Category Archives: Musings

Teenage Wasteland: Media Inaccuracy, or Something Else?

By | |
Comments Off on Teenage Wasteland: Media Inaccuracy, or Something Else?

When is a 19-year-old not an adult? When it serves someone else’s purpose to label him a “teenager.”

Adults Only
(“Adults Only,” by Pam Morris, on Flickr under Creative Commons.)

According to CNN,

Before authorities arrested him at O’Hare International Airport and accused him of attempting to provide aid to ISIS, a teen from the Chicago suburbs left behind a letter for his parents.

Mohammed Hamzah Khan, 19, wrote that he was leaving the United States and on the way to join ISIS, according to a criminal complaint. He invited his family to join him in the three-page letter, which authorities found in the bedroom he shared with a sibling in Bolingbrook, Illinois. But he warned them not to tell anyone about his travel plans, the complaint said.

The headline — which seems disingenuous in the extreme, given the opening paragraphs — is, “Was arrested teen on his way to join ISIS?”

Throughout the CNN article, as well as on NBC and ABC and other outlets, the young man is referred to as a “teen.” Correct in the strict sense of the word, perhaps, but misleading: this was an adult, of legal age, despite being technically a teenager.

Someone casually reading the headline could make the honest mistake that this was a minor, rather than an adult responsible for his actions. To persist in calling him a “teen” is to imply that his choice to pursue affiliation with ISIS was some youthful folly, rather than a deliberate decision.

The correct news headline — the accurate news headline — would have been “Chicago Man Arrested on His Way to Join ISIS.”

I leave it to the reader to consider why journalists and editors might have made this choice.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Does the Human Eye Prove that God Exists?

By | | ,
Comments Off on Does the Human Eye Prove that God Exists?

To answer the question right out of the gate, I’d say no, because no single phenomenon or example can “prove” that God exists.


(Someone is watching you ….)

The question comes from the headline of an article in The Telegraph — in the “film” section, no less — that discusses what a wondrous mechanism the human eye is, with its “astonishing inbuilt systems.”

Take, for example, a little trick called the vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR). In short, it’s our own personal Steadicam — an inbuilt muscular response that stabilises everything we see, by making tiny imperceptible eye movements in the opposite direction to where our head is moving. Without VOR, any attempts at walking, running — even the minuscule head tremors you make while you read these words — would make our vision blurred, scattered and impossible to comprehend.

As one who finds very jittery camera work in movies (like District 9) and some video game action (like the rolling ball in Katamari Damacy) very disorienting — to the point of physical illness — I am very grateful for the VOR!

But that’s not all:

… researchers have discovered the retina is doing a huge amount of pre-processing itself – and that as light passes through the retina’s several dense layers of neurons, a lot of detail like colour, motion, orientation and brightness are determined.

When I took a laser safety course (many years ago), we were told that the retina was put together opposite the way an optical engineer would have designed it, because the rods and cones actually point backward, into the retina itself, instead of forward toward the lens. This newly-found pre-processing function may have something to do with that, though personally I wonder if turning the sensors around would make our eyes more susceptible to damage from very intense lights.

Things like that make the question of deliberate design vs. development by natural selection interesting. As the article puts it,

Even today, Christians and creationists believe that Charles Darwin himself was troubled by its existence — seizing upon an (oft-misquoted) aside in Origin of Species, where Darwin remarked that the whole idea of something so flawless “could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

The full Darwin quote, with the important next sentence, is:

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.

Thus something that seems absurd may still be possible, and even reasonable. The question is whether it matters. For instance, whether it matters to a believer that sufficiently different eyes can be understood by natural selection to lead to the human eye. Or whether it matters to an unbeliever that the believer attributes the eye’s complexity to the influence of a creative God.

The eye still exists, and some of us can praise God for it even though its existence is insufficient to prove that God exists.

And that’s okay. After all, faith is “the evidence of things not seen.”*

___
*Hebrews 11:1 (KJV)

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Swamped

By | |
Comments Off on Swamped

I haven’t posted, haven’t sent out a newsletter, haven’t done much of anything since before our trip to the World SF Convention.

P5205540
(Image by Hunter Desportes, on Flickr under Creative Commons.)

I am still here, still working, just … swamped.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Happy Declaration-Signing Day

By | | ,
Comments Off on Happy Declaration-Signing Day

The Continental Congress passed the Declaration of Independence on the 2nd of July, 1776, and then gathered on the 4th to sign it.

On July 8th, Thomas Jefferson sent a copy to my 5-times-great grandfather, John Page, who was President of the Virginia Council. Page wrote back on the 20th:

I am highly pleased with your Declaration. God preserve the united States — We know the Race is not to the swift nor the Battle to the strong. Do you not think an Angel rides in the Whirlwind and directs this Storm?

 

Page wrote to John Hancock the same day that Virginia’s citizens “have been impatiently expecting it, and will receive it with joy.”

What did he mean by “impatiently expecting it”? The calls for Independence had grown quite strong throughout the colonies before the Declaration was finalized, and in fact the delegates had been debating the resolution since it was introduced on June 7th. But even back in April, Page had written to Jefferson,

For God’s sake declare the colonies independant [sic], at once, & save us from ruin

The fervor for Independence was so strong that the delegates pledged their “Lives, … Fortunes, and … sacred Honor” to the cause. Though not a delegate, Page himself was as dedicated as any of them: he served as an officer in the Virginia militia, raised a regiment and contributed to it from his own money, and even donated the lead from the casements of his windows to be made into bullets.

When I was in high school, our English teacher gave us all copies of Paul Harvey’s little book about the Declaration and its signers, and to each of us he inscribed a challenge: “What will you give?” I ask myself that question every 4th of July.

Often I conclude that I have much more that I could, and should, give.

___
Letters quoted from The Declaration of Independence: Its History …, by John Hampden Hazelton.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

My Reluctance to Offer Writing Advice

By | |
4 Comments

Are you an aspiring writer, looking for advice on how to get started, how to craft a story, and/or how to get that story published? Would you like me to give you my ideas on any or all of those subjects?

written in slumber
(Image: “Written in Slumber,” by matryosha, from Flickr under Creative Commons)

If you read this blog much at all, you know that I don’t offer much in the way of writing advice. A lot of my friends post advice, often quite good, on their blogs. Some deliver great practical advice on the tedious task of sitting down and pounding out prose; others share thoughtful insights into the elements of stories and how writers, like alchemists, transmute leaden ideas into golden tales of wonder and delight.

Why don’t I offer writing advice? Why am I reluctant to do so? I think it’s a combination of imposter syndrome — my own insecurity about my grasp of the craft — and my perception that there’s more than enough writing advice being passed around already.

If I’m wrong about that, let me know.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

My Friends

By | |
2 Comments

The other day I posted on Facebook that “I have some pretty cool friends.” What did I mean by that?

Friendship
(“Friendship,” by Celestine Chua, from Flickr under Creative Commons.)

I posted the following clarification, which I include here for any readers who aren’t on Facebook:

My friends are passionate, smart, funny, creative, inventive, and all around good people.

Some of my friends make music, some make furniture, some make policy; some make people laugh, some make people comfortable, some make really good food that they don’t mind sharing. Some write books, some write poetry, some write academic papers; some write computer programs, some write thank you notes, some write recipes. Some paint portraits, some paint houses. It doesn’t matter if they are creating some new work of art or creating a friendly environment that they share with other people, I can’t think of a single exception to the statement that my friends make my life better and make the world a better place.

So, again: I have some pretty cool friends.

And if you’re reading this, then I reckon you’re one of my pretty cool friends. So, thanks!

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

My Song ‘Tauntauns to Glory’ Made the Pegasus Award ‘Brainstorming Poll’

By | | ,
Comments Off on My Song ‘Tauntauns to Glory’ Made the Pegasus Award ‘Brainstorming Poll’

I have no idea who suggested it, but I appreciate whomever-it-was putting what is arguably my most popular song up for consideration during the “brainstorming” phase of the Pegasus Award cycle.

Pegasus Award Logo

This does not mean that the song has been officially nominated, because the Pegasus Awards operate in three parts: first, the brainstorming; second, the nominating; and finally, the voting.

The nominating phase is open now, and folks may nominate up to five artists/songs per category:

  • Best Writer/Composer
  • Best Performer
  • Best Filk Song
  • Best Classic Filk Song — songs must be at least 10 years old to be considered “classic”
  • Best Adapted Song
  • Best Song of Passage — for which “Tauntauns to Glory” was suggested

As the main site says, “Anyone with an interest in Filking or Filk music can place a nomination and/or vote.” To nominate, use the handy nomination form. If you need ideas on what you might nominate, check out all the results of the Brainstorming Poll.

Nominations must be submitted by 12:01 a.m. PDT, 31 July 2014 — meaning, the first minute after July 30th ends (on the West coast).

Again, thank you to whoever suggested me and my song for the award!

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Why You and I May Never Agree

By | |
4 Comments

This has been fermenting in my mind for some time now. Some folks may think I let it go too far, and have produced figurative vinegar instead of wine. But, vinegar also has it uses.

Straw Man Walking
(Some straw men are more active than others. [Image: “Straw Man Walking” by Ken Bosma, on Flickr under Creative Commons.])

I thought I’d take a stab at why it is not just unlikely that we will ever agree on many issues, but very nearly impossible. I hope you’ll bear with me and forgive any errors I may make.

First, some symbolic language:

  • Let X be a topic upon which we differ. Either you support it and I oppose it, or vice versa.
  • Let A then be some factor related to X which one of us perceives as unfavorable. The other may perceive it as favorable, or may allow that it is not precisely favorable but is also not completely negative.

Now the fun begins.

One of us formulates an argument along the lines of, “I oppose X because of A.” Perhaps we state it just that clearly, or perhaps the unfavorable A is only implied.

The other of us formulates a counter-argument along the lines of, “I support X despite A.” (Or, if we think that A is actually favorable, we might argue, “I support X because of A.”)

(Note that this is different from arguing on one side “I support X because of A,” and on the other side “I oppose X because of B.” There, we are not arguing quite the same cases. Maybe there’s another blog post in that discussion, but I doubt it.)

This “I oppose/support X because of/despite A” type of formulation works for many different arguments, even if we choose to add conditions meant to make our positions complete or more “reasonable.” The more caveats and addenda we add, the more complicated we make our arguments. “I support X, under conditions Y and Z, because of A and B, and despite C.” We might wonder whether the additional conditions are intended to convince our opponents, or ourselves.

(Also, the respective arguments need not be stated in terms of outright support for a particular position. For instance, we could say, “I think X works well despite A,” or “I think X works poorly because of A.”)

With that as a symbolic basis, here’s the crux of why I doubt we will ever agree: Once we have established our relative positions, and do not take the time or make the effort to examine our differing assumptions and premises, neither argument is particularly convincing. As the poem goes, “ne’er the twain shall meet.”

Shall we consider a few examples?

Abortion:

  • “I object to abortion on demand despite a woman having the right to subject her body to whatever procedure she chooses, and because of the effect such a procedure would have on a potential human life growing inside her.”
  • “I support abortion on demand because a woman has the right to subject her body to whatever procedure she chooses, and despite the effect such a procedure would have on a potential human life growing inside of her.”

Gun control:

  • “I support the private ownership of firearms by United States citizens because that right is enshrined in the Second Amendment, and because citizens have the right to defend their lives and property, and despite the terrible and regrettable damage done by lawbreakers using firearms.”
  • “I oppose the private ownership of firearms by United States citizens because of the terrible and regrettable damage done by lawbreakers using firearms, and despite that right being enshrined in the Second Amendment, and despite citizens having the right to defend their lives and property.”

Socialized healthcare:

  • “I oppose socialized healthcare because of the limits it must impose on accessibility and care in order to approach financial viability, and despite the numbers of people who are unable to obtain insurance or care on the open market.”
  • “I support socialized healthcare because of the numbers of people who are unable to obtain insurance or care on the open market, and despite the limits it must impose on accessibility and care in order to approach financial viability.”

(Note that both sides in this case could use reports of people who fall through the metaphorical cracks of either socialized or open-market healthcare systems as “because of” or “despite” factors — because no system of healthcare will ever be perfect.)

The dichotomous arguments can be applied to belief systems as well: “I believe in X because of A,” or “I am skeptical about or do not believe in X despite A.” Perhaps a single example will suffice: Religion.

  • “I have faith in my chosen religion because of the positive effects I have seen in my life and the lives of others, despite the difficulty of squaring all of its tenets with the objective reality of the world around me, and despite the regrettable and sometimes reprehensible things that have been said and done by some of its adherents.”
  • “I have no faith in your (or perhaps any) religion because of the difficulty of squaring its tenets with the objective reality of the world around me, and because of the regrettable and reprehensible things that have been said and done by some of its adherents, and despite the positive effects that you and others have experienced.”

Feel free to formulate your own versions of the above, or your own sets of arguments on both sides of whatever controversies you choose: anthropogenic climate change (formerly known as global warming), the death penalty, debt financing, Keynesian economics, whatever you wish. Post them below, if you like. You may find that it can be difficult, but interesting, to formulate an opposing argument.

Here’s one sure to make people’s eyes water: Societal acceptance, if not normalization, of marriage between homosexuals.

  • “I support limiting the special status of the marriage relationship to men with women, because throughout history and across cultures, even in societies where homosexual relationships have been tolerated or even accepted, the marriage covenant has been limited to men with women; because the ‘norms’ of a society should derive from the majority of the society, and the majority of society is and is likely to remain heterosexual; because homosexual relationships are not a plausible categorical imperative for all of society; because economic and social partnership benefits can be extended to long-term homosexual relationships without conferring on them the special status of marriage; and despite the growing tolerance or even acceptance of openly homosexual behavior in society at large.”
  • “I support extending the special status of the marriage relationship to homosexual unions because of the growing tolerance and even acceptance of openly homosexual behavior in society at large, and despite any objections anyone might raise, and despite any economic or social accommodations that might be offered short of full recognition of marriages between homosexuals.”

I will forego other examples, because this post was already unwieldy enough even before that last controversy. If you’ve made it this far, thank you for your forbearance. Please permit me one last observation.

If these formulations just ended in disagreement, all would be well: you think what you think, I think what I think, and we agree to get along regardless. It gets worse if disagreement results in attempts to silence the other side. But this type of thinking becomes even more of a problem when we direct our argument away from ourselves and what we think is right and toward each other: “You should support/accept/believe in X because of A and despite B.” Left out, but at least somewhat implied, is “because I do,” which at times seems to mean “because I am an intelligent, right-thinking person and believe all intelligent, right-thinking people should support/accept/believe in the things I support/accept/believe in, and therefore if you support/accept/believe in the things I do then I will recognize you as intelligent and right-thinking, too.”

Better, in my opinion, just to disagree.

In closing, Scripture says, “Come, let us reason together.” It does not say, “Come, let us always agree.” We need to be able to handle the disagreement; not, perhaps, ever to like it, but at least to tolerate it. If you can handle the disagreement and I can handle the disagreement, maybe we can move forward together — even if we don’t necessarily want to go in the same direction.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

The Only Answer to the Likes of ‘Boko Haram’

By | | ,
3 Comments

Greek mythology — as well as two landmark works of science fiction — tells us what needs to happen to the savage thugs of “Boko Haram.”

It boils down to this: kill them all.


(“Hercules and the Lion,” by Francisco de Zurbarán (1634). Image from Wikimedia Commons.)

I should make it clear that I am talking about the Islamist militant group colloquially known as “Boko Haram,” because that’s apparently not the group’s real name. And apparently the translations of “Boko Haram” itself are problematic, i.e., “Boko Haram” seems to mean something other than “Western education is a sin”. According to this Wall Street Journal video, which repeats the common but apparently erroneous translation of “boko,” the group’s more formal name is “Jama’tu Ahlis Sunna Lidda’awati wal-Jihad,” which means “People Committed to the Propagation of the Prophet’s Teachings and Jihad.”

But regardless of what they call themselves, or what groups like them call themselves, when they undertake to kidnap, sell into slavery, murder, and so forth, they need to be eradicated like the vermin they are.

Harsh, you say? Un-Christian of me, to call for judgment instead of mercy? So be it.

Sorry, but if you want to show mercy to the vicious brutes who kidnapped those girls and threatened to sell them into slavery, then pat yourself on the back for your enlightened thinking and please get out of the way. Or if you think pleading with them via Twitter hashtags is likely to elicit some mercy on their part, then please consider the possibility that you may be willfully blind to evil in the world. Or if, God forbid, you actually think what ‘Boko Haram’ did was good and proper — positive and laudable in any way — then I hold you as an enemy of all that is decent and respectable. As are those militants themselves.

I can hear the cliched objection that violence is not the answer, but Robert A. Heinlein had what I believe is the definitive answer to that, from Starship Troopers:

Anyone who clings to the historically untrue — and thoroughly immoral — doctrine that ‘violence never settles anything’ I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms.

The best option — the only option, if what we want for Nigeria is freedom and safety — is to destroy them, utterly and forever. We will find it hard to do so, not only because some among us have become soft and unwilling to do the dirty work of liberty but because we are at heart sympathetic people who would prefer not to be destroyed ourselves. But Frank Herbert warned against such sympathies in a Dune epigraph attributed to the Bashar Miles Teg:

Sympathy for the enemy — a weakness of police and armies alike. Most perilous are the unconscious sympathies directing you to preserve your enemies intact because the enemy is your justification for existence.

We do not need “Boko Haram.” Nigeria does not need “Boko Haram.” The world does not need “Boko Haram.” They are like the Nemean lion that terrorized Greece until Heracles strangled it. He got to wear the lion’s impervious skin as armor, but we should be satisfied to bury the rabid dogs in unmarked graves.

But will a Heracles — Nigerian or otherwise — rise up to kill this beast?

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Happy Independent Record Store Day

By | |
Comments Off on Happy Independent Record Store Day

Today — April 19th, 2014 — is an international celebration of independent music stores.


(Independent Record Store Day logo.)

At the Independent Record Store Day website, you can search for the indy record store nearest to you.

Oh, and this isn’t as much of a self-serving post as you might think, since it’s highly unlikely that you will find my CD in any record store. Not that they couldn’t order it, mind you — and if you asked them to, that would be ultra cool — but as a matter of course, they won’t be carrying my music.

But don’t let that stop you! Find an independent record store near you, and go check them out!

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmailby feather