileges and totally control your system. Since Windows 2000, the Windows line security and stability got enhanced by separating those privileges, but with the Starforce drivers, the old system holes and instabilities are back and any program (or virus) can reach the core of your system by using the Starforce drivers as a backdoor."

Starforce apparently doesn't like to be criticized publicly for its questionable software, as witnessed by these two articles describing threats from a Starforce rep to sue individuals for exposing the problems created by installing Starforce protected games:

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/31/starforce_threatens_.html

http://techdirt.com/articles/20060131/1031237_F.shtml

Starforce supposedly posted a rebuttal on their web site to accusations regarding negative aspects of their software, but somehow that rebuttal seems to have magically disappeared from the site.

Never mind that many, many commercially successful games are protected by only a CD key, or in some cases (such as "Sins of a Solar Empire" and "Galactic Civilizations 2") have no copy protection at all. Never mind that in all cases, the pirates who are supposedly being thwarted, eventually produce "cracks" that can allow people to download and play protected games without even buying them.

The morals of the previous paragraph are painfully obvious, but somehow still escape the game publishers' attentions. First, that game pirating is never prevented by copy protection, only delayed. Second, that games can be wildly successful commercially with very little or no protection at all. Are the offensive, invasive, and ultimately useless copy protections, which pose problems only for paying customers, really worth the ill will generated toward PC gaming?

After Melissa Thomas (a citizen of Maryland), and her class action suit filed from California against EA (Electronic Arts) for using SecuROM, I keep wondering: why hasn't some high-profile legal firm taken Sony DADC on for creating this kind of invasive, rights-violating software? While I realize Sony is a big fish, is that any reason for everyone to throw their hands up and take whatever they're given, just because they really, really want to play the latest SecuROM-tainted game? Have we all truly become that complacent and spineless?

In the following PDF file, you may view the original court documents in the suit filed against EA on behalf of Melissa Thomas... take a look at all the complaints listed by the law firm from people who bought the game Spore (EA publishers) and found themselves dealing with things they hadn't planned on:

spore.pdf

Or how about Starforce? Why doesn't an opportunistic lawyer bring suit against them for creating software that installs "hidden" drivers and prevents the user to use legally purchased software that they deem inappropriate?

This is not about allowing thievery. I am a PC game collector. Since all 600+ games I own were purchased at brick-and-mortar retail outlets, I'm sickened by the legions of morally flexible people who cheapen game developer's efforts by downloading games for free.

This is about stopping companies from installing unwanted, invasive, restrictive and potentially harmful software onto our computers, regardless of what the sacred EULA says.

I thought this was the country that was all about the individual's rights? A powerful legal firm needs to stand up to Sony DADC, Starforce, and any other companies producing software that makes our computers do things we don't want them to do.

Sufferance is equal to consent. If you're interested in knowing more and perhaps adding your voice to the outcry against invasive copy protections, go to Reclaim Your Game, and read up:

http://reclaimyourgame.com

A quote from the Reclaim Your Game site:

"We are not pirates- we are customers who pay game companies to put out a good product without invasive or destructive programs. We are fed up with being perceived as being "cash cows" ready for milking without any say in what we buy. That is what this website is about, ultimately - how to reclaim our rights as consumers and customers."

A Prayer for Blood

2009-10-15T14:23:00.032-05:00

I would like to ask everyone to say a prayer tonight for Blood. No, I'm not talking about jihads, vengeance or vendettas.

There are all sorts of gamers out there... casual to hardcore, with lots of variations in between. There is a subset of hardcore gamers who keep a special place in their hearts for old games. Games made for DOS. There is a collection of classic games that stretches from about 1992, when Wolfenstein 3D was released by id, to about 1998 or so. A handful of games were created in this span of time that somehow became ageless, in the sense that they are still fun to play today, regardless of their relatively poor graphics (as compared to a typical 2009 3D game).

In a few cases, the creators of these older games decided at some point to make the source code open to everyone to use for non-commercial purposes. This unselfish and highly intelligent decision paved the way for all kinds of ports of these older games to newer, more graphically impressive engines. The list grows a little more each year, but the current list of porting and retexturing projects is inspiring. A few of the more high profile projects are:

The Doomsday Engine, which specializes in Doom engine ports, such as Doom, Doom II, Heretic and Hexen:

http://dengine.net/

Risen 3D, which is an advanced version of the Doomsday port:

http://risen3d.drdteam.org/

EDuke32, which allows play of the original Duke Nukem 3D, with many advanced features, including support for TCP/IP multiplayer, which the original game did not have:

http://www.eduke32.com/

The Duke Nukem High Resolution Pack, which can be used in conjunction with EDuke32, to play with more updated graphics:

http://hrp.duke4.net/

There are other projects, but what I'm trying to get across here is that there are many talented fans of these old games out there who would love nothing more than to get their hands on the original source code and create updated versions. These fans don't collect any money for their efforts. The wonderful results of their hard work are all freely downloadable to anyone who wants to enjoy these awesome old games with updated graphics.

Back to the title of this blog entry.

Ken Silverman created the Build Engine, which was used to create the famous Duke Nukem 3D, as well as a few other memorable games, such as Redneck Rampage, Witchhaven, Shadow Warrior, Powerslave and even William Shatner's Tek War. Silverman followed in John Carmack's (of id software) footsteps, and released the source code to the Build Engine, which made all the updated Duke Nukem 3D ports possible.

But the game that sprang from the Build Engine and has become legendary in its status, is a game called Blood. Duke Nukem 3D was more well known, and sold more copies, but Blood has lived on tenaciously in many gamer's hearts, producing nostalgia and melancholy. Why so sad?

Because for reasons entirely unknown, Atari will not release the source code.

Despite the facts that Blood 2's (Blood's sequel) source code was already released, and the age of Blood's source code insures that there are no "secrets" to be lost if it was released, Atari refuses to allow this source code to be shared by the fans. Blood was never reprinted, so Atari makes zero dollars on it. The source code simply gathers dust in Atari's archives.

I recently discovered a website that sprang up with a public petition to Atari to release the Blood source code. It can be found at:

http://www.petitiononline.com/bloodsrc/petition.html

You can sign the petition, and view the current signatures as well. To date there are 1,569 signatures. Mine is the 1,569th, as I signed it right before I wrote this blog entry.

That's 1,569 people who have found and actually signed a public petition. Who knows how many more people would truly love to play an updated version of Blood, but just aren't aware of the petition?

Blood cannot be played natively on any operating system past Windows ME, which very few people use anymore, as Microsoft has so mercenarily decided to end support for it. XP, still the most popular version of Windows (despite the craptastic Vista and fledgling "7"), is not able to play Blood without a lot of tinkering, or the use of DOSBox, an excellent DOS emulator that still doesn't quite play the game as seamlessly as it originally played.

There is an attempt being made to remake Blood for the open source Quake 1 engine, called Transfusion:

http://www.transfusion-game.com/

Transfusion has the blessing of those who own the copyright to the original Blood game (Atari only possesses the source code). However, after a long period of time, only multiplayer is available, with the single player game nowhere in sight. You can't blame the Transfusion people; it's just too much work to recreate an entire game from the ground up, down to every detail, instead of just porting source code.

There are people who have suggested to Atari that they release Blood on the Steam network, as other game companies have done with their old DOS titles. They could even garner some revenue in that fashion. One has to wonder how Atari, a venerated game company, could possibly ignore the obvious popularity of this game. I mean, they're not even bothering to license it to Steam and make a few bucks. This makes zero sense. If the game is not on Atari's radar at all, then what's stopping the release of the code?

Furthermore, all the free and downloadable ports I mentioned earlier still require the original game files; to play them, you need to already own the original games. In this fashion, if Atari wanted to make even more money, the release of the source code would guarantee the creation of new ports, requiring those who didn't already own Blood to purchase a copy, thus generating even more revenue for Atari. So come on, let's start making some sense here.

Atari, stop being jerks and do the right thing.

First effects of the mighty BFP

2009-10-08T03:31:00.020-05:00

For any who have wondered what became of the previously mentioned Box o' Fragadelic Power, it's alive and well and providing me the means to type this very message. Not to mention many hours already logged, playing several of the Half-Price-Books-purchased games (and gift games from others) that were waiting patiently in the wings for me to upgrade my hardware.

I had waited so long to upgrade (build a new computer) that I had lost touch with several "newer" technologies that could have made my computing experience far superior than its been for the last few years. The much brighter, crisper LCD display is just one of the current hardware joys I'm basking in. The move from EIDE to SATA, DDR to DDR2, single to quad core, and the skipping of several generations of GPU in one fell swoop are a few more overdue changes I'm enjoying at the moment.

AMD and NVIDIA, you rock my face off, and have done so for a long time. It's a pity AMD purchased ATI instead. Gigabyte, I never knew your motherboards could be so amazingly all-encompassing. Copper, baby! Western Digital, you're the best. Cooler Master and Corsair, thanks for a great case and power supply.

Some of you might actually ask, "Why build?" For those of you out there who know the joy of scouting parts and assembling your own box, the answer to that question is an easy one. The last time I bought a pre-manufactured computer was the Dell Inspiron 8000 laptop I purchased back at the very beginning of the millennium.

I had left Seattle to undertake a previously feared odyssey of travel and rootlessness, which lasted about five years. During that time, I learned valuable lessons regarding life and my perception of the universe. A bit of a vague summation, I realize, but nonetheless accurate. The laptop was my way of staying mobile while I pursued what I then thought was my destiny as a "published" writer.

I will never buy a computer put together by a commercial computer manufacturer ever again. I had built my own rigs before the laptop, and I will continue to do so for the rest of my life. The advantages of assembling your own computer are many, and you you'll never beat the price. The one advantage of buying from a manufacturer is the included tech support; but for those paying attention, depending on others for help with computer-related issues is completely unnecessary.

That Dell laptop was fraught with all kinds of problems. I was philosophical about it, as I had wisely purchased an extended three-year warranty. The keyboard needed replacing twice. The native resolution of the screen was vastly inferior to the LCD I now use, due to many advances in the technology since then. The power brick was subject to a massive recall, due to a potentially flammable constitution. The touch pad and pointing stick were so unreliable, I completely abandoned them for a PS2 mouse instead. The hard drive went toes up, literally within a month of the warranty expiration!

So, the advantage I sought with the laptop was not worth the overall low quality of the unit. The laptop was very expensive at the time, and I mistakenly justified the cost by looking only at the convenience of mobility. Personally Assembled Desktops forever, my friends! They are a key to happiness in the universe of computation.

Back to present day. I have now experienced the interactive immersion that is Half Life 2, the adrenaline that is F.E.A.R., and the artistic beauty that is Bioshock.

Is my life better because I'm playing these games?

You bet!

Nostalgia with a slice of humble pie

2009-10-01T07:37:00.036-05:00

Twenty-eight years ago today, on October 1, 1981, I appeared on a stage in a high school auditorium with four other musicians. The name of our band was Leadfoot. We played one song only; our performance was positioned at the end of the talent show. The song was a cover called Victim of Changes by Judas Priest.

The auditorium was in Highline High School, in south Seattle. I had graduated the previous year from a different school, and met one of the members of the band where he and I worked, the now defunct Lewis & Clark Theaters. Coincidentally, my graduating class of 1980 at Glacier High School was the last one; they closed the school down afterward. I may be mistaken, but with the exception of the bass player, I think the rest of the band were senior class members of Highline High School.

These were the days before the "grunge" sound was pushed by upstart Seattle-based recording label Sub Pop Records, bought by L.A.-based recording labels and then sold back to the world as the official Seattle music scene. Having grown up in Seattle, and having actually been a part of the 80's and 90's Seattle music scene, I can tell you without qualification that at the time the grunge format erupted on the world, the vast majority of bands in Seattle were not playing grunge music, but instead some form of hard or progressive rock. The entire hype was a deliberate alteration of the truth for the sake of selling a sound that only a tiny part of the Seattle music underground cared about at that point. Amazing what smart advertising and slick production can accomplish.

Be that as it may, some interesting music did come out of the recording industry's grunge hype, so my intent here is not to deny the popularity of the pre-fab flannel-shirt rock stars of Seattle. It's to provide a personal insight to the pitfalls of seeking celebrity.

I'll never forget that auspicious day in 1981. There I was, a singer with no previous live experience, performing a song that I knew few other people could correctly sing note-for-note, to a "sold out" standing-room-only auditorium with 600+ seats, including a balcony. As the first arpeggios came from the guitars, I waited backstage, having no clue what I was going to do. Then, when the entire band was playing the last part of the intro, I walked out from my hiding place. To my amazement, the crowd roared... I surmised it was simply because "the singer" was walking to the front of the stage. The adrenaline was so strong at that moment that my mouth had gone completely dry and I was operating on instinct only, since the experience at this point was simultaneously frightening and exhilarating.

I walked to the edge of the stage, turned around so that my back was to the crowd, and waited until my first line arrived. When the time came, I abruptly turned around and sang the line, "Whisky woman don't you know that you are drivin' me insane!"

What happened next is what stays with me to this day. Right after I sang the line, the crowd exploded with a roar so intense that I could feel the pressure on my face. At that moment, my stage fright subsided, and our band went on to perform a song that people who attended Highline at that time still remembered years later. To say the experience was like a highly addictive drug is no exaggeration, if everything I've read about drug addiction is accurate.

Based on that initial experience of performing in public, I went on for eighteen more years, with various bands, trying to regain that feeling. Through all those years, all of the musicians I worked with, all of the shows I played, and all the fun I had, I never did recapture the thrill of that moment.

The reason why I officially "quit music" back in 1998 had nothing to do with the excellent project I was working on at the time. I had finally realized that for some reason, I was given a tiny taste of rock stardom on my very first attempt, and that there were no signs of it ever coming back again. I finally came to grips with the difference between destiny and desire, and between reality and delusion.

The unattractive fact I had refused to face for those eighteen years was that certain key factors that caused a person to attain rock stardom were not under my control. I bought the lie that people are sold daily: that merely a strong desire for something is enough to acquire it. I'm a very positive person, but teaching 6,000 children that all of them can be rock stars if they really want it bad enough is inaccurate and cruel, especially when the odds are only one in that 6,000 will achieve such "success." That 6000 number is from 1990, by the way.

Time has provided me with the opportunity to look closer at my life, motivations and necessities for happiness. In my case, it turns out I am more content to remain relatively anonymous, as the former desire to be famous has been overpowered by a stronger desire to maintain a simple life, free from complication and stress. Does this mean I no longer wish my thoughts to be heard? No. But the selfish ambition I was once saddled with has been tossed aside for a pursuit of truth, whatever that truth may be. Now, the most gratifying experience for me would not be iconic apotheosis, but instead a simple respect for ideas and accomplishments that somehow lend meaning to whatever this life turns out to be for all of us.

I now remember the day in 1981 with fondness, as opposed to longing. Earlier this year, I was reconnected with musicians I played with back in 1992, and we're taking our time working on a CD that went unfinished due to our breakup. It's been an enlightening reminder that for all those years, had I pursued music out of a love for music only, and not as a stepping stone to fame, I probably would have been more satisfied with the results, instead of being constantly frustrated that I wasn't "making it."

I don't care about fame and fortune anymore. What I care about now is enjoying whatever time I have left on this earth, without the shackles of media-fed fantasies that contribute more to individual vanity and the bank accounts of media magnates than the uplifting of the human spirit.

The BFP cometh

2009-09-18T13:46:00.004-05:00

Yes!

The final part arrived from Newegg today. The world will never be the same.

Tonight I create the Box o' Fragadelic Power.

I have always been a fan of delayed gratification, if for nothing else, it's kinder to your wallet when you're working in an industry that doesn't flood your bank account with embarrassing wealth. But now, after *three years* of waiting for all the prices to come down to a point where I can swoop in and get the best deal, I will soon be setting affinity four ways to make all my processing dreams come true, as well as playing the most demanding games in existence with a custom box that will heartily laugh at all their system requirements.

At times like these, I can be given to hyperbole, and I didn't spare my wife any last night. I announced that I felt a change in my life coming, an immensely positive alteration, and that it would be predicated somehow on the existence of my soon-to-be-magnificent Gaming, Programming and Digital Audio Workstation machine.

Tonight I'm gonna party like it's 2012.

The Value of Open Minds

2009-09-14T16:42:00.015-05:00

My parents, with perhaps only incidental intentions, gave me a great gift. It was the gift of letting me make up my own mind regarding not only the existence of God, but also, if I chose to believe in a god, they allowed me to select my own method of belief. They more than likely decided to *not* indoctrinate me to their spiritual beliefs for no other reason than their own disillusionment with the religion they both happened to be raised with.

Regardless of their motivations, the result was that I had the freedom to decide these issues on my own. This is the gift I wish to also impart to my own children someday, if my wife and I are fortunate enough to conceive at some point.

The value of this lack of indoctrination can't be sufficiently expressed. In a world where people form their opinions early, and rarely step away from them for the entirety of their lives, the chance to truly make up your own mind without any sort of pressure in any direction is priceless.

Therefore, whatever it is I chose to believe about the universe, it wasn't handed down to me by my family or friends' religious convictions, or for that matter, my institutional peers. Richard Dawkins seems to assume that ideological indoctrination only occurs within a religious context. An interesting assumption, but not very sound, as the dogma of evolutionary biology has its own petri dish of viral transference.

I submit that an open mind is better equipped to discover "truth" regarding the universe. By open mind, I'm not referring to an automatic consideration of every wacky idea that crosses one's desk. I'm specifically speaking about looking deeper at questions raised regarding any particular scientific theory, instead of consistently explaining them away with imaginative reasons that guarantee the general theory remains intact. The latter is the starkly obvious procedure of the stubborn adherent.

Dawkins dances around the big "why" questions by assigning them vacuous status. "Vacuous" is a serious adjective, and coming from a man who seems to be devoting far too much personal and professional time to debunking spiritual beliefs, it reveals the bias by which he is hopelessly controlled.

To declare that asking "why" is a meaningless venture because there is ultimately no reason for anything, is a lazy way to avoid the issue. Surely a no-name, unknown, non-degreed, unimportant philistine like me should know better than to dare call such a distinguished, brilliant, respected and accomplished sage like Dawkins a lazy scientist.

And yet I will continue to do so until he (and others like him) admit their grand folly that prevents the world's total acceptance of their dogma: they possess the same sort of tunnel vision as those they deem scientifically ignorant.

How have the Darwinian Dittos managed to miss the fact that something they view as so entirely self-evident is not necessarily so? These purveyors of pretentious prattle seek to convince the world, through relentless insistence, that the innate human desire to seek the *why* of mysteries in the universe is in itself a primitive, ignorant, un-evolved, knee-jerk-behavioral activity; one that could never possibly bear fruit in the realm of the physical sciences.

How far would that approach have taken us historically in the realm of science if we just accepted everything at its face value, and assigned logical-sounding theories the status of fact, just because they seemed to make sense?

One of the most devious (but not very original) methods these wise men employ to pull in more converts is the age-old comparison to fairies, goblins, sea monsters, Santa Claus, and name-your-imaginary-entity. That's all very fine and dandy; there is no known way to prove the three-dimensional, physical existence of a god. However, this kind of intellectual pressure has somehow failed to stamp out the delusion so many human beings allegedly suffer from.

If the unchallenged verity of Science should be enough to forever obliterate any lingering desire to believe in a primitive superstition such as a "creator of the universe," then why do many highly skilled and formally educated scientists still choose to believe in this nonsensical boogie-man/heavenly Father? Can't these intelligent, accomplished and sometimes brilliant minds see the cognitive dissonance of their belief systems?

Dawkins, Dennett, et al, haven't learned, and may never learn, that the subjective nature of humanity, and the perhaps limitless possibilities of a highly complex and still somewhat unrevealed universe, will always prevent them from turning the world into a bunch of nodding yes-people, bowing to their god of exceptional intellect, Charles Darwin.

I say, hey, if that's what floats your boat, go on ahead. March on with your alarmist propaganda regarding the "dangerous" belief in God. All those who continue to believe in this "imaginary" entity know full well that your accusations are groundless, faceless, hapless and hopeless. The misdeeds of humankind do *not* require the flag of religion to make history a sometimes unpleasant recollection. If Dawkins, et al were being entirely honest, they would have to admit that the beneficial results of humanity's spiritual disposition far outweigh the heinous headlines blasted from anti-religious literature.

The entire world will never sway to one side of the fence. This is somehow guaranteed in the biological/sociological mix, lack of scientific data notwithstanding. I'm merely making an unscientific observation, but the greatest of scientists would be hard pressed to falsify that statement with actual lab results.

Truth be known, at the risk of sounding condescending, I actually feel sorry for people like Dawkins. Not for the reasons he might guess, such as "I'm saved and he isn't," or the ever popular "he's deceived by Satan." No, nothing quite as dramatic. I feel pity for Dawkins because he's not even aware of the fullness of existence that a belief in God can bestow upon the believer. He and I both believe we only get one shot at this life; which one of us probably possesses more hope?

He would likely comment that he is happier in the knowledge that he's not deluded.

If that is the sort of happiness he thinks is near the summit of human experience, then I say, have at it, Richard, enjoy. Take comfort in all the meaningless events caused by meaningless people who will all become, as you and I will, meaningless fertilizer in a meaningless world, in a random universe that holds no purpose whatsoever.

I'd rather bask instead in the "pathetic, ignorant delusion" that Someone or Something else is "out there," and that there is far more depth to existence than statistically near-impossible accidents in a three-dimensional mass of inexplicable energy and information.

And by the way, Richard: the vast majority of the "believers" out there have absolutely *zero* interest in dismantling your precious edifice of conjecture. In the final analysis, most of them literally couldn't care less about your academic theories. They're too busy working, raising families, and trying to make sense of life to bother with your esoteric ideas and necessity for validation.

Darwinian Dogma

2009-09-11T01:17:00.011-05:00

I was reading in bed tonight, and I had an idea. Not wanting to wake my wife, I quietly got out of bed, turned out the light, and came downstairs to share this idea with anyone reading this blog.

In the same way human beings rage about abortion, politics, and religion, and in the same way all families with more than one child seem to possess a constant state of sibling friction from what I informally refer to as the "Cain and Abel" effect, and in the same way our more recent U.S. presidential elections are hair's-breadth close in the popular vote... well, basically, we are somehow statistically guaranteed (as a species) to not agree in certain fundamental ways of looking at the world.

Darwinian Dogma vs. Intelligent Design. That's what the "modern" argument regarding biological evolution boils down to. For clarity here, I will state that modifications to a species are proven to occur, so that is not in dispute; it's when Darwin's theory is extended to the creation of *new* species that the controversy arises. To date, there is neither conclusive fossil nor reproducible experimental evidence of the creation of new species via natural selection. Thus the "creationists" won't be silenced, regardless of intellectual intimidation and other censoring methodologies of the neo-Darwinians.

Each side is inflexibly devoted to its own view of the universe, but the two separate approaches to the debate are not at all similar.

Intelligent Design (ID) proponents obviously formed their universe-view from a belief in some sort of creative higher intelligence, whatever it may be. The origin of this belief is not in dispute, although neo-Darwinians claim that this particular belief is the "hidden" basis of the ID agenda. The more accurate description of the ID camp is that they simply want to look at evidence from a different perspective. While the core motivation of ID proponents may be "religious," their desire to examine the physical evidence from a different angle can hardly be called ignorant or superstitious. History is more than full of examples of how correct explanations of previously not-understood phenomena were initially considered too fantastic to be believable. And... hasn't quantum physics sufficiently demonstrated that reality doesn't always conform to what our intuition tells us is correct?

Darwinian fanboys, however, due to their unwillingness to peer at the evidence through any lens but the suggestions presented in "The Origin of Species," have backed themselves into the ugly corner of constantly defending the various recognized discrepancies in the theory. When a conclusive answer is not available, the neo-Darwinian's official response is always some form of "the fossil record is incomplete," or "the critics are being unscientific."

And the standard catcall of the Darwinian Scoffers? Isn't their ultimate objection to Intelligent Design that it simply isn't a viable, scientific, legitimate explanation? Not "true science?" Or more simply stated, they reject all criticism of the Darwinian paradigm by declaring that "what value is criticism without a 'viable' alternative explanation for the origin of biological life?"

For once, it would be nice to experience a little honesty, instead of all the vehement adherence by both sides to their own beliefs. This is what it truly comes down to: the same tunnel vision that causes humans to bicker about abortion or the death penalty is the same strange trait that makes us feud about the origin of biological life.

We bring our own preconceptions to the table; both sides are guilty of this. All the accusations of ignorance, dogma, lack of scientific license, dishonesty, etc., etc., etc.... they are a waste of time and breath. The truth is our origin may forever remain a mystery, or better yet, when the empirical truth is finally discovered, it may be something that surprises both sides of the evolution argument.

What was the idea I had while reading tonight? Try this on for size...

While an actual proof of the existence of God may never be possible in this reality, there is something I *do* believe is possible: an alternative explanation for existence that is empirically testable in a controlled environment. Make no mistake; I *am* referring to an alternative to Darwin's theory, as well as an alternative to the assumption of the random, big bang universe.

Why do I believe these alternative explanations are possible? Because I'm working on them.

I'm a crazy nut?

We'll see.

Of course, there is the odd aspect of human stubbornness that God Himself could come to earth, get more TV coverage than the Superbowl, eliminate disease and pollution, perform a whole host of other miracles... and there would still be people insisting that it was all attributable to "natural," randomly occurring phenomena. Such is the considerable depth of the Cain and Abel effect I mentioned at the beginning of this blog.

Insomnia

2009-09-04T00:25:00.000-05:00

Once again, I can't fall asleep.

My mind gets to reeling about all kinds of things, such as why life's events play out the way they do, and the result is an inability to simply put my head on the pillow and drift off.

My mother passed away one year ago this month, on the 20th. What does anyone do with that? I still don't understand it. It happens every day, all around the world. It's happened since life first existed, and it will go on happening, regardless of technological promises of immortality.

I wish I could talk to her again. I wish she could have seen me get married last April. If my wife and I are fortunate enough to have children, I wish my mother could have held them. I know she would have experienced overwhelming joy from that simple act.

What does anyone do with this kind of thing? Death makes all the rest of our concerns seem so petty and unworthy of worry. There's no way to bring her back, no way to completely console my father, who is still struggling with his heartbreaking loss.

When I was younger, I had some grandiose plans for my future. I was certain my destiny included fame and fortune. The adolescent dreams many kids entertain for their teen years and perhaps some twenties, I held dear for much longer. It took a strange odyssey across America during the last ten years for me to completely let go of those childish aspirations. In the process I met a woman I had given up hope of ever finding.

So I guess life is much like that. No matter how confident we are, or how we try to set up our lives in the way we feel most content, there is the element of fortune, both good and bad. It's a parameter many dismiss, but none escape. Most people would like to imagine they have the power to make all their own decisions, but when you trim it down to the most fundamental aspects of existence, that perception of personal power is nothing but illusion.

Once more, I ask, what do you do with that?

There are a great many individuals living in the world today who would love nothing more than to tear the hope of God or things spiritual away from those who "cling" to them.

To them I say: keep your cynical proclamations for your own tortured ruminations. Leave the rest of us alone to our "childish delusions." At least the hope we cherish does not rely on the limitless treachery of human self-conceit for validation.

Hysterics Are in the Details

2009-09-02T23:36:00.000-05:00

I originally published this essay on my site at 7162.com, on July 28th, 2009. It was a response to a New York Times op-ed by Sam Harris, published on July 26th. Harris's original op-ed can be read at either:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/opinion/27harris.html
or
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/science-is-in-the-details/
I found it interesting that neither location provided opportunity for readers' comments.

Once again, the hysterical rally chant of the militant atheist has been initialized, this time by Sam Harris, in regard to President Obama's nomination of Francis Collins for director of the National Institute of Health.

In the New York Times' July 26th, 2009 op-ed, Harris pleads his case with a block of logical Swiss cheese; allow me to point out the holes for all the readers out there who may be too busy cheering to notice.

There is an epidemic of scientific ignorance in the United States.

While Harris has this fact correct, and he reminds us that much of science is counterintuitive to one's common sense, he also brandishes hyperbole by making the tired statement that "few things make thinking like a scientist more difficult than religion." Where exactly is the scientific data regarding this assertion? It is purely anecdotal and a much overused attack against "religion," one that bears no factual basis. The knee-jerk atheistic idea that science, and a belief in the existence of a god, are forever at odds is one of the unfortunate myths that Francis Collins has spent a great deal of time trying to debunk. Perhaps Harris would benefit from a more open mind? Certainly a philosophical almost-scientist such as Sam can't be truly as effective if he only views his work through the tunnel of currently acceptable conjecture, an "innovative" history of Ecstasy abuse notwithstanding.

Two statistically supported reasons for scientific ignorance in the United States are: public schools training students for government-mandated standardized tests instead of simply teaching more science, and a general disinterest in science among older children. It never has been "cool" to be knowledgeable regarding science. That is the fault of our culture, not of individuals who believe in a higher power.

Harris mentions how Collins has indicated that science, instead of proving God impossible, actually makes a belief in God "intensely plausible." Then Harris goes on to say that when Collins can't explain supposedly controversial evidence regarding God, Collins simply retreats to the chestnut that God stands outside of nature, thus supposedly relieving Collins of a true scientific explanation. For atheists, this appears to be evidence of delusion or rationalization. For individuals with an open mind, this is merely one more theory. The "scientific community" is certainly not lacking for wild and improbable theories regarding phenomena not currently understood in full. Just don't commit the faux pas of referencing a higher power.

Harris complains when Collins correctly states that science cannot address the question of God's existence; but where are the complaints for all the other important questions that science also can't answer? There is certainly no shortage of those, yet only the question of the existence or non-existence of God seems to draw so much public attention.

Next Harris carps about the apparent contradiction between our moral intuitions and the carnage of natural catastrophe, as though the existence of a morally superior being would automatically eliminate what we view as unfairness in the world. It's a shame that many people who are chronologically adults still find confusion in such an immature objection to a higher power. It's as though Harris thinks because we have a sense of moral fairness, it automatically follows that the god who originated it must chase us around like toddlers, hour after hour, wiping our noses and changing our diapers. Would it truly be more "merciful" to live in an antiseptic world where nothing bad ever happened? Only a child who hasn't learned the necessity of adversity in the building of character would whine in such a way.

The next "controversy" Harris raises is Collins's idea that possibly at some moment in the history of our species, God "inserted" an immortal soul, free will, the moral law, spiritual hunger, genuine altruism, etc. Harris is "troubled" by Collins's line of thinking. He believes that such thinking would "seriously undercut" fields of neuroscience. Harris's reasoning? It's that most neuroscientists agree that minds are made from the physical structure of the brain only, so therefore any other explanation of mind, consciousness, and moral sense is unacceptable on the face of it. A strange dogma indeed, especially for the field of cognitive science. Never have so many people disagreed about a proper theory for something, as they have regarding human consciousness. For those readers not familiar with the current state of affairs in cognitive science: not only is there no conclusive explanation for our minds, there is admittedly no currently known way to test the myriad theories flying around the scientific community.

Are we to believe that such an impressively accomplished scientist like Francis Collins would try to prevent particular tangents of neuroscientific research, simply because his personal beliefs might not be immediately reconciled with the possible results? This from a man (Collins) who readily admits that human understanding regarding the workings of God is by its very nature limited? Why would a scientist who supposedly explains away contradiction have any problem with research that reveals more about the physical workings of the brain? The contradiction here seems to be with Harris, who fears future research being censored by Collins, who has clearly been knowledge-driven, not ignorance-driven, thus far.

Harris is worried about Collins's agenda, but in fact Harris has his own agenda. It is the opposite of Collins's agenda: that all physical and non-physical workings in the universe can only be explained without the possibility of a higher power anywhere in the mix. While those steeped in atheism may applaud the "honesty" of this currently popular approach, the very parameters of such an agenda themselves limit the eventual results of thusly-inspired research. This of course would have the same exact result of what Harris fears from Collins's approach: a possibility of missing something important, due to tunnel vision.

Harris also brings two Collins statements into question: that "science offers no answers to the most pressing questions of human existence" and that "the claims of atheistic materialism must be steadfastly resisted."

The first statement is undoubtedly true, as any philosophy major can attest. The second statement is Collins's personal opinion, and should not be confused with a Dr. Zaius-like suppression of truth. Harris's cherry-picked sentence fragment seems to paint Dr. Collins as someone who is out to rip evolution out of our schools or bring the world of atheism to its knees in a nationwide coup. Surely none of the readers are gullible enough to think that a man with Collins's list of accomplishments would suddenly do an about-face and begin deliberately undermining future research? If one stops to think about it, one must admit how hysterical this fear sounds.

Harris takes a toss at the wishing well, and supposes the reverse engineering of the physical aspects of the brain might yield answers to heady philosophical questions. Well, perhaps it might. I'd bet the farm that Dr. Collins would be right there handing out the awards to the scientist(s) who manage to make such a connection. After all, science is ultimately a search for truth, right? Where in Collins's stated "agenda" does any indication of silencing truth appear? It doesn't; dig for yourselves. Collins isn't trying to undermine anything; he's merely trying to reconcile what he knows with what he believes. That in itself wouldn't have any negative effects on scientific research. In Collins's case, it hasn't so far, according to Collins's impressive accomplishments listed by Harris himself in the original op-ed.

Harris ends his frightened call-to-arms with a nice twisting of Collins's statements. Suddenly, Collins's quotes regarding the unexplainable being attributable to current human lack of understanding have morphed into a blanket statement that all of science can never understand human nature. This is a deliberately negative extrapolation, intended to make Collins seem like a religious dictator who will purposely squelch any research that doesn't fit his spiritual beliefs. Really? We're supposed to believe that none other than the former head of the Human Genome Project has now decided to prevent human beings from learning anything more about humanity?

Harris, give us all a break and go have tea with Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, in that exclusive little café where everyone sips the same bland blend.

An objection to propaganda

2009-09-01T17:12:00.000-05:00

I recently made the common mistake of spending too much time poking around YouTube. I was clicking from one video to another, and happened on one from a series which presents reasons why people laugh at creationists. Like so much of YouTube, one has to wonder why anyone takes the time to create an entire collection of videos devoted to a hopelessly polarized debate, but of course, I can't judge because I also felt compelled to leave a comment. Mystery.

One user also felt compelled to comment on my comment, and we traded a few personal messages. The end of the discourse was my final answer to him, after he had downshifted into popular myths surrounding the intellectual motivations of Christians in general. Here, for all to see, is my final answer to him or her, after which I decided to spend my time more productively by closing any remaining YouTube pages:

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

Science explores and reveals truth regarding the physical structures of the universe, and the laws that somehow rule those structures. Beyond that, it holds no special place, other than in the minds of those who regard it as much more than a way to reveal the "secrets" of the natural world.

I must stringently disagree with your opinion regarding the "threat" of creationists (or any other metaphysically motivated individuals or organizations). It is a tired comparison to dredge up the ignorant ideas and activities of the past. This is the 21st century, and no country in the developed world would ever even *vaguely* consider dismantling science simply because some branch of it happens to allegedly refute the basic tenets of a particular religious belief system.

By allowing yourself to be swept up in that sort of paranoia, you only contribute to the fracas. As has been proven many, many times historically, when science produces a physically provable truth that overturns a religious belief, there is an initial resistance, but then there must always be acceptance.

The principle reason, like it or not, that evolution still gathers such resistance, isn't because creationists want to attack and grind anything to dust, but because there hasn't been sufficient proof of origin via evolution by natural selection. Plain and simple. If science wishes to grind the "unlearned" masses' "ignorant" beliefs into dust, it merely has to physically prove the alleged "facts" of evolution with something other than clever and imaginative conjecture. The creationists are mostly people who, despite their dogmatic view, simply wish to reconcile their beliefs with the known geologic record. That isn't a crime, nor anything to be fearful of.

These aren't the dark ages, and no laboratories will be burned to the ground for saying that Genesis is nonsense, or that God is non-existent. These particular assertions have been publicly proclaimed for decades, without any violent or subversive repercussions. Where is the expected fallout? Science continues to move forward. To suggest that creationists are a danger to the forward progress of science is nothing more than a cheap misdirection from a collection of insecure "intellectuals" who don't even possess enough faith in their own scientific dogma to weather any opposing opinions.

Yes, dogma. Evolution, by virtue of this silly debacle that shows no signs of fading away in the public forum, has gone from scientific idea to sacred cow. It doesn't matter that extrapolating the fundamental theory has been an aid to other branches of science; the dispute has never been about the proven results of applied theory in a laboratory. But if you think the success of particular applications is a blanket proof that every posit using evolution as a basis is automatically free from defect, then you're guilty of the same sort of dogmatic view you're needlessly afraid of from the other "camp."

If you can't see clear to refrain from crying wolf about those who pose no actual threat, at least find some comfort in the *fact* that historically speaking, science continues to move forward, and the truths it discovers will always cut a deeper path than any attempts to refute them. I mean, come on... why fear so-called ignorant ideas that are supposedly destined to be exposed by the blinding light of truth? Seems like a lot of wasted energy. No one's going to break down your door for discovering truth, though some may be disoriented for a while.

By the way, I don't know who you've been listening to or reading, but your paragraph that reads:

"Creationists want to undo science itself. They want to take methodological naturalism, the scientific method, and the other pillars of science, and remove them from public discourse. They want to attack and destroy established scientific principles, learned over centuries with the help of numerous, usually nameless, people, and grind them into dust. They want to destroy any aspect of science that so much as looks wrongly at their dogma."

is a shameful distortion of real life. Creationists don't want to do any of the ridiculous things you're stating. They merely want to have a voice in the discussion. It is actually certain sections of the "scientific community" that are guilty of intellectual browbeating, legislative pressure and public ridicule. They're the ones who make the rules, and state with disdain that those who don't accept the theory of evolution *as fact* are ignorant, deluded, uneducated and primitive morons, unworthy of approaching the holy tabernacle of scientific discussion.

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

Of course, when I hit the send button to deliver my final message, the satisfaction didn't quite measure up to the time and consideration I had applied to my response.

So much for late-night nonsense.