Musings

I suppose I ought to explain a little bit more about my previous post.

I sometimes think about Whitney's Houston song, One Moment in Time. It captures something I want, a driving force if you will... the urge to have that one moment in time, one moment "where I'm all that I thought I could be."

I suppose it's pretty much the top tier of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Self-Actualization.

Computers...

Well. Putting this into words is harder than I thought.

When I learn something, I tend to get a feeling for the connections between things, holistically I guess. I don't really like rote memorization, but if I can sense the connections between things I'm pretty good at remembering how it all fits together. I sometimes use terms like 'see' or 'visualize', but it's more visceral than that. Sort of like building a mental map, or following a flow chart I guess.

When I learn something new, it's a bit like building a puzzle. I get a piece, I find it connects to another piece, and the more I immerse myself in the topic the more pieces I get, the more connections are formed, the more the pieces fall into place and the more complete the picture gets. I sometimes get formal training (MDMP, IPB, etc) and sometimes it's stuff I pick up on the job... mostly by jotting down anything unfamiliar and asking about it. Do that often enough, and soon you too can throw out an alphabet of acronyms - ECS, AMG, IPB, EJK, VBIED, etc.

All that is sort of like learning the basic rules of a game (like canasta). Training in the basics and whatnot. It starts off unfamiliar, but the more I immerse myself the more it all starts coming together.

I've always had an interest in national security issues, and cyber security is sort of uncharted territory there. A new dimension that we're just beginning to make sense of. We've got doctrines regarding land warfare, naval warfare, aerial warfare. We kind of know how they work, even though things change as technology changes (i.e. how fast you can maneuver, what sorts of countermeasures work against what, etc.)

But cyber security? We're all still figuring out what's even possible, much less how to counter it.

Right now... well, right now I'm at the very beginning of learning the field. Okay, sure. I've got a master's degree in computer science now. It reminds me of what they say about black belt training - i.e. the black belt just means you're ready to begin learning. It's nice to read articles and realize I can actually follow most of it. I can throw out terms like TCP, UDP, IP, IDS, SSH, FTP etc. and have a fairly good idea of what they mean.

But it's just the beginning. Give me five to ten years of experience and further training (if I can get my future place of employment to pay for some SANS courses that'd be hella awesome), and maybe I can talk knowledgeably about cyber warfare.

So no real regrets about the things I mentioned in my previous post. I know some of that is typical human behavior (i.e. we have a tendency to make stories about our lives and to a certain degree it's easy to be at peace with things when I feel life is going well. I had a phone interview that went well, have an in-person interview scheduled for January, and if things work out then life is good and I have no real complaints.)

And who knows, maybe in five-ten years I'll have a sense of where cyber warfare fits in with the rest of it.

Self-Indulgent Whining

One more thing, and I have debated writing this as it seems a bit... whiny? Too arrogant?

My previous post talked about anime, and how it addressed subtle interactions in a way that I enjoyed. Subtle things, like how one person can shift the dynamic through sheer willpower, or the ways someone can disrupt another person's rhythm to take control...

It's very much like Push Hands, or the concepts discussed by Sun Tzu.

So here's the (perhaps whiny and 'I'm a special snowflake') bit I wanted to add:

I've always been fairly bright, but certain concepts are easier to pick up than others. For example, I'm going to get an 'A' in my android programming class, but fragments and intents don't really resonate with me and I don't really enjoy creating phone apps. I think I'm capable of learning it, and doing well, but I am more than happy to leave that to other people.

Battle rhythm, push hands, Sun Tzu... these are things that resonate with me. I feel as though I know them, not just intellectually. It's as though I can feel them in my soul.

Perhaps the greatest frustration in my life (though less so as I successfully had an interview on Thursday, and look forward to learning more about cybersecurity) has been the difficulty I've had in getting the experience/sponsorship for developing my skills in those sorts of things. In the skills that I feel so strongly about.

My family plays canasta and euchre, and we all know it to such a degree that we can focus more on the psychological elements than the petty little rules. If we're playing canasta and someone discards a 2, we know that they're trying to change the rhythm of the game. They are 'freezing' the stack so that you can only take it with a pair in your hand, because their opponents probably have a lot of things down (and would otherwise keep taking the cards in the stack, as the others are forced to discard things they have already). They are possibly taking a risk, by giving up one of their precious wild cards in the hopes that their opponents don't have any pairs in hand, so that the stack gets big and strong. So they can extend the game, and perhaps get a really nice prize by the end.

These are things we don't need to explain, don't need to go into any detail on, because we all know the rules of the game and we all know what reasons would drive someone to discard a wild card.

I get the impression that any sufficient mastery can get someone to a similar level... that superb poker players can read into each bid, each fold, each action and understand what's going on to such a level that the game takes on a mental component.

In ultimate frisbee someone talked about 'field sense', once... the notion that you can maintain an awareness of everything going on around you during a fast paced game, to the point where you know where you  need to be. (Or, as Gretzky did, you can go to where the puck/frisbee/ball is going, not where it was.)

And these things are true for more than just card games or sports... there's a reason we talk about 'battle rhythm'. I suspect great generals are aware of their field to such a degree that they can read into every little thing - a report of the enemy here, a sighting there - and know where to move to counter those actions (and logistics, logistics, logistics... how to make sure they have the resources they need in order to make those moves.)

Getting to that point, like mastering canasta or euchre or basketball or pretty much anything, requires skill, knowledge, and experience.

So for these concepts that resonate in my soul... I know that I need the training and experience to truly master.

It seems... sort of silly, like the worst sort of armchair quarterback, to claim I could be an expert general, or whatever. Especially since it's been over a decade since I served, I'm out of shape, and I've forgotten pretty much everything I learned about basic infantry tactics. And yet sometimes I wonder... if I hadn't been born in a time when women couldn't join infantry, if I'd gotten the training and experience, if I'd had years to hone my understanding... what could I have been?

And it's not just about being a general, since tbh that's not been a goal of mine. (It's just that when certain concepts in the FM 7-8 resonated like that, I had to wonder what could have been if I'd been in a position to develop that skillset).

But I felt something similar towards Human Intelligence... and even if I don't regret, now, not going that path, I sometimes wonder what I could have become if I'd again had the training and experience.

Same with Civil Affairs.

I left the Army out of frustration, though I don't really have any hard feelings towards it and I understand, to a certain degree. Managing large organizations is hard, there's always going to be personnel assigned to places they don't want to be, and the Army needs people to go where they're assigned. We're too large and bureaucratic for them to really cater to any one individual, after all.

But when I feel that burning desire to master something, when I know I get these concepts to a degree most others don't, that I probably have skills that they'd love to have if I could just get the right training and experience...

It's so very, very, very frustrating that nobody seems to see it. Nobody cares to develop it.

It's like knowing you've got a diamond mine within, knowing people admire and want to see a polished diamond, wanting that yourself... and yet you can't get anyone to bother putting in the work.

The world isn't cruel because they're out to get you, it's cruel because most people are far too busy with their own problems to care.

Edited to add: and so I think everyone, not just me, has a diamond mine inside them just waiting to be developed if we only could discover what their particular calling is for. 

On Anime, and Game Changers, and Things We Have No Language For

So I finished up finals week, should have all A's, had an interview Thursday (and reportedly should expect an e-mail for the next step in the hiring process soon), and have been binging anime as a bit of a celebration for completing my Master's.

In particular, I've been binge watching Hunter x Hunter. The show has some of the all-too-typical problematic sexual bits that the Japanese throw in, which I tend to sort of shrug off as some sort of cultural difference. Like I know that the perverted old men (who are generally portrayed as 'good' characters) are creepy, and disturbing consent issues are not cool, but you can't really watch much anime at all without coming across some of that, and there are other things that I enjoy. (If I had a kid, I'd probably want to sit them down to talk about some of the more problematic parts if/when they came across it, but that's a story for another day.)

There are generally two big things I enjoy about anime. First, the sheer creativity. So much of it is completely out there, and I sort of feel... I dunno. I was going to say it's easier to think outside the box, but it's more like they stretch the limits of the box so that what I consider inside the box expands. Something like that. Anime makes me feel more creative.

The other thing I enjoy is that they touch on topics that far too much Western media doesn't. Hmmm, that's not quite true, but I'll get to that in a second.

The spur to writing this post came from Hunter x Hunter, where a non-human king has been learning various board games and defeating masters in those games as a way of learning how to strategize/rule/conquer. He's bright, picks up the rules quickly, and has defeated a number of master's at their own game until he takes on a Gungi master (Gungi is apparently invented for the anime.)

What makes this interesting? As the king masters various strategy games he came to realize that controlling the rhythm of the game was critical, and disrupting his opponents rhythm gave him control. As he repeatedly fails to defeat the Gungi master, he takes the mental battle off the board and tries controlling the rhythm by threatening to take her left arm. Watching how she refuses to cede control, and shifts the rhythm back in her favor is just fascinating.

This dynamic, this way of addressing complex interpersonal things, the mental components of battle, are something I just don't see addressed at all in the equivalent Western cartoons. Or perhaps it's just children's cartoons?

We do have it, at times. I think J.R.R. Tolkien did, in the battle for Gondor. The Nazgûl brought fear and terror in their wake, a mental attack as much as physical, and Gandalf riding off on his white horse helped restore strength and courage to the men fighting back. It was a morale booster, and a much needed one, that occurred during some of the darkest parts of that battle.

We talk about that sort of thing in the military sometimes. How leaders must maintain the morale of the troops. But, well... for the most part I think we've been at peace so long that we forget (or forgot, I can't speak for the military now, I've been gone too long... and they've been at war either in Afghanistan or Iraq for over a decade now, so perhaps the troops out on the sharp end have first-hand experience now) what that sort of thing truly means. We think of it in, well, business terms I suppose. Morale as something you can boost with bonuses or lunch or some other thing. We don't talk about the leadership and morale booster that comes from standing strong in the darkest of times, when everyone else is wavering and falling.

Hunter x Hunter is not the only anime that does this. Part of what I liked about Naruto, for example, is something similar. Early in the series he's taking an exam to get promoted, and the proctor is adept at putting on the psychological pressure. The proctor created a stressful situation where he tried getting candidates to give up and quit. Naruto, more because of stubbornness than any great intelligence, loudly refuses to crack under the pressure... and in doing so shored up the remaining candidates' resolve, so that they also refused to crack.

Anime illustrates these types of interactions, where one person influences the rest, and it's pretty frikking amazing. They put these things into words, and images, and it's almost like they have a language for it that we in the West have forgotten. Sure, it's filled with fantastical creatures and magical things, but they address the mental component of battles in a way that illustrates some core truths. Firm resolve is important, and sometimes one person refusing to bend can make all the difference. (But not always.)

Hmmm. Speaking of battle rhythm and control-thereof, I feel like I have to admit that He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named (there are a couple of publicly prominent politicians that I prefer not to give any sort of attention to, even negative attention, as it just seems to empower them and make them feel relevant. If I could, I would completely ignore them... alas, sometimes I can't really talk about certain things without doing so) has shown great mastery at controlling the rhythm, and probably ought to be called a game changer as well.

It's just... if he's changing the rules of the game, it's in a way that makes things worse. If you can tell a tree by it's fruit, then you can tell that he's pretty rotten... because the fruit of his leadership has consistently been making people pettier and smaller.

Technically, he's a game changer. He regularly disrupts other people's rhythms. But rather than inspiring people, rather than making them feel uplifted... less afraid, more capable...

He seems to bring out the worst in people.

Demographics and Evangelicals

https://www.newsweek.com/2018/12/21/evangelicals-republicans-trump-millenials-1255745.html?amp=1&__twitter_impression=true

Political Anger, III

This is just so utterly fascinating:

With the help of an advertising agency, the social scientists created online ads celebrating the tension between Israelis and Palestinians, and extolling the virtues of fighting for fighting’s sake. One ad showed iconic photos of Israeli war heroes and proclaimed, “Without [war] we wouldn’t have had heroes. For the heroes, we probably need the conflict.” The ad was scored with Wagner’s “Flight of the Valkyries.” Another ad featured footage of a soldier with a machine gun petting a kitten and an infantryman helping an old man cross the street. “What a Wonderful World” played in the background. Its tagline read, “Without [war] we would never be moral. For morality, we probably need the conflict.” The ads, along with brochures and billboards, began appearing in Giv’at Shmuel in 2015. Over a six-week period, according to polling, nearly all of its 25,000 residents saw them.

...A year after the ads had ceased, by which time some residents had trouble recalling the specifics of the campaign, polls still showed greater tolerance. The campaign wasn’t a panacea, but it is among the most successful conflict interventions in contemporary social science.

The campaign worked, the social scientists believe, because instead of telling people they were wrong, the ads agreed with them—to embarrassing, offensive extremes. “No one wants to think of themselves as some angry crank,” one of the researchers, Eran Halperin, told me. “No one wants to be lumped in with extremists or the angriest fringe.” Sometimes, however, we don’t realize we’ve become extremists until someone makes it painfully obvious.

And, going to my previous post about flipping the script, it actually makes sense. In a counterintuitive way. Like doing a judo move where you use someone's own momentum against them, helping push them a little further than they intended to go until they lose balance.

Political Anger, Cont.

This, too:

One recent working paper found that the more partisan people become, the more likely they are to rationalize violence against those they don’t agree with, to experience schadenfreude or moral disinterest when they see an opponent get attacked, and even to endorse physical assaults on other groups. “Though most Americans reject violence, as more of us embrace strong partisanship, the prevalence of lethal partisanship is likely to grow,” wrote the political scientists Lilliana Mason and Nathan Kalmoe.

I've felt that schadenfreude, myself, and sometimes its a very real struggle to remind myself that such an attitude is bad. That the long term consequences are not worth the pleasure a perceived comeuppance gives. It doesn't matter if they're Republican or Democrat, or how distasteful I find them, none of them deserve to have people sending death threats (as just one example). 

Political Anger

I posted a link from my phone, before I finished reading it, because the article was so timely and relevant. There's a lot of good stuff there, a lot to unpack, and I decided to go ahead and log on to talk about it. You know, on a PC where I can use a keyboard to type... so  this can be a bit more in depth than what I'd do from my phone.

The driving force was this paragraph, right here:

When people believe that social institutions are functioning, they’re much less likely to feel vengeful urges. One study, for instance, found that when laid-off workers believed firings were handled fairly—that a process was adhered to, that seniority was respected, that worker evaluations were properly considered—they were less likely to protest or complain, even if they disagreed with the outcome. Alternately, if workers believed that managers were playing favorites or manipulating the rule book, sabotage was more likely. “Think about presidential elections,” Tripp said. “Every four years, roughly half the nation is deeply disappointed. So why don’t they get out their pitchforks? Because as long as they believe it was a fair fight, they tolerate losing. But when both the process and the outcome seem unfair, that’s when we see riots.”

This is what makes me pay very close attention every time voter fraud - or similar unfair systemic manipulation - is mentioned. Such allegations have the potential to truly destroy our system, but covering them up makes things worse... opens up the potential for further allegations that the system is unfair. They have to be handled openly, transparently, and with a result that is seen as understandable and (mostly) fair. That we followed the proper process, and that it wasn't just a matter of who had the political pull to get away with something.

That is, to my mind, the big challenge of our day and age. We, the public, have grown disheartened and disillusioned with our system. There's all sorts of things going into it, and different people will point to different elements. The recession, and it's impact on an entire generation as they graduated from college... and the belief that the system is no longer working for them, that they can work hard and go to college and still wind up struggling and drowning in debt. 9/11, the war on terror, the invasion of Iraq. The rise of Fox News, the movement towards 'infotainment' and 'truthiness'. Injustices you can point to, based on political affiliation... from Clinton's e-mails to Trump's collusion with Russia.

I know at least a little about US history. I know there is no perfect 'ideal' world where things worked. Hell, the very first shift in power involved one newly formed party trying to pack the judiciary. Election days used to be big old drunken brawls, and many of those involved couldn't even vote. That's not even discussing the party bosses, and backroom deals. Still, our system has somehow muddled through for a couple of hundred years, and people have (mostly) believed that we can fight for change within the system. That it may be long, and hard, and agonizingly slow, but you can build the support you need for whatever you want. The Civil Rights movement, constitutional amendments, etc.

That is what gerrymandering endangers. That belief, that trust. That is why every article discussing the discrepancy between the popular vote and electoral outcomes is so important. Not to say that they need to be aligned, our system comes with some roadblocks designed to keep us from shifting too fast with every change in public opinion... but there's a difference between a few delays because of built in checks and balances, and a complete impossibility of working within the system because foolish politicians tried hard-coding things in their favor.

Something has stuck in my mind for, I dunno, over five years now? I have a friend I try to visit at least once a year, though due to circumstances it's been longer than that since I last saw her. Anyways, I remember talking with her husband about something-or-other, and he expressed a complete lack of faith in the system. He felt it was too far gone, too corrupt, too much of a mess... that it was impossible to fix it from within anymore.

I don't like that attitude. I've generally been a believer in change from within, and using the tools we've been given. But I have to admit it's been harder and harder to hold on to that faith. And, unfortunately, a lot of others seem to feel the same way.

I dunno, like I said... I know at least a little about our history. I know that there's always been struggle, and that success often comes just when things look their worst (and perhaps this article helps explain why?)

What I also know is that we live, as the alleged ancient Chinese curse says, "in interesting times". I'd probably feel more confident about what that meant if I saw any indication that the leaders of this society - political, business, and others - showed some sort of collective wisdom, but unfortunately far too many of them seem keen on illustrating just how different intelligence can be from wisdom.

Anger - It's Uses and Abuses

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/charles-duhigg-american-anger/576424/

Flip the Script, Addendum

Mahatma Gandhi was a script flipper. So was Martin Luther King, Jr.

I remember watching a movie on Gandhi in school when I was a kid. There was this scene where the protestors were marching against these guards (? or police? figures of authority of some sort), and the guards would strike down the protestors...

Some of them would then help move the bodies of the first line away, and the next line stepped up to take their spot. They were utterly unthreatening, not trying to attack the guards or anything...

But every time one group was struck down, the next stepped up to take their place. And you could sort of see something going on in the faces of the guards, as they kept striking these people who refused to give them any sort of excuse or justification for their violence, and it starting getting to them, bothering them, that they kept offering violence to people who weren't threatening them at all.

I know some say Martin Luther King only succeeded as much as he did because there were other, more violent organizers in the background like Malcom X. Maybe so, maybe no. It doesn't change MLK Jr's role as a someone who chose not to respond in the more typical human response to the injustices of his day.

It seems that it's all too easy for people to turn their anger and resentment into violence... terrorists show that to us on a regular basis, no script flipping there.

Flip the Script, Cont.

I finished up (as best I could) the project due Friday, and only have a few less problematic projects due this final, last week. Not just for the semester, but for my Master's in Computer Science.

So now I can breathe a small sigh of relief and catch up on some other things. Like what I meant by 'flip the script'.

I suppose my interest/fascination starts, as happens all too often, with my Catholic upbringing. In this case, Jesus's command to "turn the other cheek".

That phrase is far more problematic than you'd think, and Wikipedia does a rather excellent job of summing up the problems.

Are we commanded to passively allow others to attack us?

Did we miss some sort of cultural context, and the command actually subtly puts our attackers in some sort of dilemma?

Or is it some meta thing, breaking the cycle of violence by refusing to return it in kind?

The dilemma captures something about the mystery at the heart of Christianity, I think. 

Oh, there are legitimate reasons to criticize the religion. People have used their interpretation of the faith to justify all sorts of ills and evils, and claim that 'God' wanted it that way.

But what I consider the heart of it is something well worth engaging in.

And somehow, every time I try to put this into words I struggle. Bear with me as I ramble on, dear reader.

My brother and I used to have debates over free will, and my ultimate conclusion was... that I can't say for sure whether it exists, but true or not the concept is crucial.

See... people often act as though we're computer programs. Experience and genetics program us to act in certain ways, and we do so without thinking. You can debate endlessly how much of our actions are freely chosen decisions and how much can be traced back to nature or how we were nurtured...

But the concept of free will gives us a way to change the program. To rewrite it. To say "I don't like where this takes me, and I am not defined by my past. I can change, choose different, and end up somewhere better."

I believe we're all capable of change, but I admit it's hard. And all too often we don't seem to exercise that power. 

Someone strikes us, we strike back (and perhaps wind up in some sort of lethal fight as things escalate). Or we choose to ignore it and accept being treated poorly (and perhaps it happens again, and again, and again, so that we're forced to accept constant attacks).

People act as though it's a binary choice, either/or, and it's really not. Realizing that we have free will means realizing we can break out of such destructive patterns. A long time ago, when I studied tai chi and hapkido (during my exploratory college years) I felt martial arts illustrated this point beautifully. We're used to thinking that if someone punches us, we can block it or take the hit. (I'm simplifying that for effect, because of course we can also dodge it... so even then it's not truly binary.)

But there are other options... like using your opponents momentum against them, and turning their attack into a throw. Of aiding them in overextending themselves, so that they lose their balance and give you control. (This Tai Chi site has an excellent video showing Push Hands and how that works.)

Trying to give clear guidance is a bit like trying to tell someone how to do Push Hands just from watching this video. It's not something you can learn like that, it's something you have to do yourself. Something you need to build experience at. (Perhaps like wrestling?). You can't say "push here, yield there" because too much of it is situationally dependent. In the video, you can see how their arms are lightly touching. Through that connection you can sense your opponent, get a feel for where their balance is, where they are putting their weight. (And - another tai chi lesson with great military applications - if you lose that connection your opponent becomes unpredictable.)

The point is to get them off balance, because once they're off balance you have control. From the outside it doesn't look like much, just two guys going round and round - until someone moves too far from their center.

Anyways, I like looking for things that show people being... I dunno... self-aware and making great choices. People who know how to flip the script, change their programming, become a force for change in the world around them. (Perhaps that's why I've been so obsessed with Naruto the past few months. Also why the notion of 'killing with kindness' appeals to me. When someone opposes you and is all geared up for a fight, it's actually sort of amusing - in a totally not saintly way - to watch how off balance they get when you refuse to act the way they expect.)

Take trolls - most people see it as a binary choice. Engage, and degenerate into an online screaming match, or ignore. i.e. "don't feed the troll." I think I linked to something earlier that showed there are other options.

It's just...

Most people don't use them, or don't have the skills to do so well.

I sort of got on this topic because of an earlier post, where I talked about the marketplace of ideas and the need to shine sunlight on certain topics.

I then encountered a rash of posts (on various different social media sites) talking about what a bad idea it is to engage white supremacists. How they tried taking over punk culture, for example, until they were forced out. How they take your willingness to engage as a way to get their foot in the door.

And yet... and yet there's another story I'd linked to previously, where a community successfully engaged and changed a former white supremacist. It can happen...

It's just, well, most people aren't all that skilled at doing so. They push when they should yield, or yield when they should push, and then say it's a bad idea and tell everyone not to feed the trolls.

It's like...

I'm not saying they're wrong. Given their experiences, and given that it takes a massive investment in time and energy, sometimes that's what you've got to do. Not everyone is in a position for the sort of interaction it takes to engage in a life-changing sort of way.

And, tbh, if you can't engage without losing your cool and having that online screaming match, then disengaging is probably for the best.

But I admire and praise the ones who know how to 'flip the script'. Who can respond and engage in ways that break the cycle (in this case, not of hitting and violence, but of the political polarization we see today.)

Of people who don't passively accept, but don't retaliate in kind. The ones who struggle to find a way of achieving their goals without compromising their morals or integrity. (Veering off track, but I want to say it because it angers me if I think about it too much - any politician who decides that they 'have' to lie, or rig an election, or do whatever shady and unscrupulous thing they've decided is necessary to defeat their (to their minds even more shady and unscrupulous) opponent and stay in power has shown that they've utterly failed at being a gamechanger, a script flipper, or a force for good. Instead, they've allowed their experience and programming to make themselves part of the problem, just as bad if not worse than their opponent. Gerrymandering, as just one example, is proof you do not deserve to be in power. Whatever good you think you might do is totally outweighed by your willingness to destroy the social contract in order to do so.)

Flip the Script

An article related to a topic I've been thinking about, and may write about when my Thanksgiving trip is over.

Groupthink

I didn't realize how bad it was in congress, it's practically a blueprint for all the worst elements of groupthink.

What a mess.

Banality of Evil

I came across this article while looking up the term 'banality of evil' for a Facebook post and wanted to share it here.

Free Marketplace of Ideas

And one more thing, regarding the 'Free Marketplace of Ideas'.

There are things that can screw up a marketplace of ideas just as there are things that screw up economic markets.

It goes into that 'persuasion vs. manipulation' distinction. The whole concept of 'spin', of telling your people the 'party line' when it's isn't your true reasoning, means that you don't believe you can win in the marketplace with the ideas you have.

It shows that you don't think you can persuade someone else to share your belief, don't believe you can win the debate in an honest fight.

I get that you may not feel quite able to articulate your reasons, I just stated I have trouble capturing so much of the things that feed into mine. But I also have faith that there are other people, more articulate than me, who could lay out the arguments well.

This ties in with my complaints about gerrymandering, too.

Because if you think you can't win elections otherwise, what you're really saying is that you don't think your arguments are persuasive enough to get the support you need.

And if you believe them, and if you find them persuasive, then why on earth do you think someone else wouldn't? Just about the only 'reasons' I can think of that don't have the potential to persuade other people are the ones that are inherently selfish.

That is, you can't necessarily persuade other people that you deserve a million dollars (though some people apparently succeed at doing so.)

But if you can articulate why you believe x policy is a good idea, you may be able to persuade someone to change their mind. Depending on the person, and the strength of you argument, of course.

Anyways. Point is that attempts to gerrymander, to outright lie about your reasoning, and to manipulate the public into supporting policies you don't think they otherwise would pretty much destroys the free marketplace of ideas.

Continuation of Previous Post

Although I sorted through a lot of thoughts in my previous post, I barely touched on a topic I wanted to delve into a little deeper.

It has to do with that concept of 'fear is the mindkiller', and with free speech. 

And the concept of a 'marketplace of ideas'.

I understand the need for gatekeepers, I do. Someone has to help the average person sort fact from fiction, figure out who is credible and who isn't. Part of the furor over recent events is that those previous gatekeepers have lost credibility, and now the door is open for all sorts of crazy conspiracy theories. When a significant portion of the population flat out refuses to believe the mainstream media, when the facts themselves seem under dispute, it's hard to tell what's up and what's down.

And yet... and yet the concept of a 'marketplace of ideas', kind of like that ex of mine who bought a Toyota truck, hinges on not being afraid of other people's ideas.

It's the idea that if we take an idea out and really look at it, the best ones will truly win. That we should have the discussions on these topics necessary, that trying to prevent people from speaking (even if they're horrid people, with horrid ideas) is bad.

There's this trend now, tied up with the whole notion of 'don't feed the troll' and 'it's not worth engaging _____' that helps heighten the division and polarization of our time.

I understand why we're not supposed to feed trolls, most of them aren't interested in a discussion anyway, and seem to take pleasure in being disruptive, destructive, and hurtful. And yet that refusal to engage, well...

If there's a 'marketplace of ideas', right now it's as though there are two competing guilds of merchants who refuse to trade with each other, creating two entirely separate markets of ideas.

And so I wonder... I know what I believe. I know, for example, that I believe white supremacy is a stupid concept. I do tend to agree with the xkcd comic on free speech, too.

But trying to articulate all the reasons it's a horrifying idea gets tied up with all sorts of other things. 

Perhaps a better way of addressing such things would be to have a big debate, the way we do with christianity and atheism. Let them prepare all their arguments, meet, offer up counter-arguments...

Hmmmm. Anyways. I get the need, when people have been facing oppression for a long period of time, to try to prevent them from dealing with it any more than they have to. Like I, personally, would try to respect someone's wishes on how they ask to be called. I may not get it right all the time, and may forget, but I wouldn't say something deliberately hurtful, or deliberately disrespect their stated wishes.

But banning certain types of speech just makes it go underground, and you lose the opportunity for things like this.

Sure, the people who complain about 'political correctness' can come across as... well, spiteful, hateful and disrespectful. Offended that they have to take into account someone else's feelings.

Consider the 'debate' over saying Merry Christmas vs. Happy Holidays. Now, tbh, I think I say both, at various times, especially if someone said Merry Christmas to me first, or we were talking about Christmas plans, or somesuch.

But I understand why say, a Jewish family might feel alienated and excluded at the constant reminder that they are different. That Christmas is not something they celebrate, and wishing them a Merry Christmas is sort of silly, but it's too tiresome and troublesome to try explaining that to everyone you meet when so many people greet them with "Merry Christmas" come December. That maybe they can shrug it off once or twice, maybe most of them shrug it off, but the sheer pervasiveness becomes an ongoing reminder that they are different. A minority. Not the norm.

And I don't want them to feel that way, don't want them to feel excluded. So yes, I would try to wish people "Happy Holidays", because I don't want people feeling excluded like that. (Even though I sometimes forget.)

The people who vehemently, almost violently, insist that it has to be "Merry Christmas" come across as- well, as some variation of mean, spiteful, or disrespectful. Really, the exact opposite of the Christmas spirit. Because God forbid you be forced to wish someone a "Happy Holidays" instead, as if the good will behind it is somehow different when you change the words. (I know, I know. They're really more offended at having to take the 'Christ' out of Christmas. Except their very insistence seems to take the 'Christ' out more than any 'Happy Holidays' would.)

Anyways. I value free speech, I think we need to shine light on some of the nastier views rather than drive them underground.

And yet I also value respecting others, no matter what their shape, color, religion, sexual identity, etc. You say you don't want to be called something, or do want to be called something else, and I'll make a good faith effort to do so.

When you add in the issues we've been having in social media, and their role in influence campaigns, and it adds yet another layer of complexity.

Should social media ban accounts that are offensive? Is that censoring them, infringing on free speech? Or saving our discourse? Helping stop the internet from degenerating into trolls and the like?

It's so easy for a troll to spew their hate online, and they can have a large impact on the people they target. Can we address that without banning such speech?

I suppose that's part of why I always like the articles showing someone engaging a troll respectfully, doing a sort of mental jutsu that winds up permanently improving things. It happens, though rarely. I actually have trouble finding one of the examples I'm thinking of, because there's so much advice there on dealing with trolls and articles showing responses to trolls, and none of them was quite what I was looking for.

I suppose that says something about us all, though. That the ones who know how to engage in ways that make a true difference are so rare.

Engagement, true engagement. Why is that so hard to find?

Brainstorming

What a crazy time to be alive.

Making sense of things is almost impossible, and I'm not really sure what I'm going to type here. I just felt the need to sort of brainstorm it out.

There are a couple of underlying... assumptions? heuristics? worldviews?

Whatever it is, it tends to shape my perspective on a lot of things. Some of it's pretty basic - like the concept of a 'social contract', and the importance of people feeling like they  have some sort of say in their governance. (It's part of why gerrymandering is such a threat to our system. More, I would say, then whatever fears or worries the people instating it have about what would happen if they didn't have power. Undermining the social contract, undermining the connection between the will of the people and their government, is far more of a threat to America than bloated government, high taxes, etc.)

Free speech is good, protecting minority opinions is good. (The problem with lack of gatekeepers to filter out the crap is part of what I wanted to brainstorm here. Protecting minority opinions has similar complications - does it include protecting racists, for example? Otherwise someone is still deciding what is 'acceptable' and what isn't, in which case free speech and protection of minority opinions is really just protection for the ones we agree with. The underlying issues, though... the problems with censoring speech, the ills that occur when minorities are not protected, well... these are values we - the West - have come to over a long period of time. And, unfortunately, they are values that somehow wind up getting challenged. Again and again. It's sad when people who claim to be all about America are somehow the very same people pushing for things that go against the values we fought for and stood for. But that's a really long topic to get on, and I'm not sure I want to do it right now.)

Fear is almost always a bad sign. Fear, the actions/plans/strategies based on fear, and the results of fear-based strategies are almost always bad. To do a mish/mash of two quotes that I saw on a computer screensaver once "Fear is the mindkiller. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." I remember reading about the Civil War, decades ago, and thinking 'the fear that the North would outlaw slavery led to the attempted secession of the South, which wound up making their fears realized... and probably even faster than they would have been otherwise.' That is, when we act on fear, we can often lead to the very thing we are afraid of. (So, for white supremacists, letting fear that we will eventually be a minority in America lead to violent actions and upheavals could actually hasten a time when we are, in fact, a minority. But then, idiots like that probably assume - since they're foolish enough to think the color of the skin somehow makes them superior - that they're going to win any coming showdown. Considering how many wars had unpredictable results, I think that's a remarkably foolish gamble. But hey, nobody has a monopoly on stupidity.)

So anyways, on to the rambling.

Over a decade ago (how weird, to talk in terms of decades now!) my boyfriend at the time commented on his Toyota truck and the concept of 'buy American'. I am absolutely horrible at quotes, so I'll just paraphrase his reasoning -

He bought the best truck on the market. If they want him to buy American, then America needs to step up and be that best truck on the market.

I know there's a whole bunch of underlying things not addressed here - disparities in the economy that allows certain goods to be manufactured more cheaply for one reason or another, tariffs, transportation, etc. - but I think he brought up a rather good point.

Namely that, when threatened, challenged, and afraid, there are two ways of dealing with it. Step up to the challenge and get even better (in which case, the issues with, say, competition being able to pay lower wages, just becomes a driver for getting even better. A challenge that makes your eventual triumph even more meaningful, since you had a handicap the entire time)... or let fear drive you into trying to protect your position by eliminating the competition somehow. Tariffs, 'buy American' drives, things that allow your existing business to continue to compete even when other businesses might actually be providing a better product at a lower cost. (Again, note that this is a complex topic, especially when you get into what countries like China have been doing to help develop their own domestic businesses. The people pushing for these policies often justify them by saying 'this is what they're doing, so we have to do it as well in order to keep up.)

The underlying reasoning, for all of that, is fear. And as I said above, that's sort of one of the things I consider noteworthy.

In political science, they've noted that previous presidential candidates often spoke positively. Uplifting. We want leaders who challenge us to rise to the occasion. To shoot for the moon. To stand up to the Soviet Union.

Trump. Well. Even though he had some of the typical markers ('Make America Great Again' talks about how great America is) the underlying structure is entirely fear based. We have to 'Make America Great Again', because we no longer  think we are. We're somehow losing our greatness, according to some people at least. (And just as Jim Collins described in 'How the Mighty Fall', that fear can make us susceptible to anyone who promises to save us. And so we get some outsider riding in on a white horse to save the day, even though they very often are actually the ones who wind up delivering the final, fatal blow.)

Great presidents encourages us to stand tall and rise to the occasion. Trump, on the other hand, feeds our fears and brings out the worst in everyone. Aside from politics, aside from anything else, seeing the sheer level of pettiness he brings to our political system is horrifying.

And I am disturbed, perturbed, and disappointed in all the various people who allow him to have what influence he has. Because nobody can be a leader when others refuse to follow.

The Republicans in particular have been awfully horrifying with how often they wind up justifying supporting Trump even when it goes against things they used to stand for. Christian conservatives as well, who laud someone who seems like the epitome of everything Jesus stood against.

But hey, that's politics, right? Should I really be surprised at how much people are willing to compromise themselves, at how nicely they can come up with something to justify doing whatever it is that is in their self-interest? Whether that's supporting Trump, or doing shenanigans to try and shape the upcoming midterms in their favor (even when it means closing polling sites and/or moving them to hard-to-reach places, because apparently they'd rather undermine the social contract and disenfranchise US citizens than lose an election.)

And that, right there, is how you know someone's political judgement has been compromised. That the wisdom of our founding fathers, who understood the risks of power and put all sorts of careful checks in place, has been lost by near-sighted people more concerned with staying in power than maintaining the legitimacy of our system.

When did we become so afraid? Why are we so afraid? We're in one of the best positions, as a nation, possible. We're capable of being so much better than this.

Interesting China Read

The Economist had an article discussing China's perspective/interpretation of current events in the West.

Pittsburgh Shooting, Trump, Hate

I remember my surprise when a Facebook friend pointed out that Trump's daughter was Jewish. She married a Jew.

Trump gets painted as such a racist piece of s*** that it surprised me to learn about his family. And, to be honest, it made me reconsider some of what I was seeing in the news.

So I didn't really weigh in on the most recent horrific tragedy, but I kind of wanted to highlight this story. Since it discusses precisely that (and the looks on Ivanka and her husband's faces as they watched Trump are truly something.)

I have been... disappointed in the current political environment for all sorts of reasons, and have sort of been taking a break from it. (Which, yes, I'm aware is a privilege... the fact that I can tune things out when it's too much.) Not that I plan on doing nothing, midterms are a week away after all.

But too much of my thoughts and feelings either fall under 'preaching to the choir and unlikely to reach anyone who doesn't already agree with me' or, well, it's been hard to feel like there was any point to writing it, anyway.

Though I do think it's critical, in a time like this, to stand up and say "this isn't right." Whether it's shooting black people at a grocery store or Jews in Pittsburgh, it's not okay.

But... well. I recently took my little to her hometown football game, and it reminded me of how different the vast majority of Americans are from the crap we see on TV. My little, who is friends with a number of black girls (two of whom will be coming to my house tonight, since apparently all three of them are trying out for basketball. I get roped into dropping off or picking up her friends fairly regularly, but I don't mind too much.)

Anyways. A Friday night football game, and the players are white and black and mixed all over. Family members watching- black, white, hispanic, asian...

This is America. The America I saw at Six Flags the other day (my little's mother's birthday is in October, and we have season passes that get upgraded if we use them before the end of the year, so it's sort of become a tradition to go for Fright Fest.) is not what you see in the news. The three of us, with my little's friend (a black girl) drove three hours to Six Flags, where the lines were full of average Americans. Again - black, white, hispanic, asian. Tattooed, pierced, or none at all. People we saw in passing while waiting in line, talked to about various experiences (we got all the way to the front of one line, only for a technical difficulty to prevent us from riding at that time. And chatted with another lady at one point regarding whether or not she'd be able to fit in the seats.)

And it's hard to believe any of them would truly turn on each other.

And yet, there are these shootings. And the stories you hear in the news. And all I can think of is that we do have fringe elements, as there have always been fringe elements.

The problem, I think, with Trump is not necessarily that he himself is hateful. He might be, he might not, he's definitely more complicated than the buffoonish caricature he often comes across as. But he seems perfectly willing to tap into that hatred, and at the very least, to stand aside and say nothing when said 'fringe elements' act.

Since there are always people on the edge, crazies who will overreact, it's hard to say how much a public figure is responsible for other people's actions. But I do know that standard responses are to condemn any actions out of line, and to make it clear that you really don't support and encourage them.

From that perspective, Trump's actions are... underwhelming.

And very, very disturbing. 

Honorverse Odds and Ends

My brother loaned me the latest Honor Harrington novel, so I've been reading that and had some thoughts.

For those who have never heard of this series, it's military science fiction. 14 books in the main series, as well as a number of spin-offs and anthologies. I have to admit, it sometimes goes a little bit into the 'science fiction' side of things for my taste - given that wormholes, faster than light technology, and various other things are all fiction I don't actually care to read in depth technical reports on things that don't really exist. And yet, I do find it fascinating how he uses those things to create rather plausible military scenarios.

14 books, well...it's a very looooong series. It's also fascinating if you know your history, because there's some very clear parallels (and differences). David Weber also does a rather excellent job of showing both sides of the story, with both sides having their talented and incompetent people.

Regarding that history... the main character is an officer in the navy for a star nation - Manticore - that has many similarities to England. A monarchy, parliament, etc. (Not exact, by any means!) It begins just before they wind up in a very long shooting war with a neighboring star nation that has some similarities to, well...at one point they had something like the French revolution (including a character, Rob S. Pierre, which is rather obviously similar to Robespierre)

At other times, the history of that star nation was more like the Soviet Union.

There was another, much larger star nation that was mostly irrelevant for the first, I dunno, 10 books or so? The Solarian League, which also has striking parallels to the United States.

Except, well...in a series that spans this much history, things change quite a bit. The Manticore and Haven war had it's ups and downs, the war pushing both sides to make all sorts of technological innovations that changed the nature of the war.  While I didn't need too many of the technical details, I could see clear parallels to...well, 'wet-navy' warfare. In particular the development of a space equivalent to aircraft carriers.

And after decades of fighting, things started to finally settle down between Manticore and Haven, and a new enemy appeared. Now, I haven't been as interested in the later books in part because the new enemy is... I dunno. I guess it interrupts my 'suspension of disbelief', which seems funny when referring to science fiction in the first place, but this new opponent is almost too sneaky to be real. Or at least, I sure as heck hope there's never a real world group like this!

Anyways, this new opponent is stirring up trouble and helping lead to war between Manticore (now in a tenuous alliance with their long-time enemies) against the Solarian League.

And that sort of gets at why I decided to write this post. The Solarian League...

Well, it originally had good intentions, I guess you could say. The original systems are centered around Earth, they've got a constitution and democracy, and all that. This Solarian League, though, has grown rather corrupt. Particular with systems on the fringe, 'neo-barbarian' frontiers, places where certain bureaucratic organizations have had free reign to do what they want.

I suppose, in some ways, the Solarian League is also more reminiscent of the Roman Empire, as the fringe systems have various governors who generally enrich themselves... one way or another. The governing class is pretty much a techno-bureaucratic class (labeled the 'Mandarins') and there's all sorts of bureaucratic infighting, corruption, connections to various businesses, etc. I know I said there's some parallels between the Solarian League and the United States, but I sure as hell hope that our system isn't nearly as bad as the Solarian one.

So one of the themes, you might say, with this new scenario is 'when has a system become so corrupt that it's irredeemable?' The Solarian League were the first proponents of some various rules of warfare that our original combatants respected (in part out of fear for how the Sollies would react.) In particular, the Eridani Edict, laying out restrictions on attacking a planet's surface.

Part of what we are seeing is the Solarian League, the creator and enforcer of the Eridani Edict, is now setting themselves up to be the biggest violator of their own edict.

When a system stops standing for what it used to stand for, becomes blatantly self-interested to the point where they're now justifying things they used to vociferously oppose...

What does that mean? And when various members decide it's gone too far and decide to leave (consider that Texas stipulated their right to secede when they joined the United States, and just what a disaster it would be if they ever seriously wanted to do so) where do you stand?

'You' being the fictional characters in the series, many of which choose different stances, most of which are believable. There's the ones who worry about the end of the existing Solarian League, who don't think it's as bad as people think, love their star nation and bitterly resent the people trying to leave... and there are the ones who are fed up, don't see any other way of fixing things, and are pretty much done with it all.

And, of course, the whole point of reading the book is to see how it all plays out.

I do like how we get to peek inside the various decision-makers meetings and councils, in part because you can see how otherwise intelligent people wind up making horrible choices. That happened a lot with the Havenites, as you see the pressures leading towards decisions.  Things tied in to maintaining public support, economic pressures, and so on and so forth. And now we see something similar with the Sollies.

Of particular interest, to me at least, is the role that information plays in all this. Coming from an American background (and the First Amendment which values free speech, and the desire for 'truth, justice and the American Way' for all), I almost immediately think 'bad idea' every time one of these organizations decides that they need to 'spin' events by outright lying to their people in order to...

Well, they always sugarcoat it with some sort of unselfish reason, like preserving their government, but honestly the government would probably survive if they were honest about what happened, so it's really about them not wanting to face the consequences of their bad decisions. It's just, well, as Upton Sinclair apparently said - "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

Or rather, in this case you could rephrase it to say 'it is difficult to get people in power to understand that the nation/government/party will be fine when their ability to stay in power depends on not understanding it.'

In other words, it's the classic fallacy of inflating what's good for you with what's good for everyone else. And so these organizations justify editing video to make it look like the other side was lying, setting out a narrative that makes them look good, and doing all sorts of other various things that essentially demonstrates just how much they've lost their way.

If you need to lie about what's going on in order to maintain your grasp on power, then maybe it's a sign that you shouldn't be in power. But good luck getting anyone in that position to admit that.

Anyways. Reading this book has been especially interesting in the current political climate, especially Donald Trump's latest claim of being a 'nationalist'.

There are quite a few people who want him to be a nationalist, and yet I can't help thinking that it's like the exact opposite of what America always stood for.

Hmmm. Let me back up a bit. I was actually thinking about that in a different context, namely Trump's love of various dictators. The Philippine President Duterte, cozying up to North Korea, and his flat out refusal to speak anything bad about Putin. (You can add in the current situation in Saudi Arabia, if you want.)

I won't outright say it's a bad idea, in that I'm sort of a believer that whatever works, works. He's definitely thrown out conventional wisdom on foreign policy, and shaken things up...and the situation in North Korea has been sort of an ugly stalemate for decades.  Honestly, his policies remind me of Nixon's madman theory, and while I don't really agree with that policy, I understand intelligent people believe in it and it's the sort of thing we probably won't know whether its a good idea until decades after the fact. If even then, since people are masters at finding evidence to support their take on things.

I mean, we could learn sooner if he lands us in World War Three, of course, but for now that hasn't happened. And it seems silly to alienate all sorts of long time allies, kind of reminds me of Wilhelm Kaiser II before World War I, but again... we probably won't know the real fallout until decades later. Or unless World War III breaks out and we're left high and dry by those former allies.

Anyways, I digress. He's been speaking highly of dictators, which seems the exact opposite of what America has always stood for. It's a far cry from Ronald Reagan, who firmly stood against the Soviet Union.

And when Trump, and the Republicans, now stand for the exact opposite of what previous Republican greats (like Ronald Reagan) did...

What does it mean?

When someone claims to be a 'nationalist', and throws out all the things that made America great. Throws out the ideals we always stood for (at least in part... there's definitely been some self-interest in our foreign policy)...

Well, what makes America any different from Russia, or the Philippines, or North Korea any more?

Hardware Hack Follow Up

Seems there's some debate over the previous report on hardware hacks.

Destruction, Construction, and Political Hatefulness

I wrote a paper for college, well over a decade and a half ago. The details have grown fuzzy, I can't really recall my sources, but it changed my way of thinking tremendously.

See, I was looking at some of our involvement in low-grade conflicts. At the time, that meant Bosnia. Somalia. Haiti.

I used to agree, if I'd ever thought about it, with the notion that 'ancient ethnic hatreds' could suddenly flare up. A nice and neat way of explaining how reasonable people could get caught in a bloody war, one that didn't really place the blame on anyone. After all, how can you blame anyone specific for 'ancient ethnic hatreds'?

It didn't pass the smell test. Or rather, when you get a place like Bosnia- a place that used to have a large number of mixed marriages, and mixed communities- people do not normally wake up thinking "I hate ____ and want to kill them all." These are your neighbors. Your in-laws. Relatives and friends. If you successfully are living like that, ignoring 'ancient' hatreds, going about your day to day life without trying to kill off the people around you, then something has to trigger a change. Something has to make you decide that it's no longer okay that your neighbors are somehow other, that your wife or husband or cousin or brother's spouse or whoever is suddenly not acceptable. Sure, there might have been tension before. Said 'ancient hatred' probably weren't completely dead. But it was not relevant enough to make you protest when some relative decides to marry someone from the other group.

So what changed?

From what I recall, specific people (for whatever reason) decided they had something to gain by pushing ethnic issues. Take over the radios, the news, spew out content discussing how much 'your' people were discriminated against. Push to arm yourselves (for self defense, natch.) Then, when the government or some authority figure gets nervous about having a bunch of armed people around, take their attempts at disarming your group as proof (proof, I tell you!) that you are threatened.

There's more to it of course. But enough actions like that, and you too can end up in a bloody war in which numerous of your loved ones die or become displaced refugees.

I sometimes wonder, if they had known the consequences of their actions, would they truly have used such... disruptive techniques to gain power?

Eh, but most people don't honestly think it'll happen like that. Like the infamous 'short, victorious war' they think they'll wind up on top, and don't think about the potential toll along the way. (And generally, once blood is in the air, the toll just becomes further incentive to fight violently. Part of why blood feuds are such a problem.)

The sad thing is, it's so much easier to tear things down than it is to build it up. There is a beauty, I suppose, in pure destruction. Back in the Army, I have to admit there's just something about throwing hand grenades (for example) and making a big 'boom'. There's a reason why we like to watch demolitions experts tear down an old building. But hey, there are constructive outlets for that sort of thing. Like becoming one of those demolitions experts. Most people do realize there's a difference between seeing an old building demolished in order to build something new, vs. someone deciding to attack a bunch of people with a truck IED or something.

As for love of destruction, I don't necessarily think it's a gender thing, but I do think some young boys go through a stage where they're drawn to that sort of thing. Like shooting out street lights, or traffic signs, or knocking over mailboxes. I don't really know why... an old friend of mine once told me about some of the shenanigans he and his friends got up to (potato guns, etc) and mentioned the street light thing. Or maybe it was something similar? Anyways, all I could think of was the homeowner who now had to spend the time and money fixing it. Same thing when kids knock down mailboxes. The owner now has to repair the mailbox, which can cost a hundred or so dollars. And as for traffic signs the government has to repair them eventually (I've seen some shot up signs way out in the country, though by the number of holes in them I wasn't sure if the government had just given up on fixing them or not gotten around to them yet).

It's the kind of childish delight in destruction or inability to see the consequences to others that people (thankfully) mostly grow out of. Or at least, find ways of feeding it that don't involve harming other people. (Like joining a bomb squad or something.)

Construction is so much harder. So much more challenging. Anyone can go around destroying things (though certain types of engineers have a much better idea of how to do it efficiently.)

Not just anyone, however, can go about building things back up.

Was there a point to all this rambling? Kind of, I suppose. It's mostly about the nastiness in our current political environment.

And... while both sides have certainly done their fair share of horrible political moves, there's a certain strand of ugliness to those like Breitbart and the like that remind me of gleefully destructive children.

The same sort of attitude that trolls delight in, who feel empowered and strengthened by getting people to react.

Who cares if the trouble they stir up leads to worse things? They either don't believe it will be that bad (i.e. a false belief that people aren't truly that foolish, or that they'll come out on top) or they don't really care (burn it all down.)

They sometimes come across as shining examples of the difference between intelligence and wisdom. That is, they come up with some highly intelligent strategies that betray serious foolishness about human nature and human behavior.

Well, I call it foolishness. Just as destruction is easier than construction, gaining power by appealing to the worst in human nature is far easier than appealing to our better natures. And it can take a while before the negative consequences of doing so become obvious.

Hardware Hacks are Scary

I vaguely remember hearing that this was possible, back before I got into computer science. Actually, back when I was in the Army. So well over a decade ago.


Still, it's scary and disturbing stuff.  After all, you can at least pretend you can avoid phishing scams and other online attacks. But something built into your computer before you ever open the box? 

Dipping My Toes in the Kavanaugh Mess, Rambling Thoughts

The world appears to have gone crazy, and I've been trying not to get sucked into it. This whole Kavanaugh nomination is getting out of control, and I'm not really happy with much of what I see.

But I didn't feel I had anything new to add, so I mostly left it at that.  I know my biases, you see. And I can see how this confirmation hearing is adding fuel to both sides, right now.

On the one hand, you have those who have seen privileged white men get away with crap, over and over and over again, and are sick of it. Who see Kavanaugh as yet another...and even worse, one that is rallying support from all the other privileged white boys (members of a Good Ol' Boys Club) who see nothing wrong with what happened and are whining and complaining because they can't get away with their crap any more.

On the other hand, you've got people who believe Kavanaugh is innocent, see this all as a political smear campaign, something that has tarnished him in the court of public opinion, and resent the  notion that someone can make up a whole bunch of lies and destroy a good, solid man's life. Even worse, they are worried that if it succeeds this time it will open the door to even more accusations.

Before going too much further, I want to address that last sentence. See, I saw similar arguments on the left, regarding the many, many, MANY scandals/rumors etc about Hillary Clinton. Her supporters dismissed Republican accusations, and seemed to think she was a viable candidate (despite the baggage) in part because they believed anybody in her position would face the same sort of crap. That is, partisans are partisans, if they're out to get you they'll come up with something, and why would some unknown candidate (without baggage) be a better choice than someone they know and trust? (Which sort of makes sense, except that I believe Obama spent eight years in office without anywhere near the amount of scandals Bill Clinton had, so I don't think it's truly a case that 'any' candidate would face the same amount of crap. I have to admit I didn't want Hillary in office partly because I didn't want four to eight more years of that sort of political infighting. Not that I wanted Trump in office either, but that's a separate issue. Hillary's opponents really hated her, and would go after her to a degree that they wouldn't for someone else, and we'd have spent four to eight years of stupid political circuses distracting us from dealing with real issues - and instead we have a whole bunch of other political circuses going on, which is just plain depressing. Oh, and I am aware that Obama had his own share of problems (*cough* birth certificate conspiracy *cough* *cough*)...but most of his were, well...frankly so ridiculous that if you weren't already biased you wouldn't be buying into it. It was sort of like some of the picture/memes I saw about Michelle Obama.  She always struck me as a rather classy first lady, so some of the ones complaining about her seemed more a reflection of the sharer's prejudices and biases than anything about Mrs. Obama.)

Anyways.  Someone pointed out that Neil Gorsuch didn't face near the problems Kavanaugh has, and that makes me think this is an issue more particular to Kavanaugh than something that would face any nominee Trump puts forward. (And I'm not even getting into the whole political 'strategizing' on whether people are trying to delay nominations until after the mid-term elections, just as the Republicans delayed nominations until after the Presidential elections. The funny thing about political strategies is that whatever you use becomes fair game for your opponent to use, and if you're going to be playing those sorts of games you'd best be prepared to get it right back at you. Sort of like changing filibuster rules, and various other things one side or the other has proposed doing when it suits their purposes.)

So, let's ignore at least a little bit of the political fearmongering. Fearmongering that seems justified if you support Kavanaugh, and looks like yet another example of white male privilege being unable to handle life without their special status to those who don't.

I like the idea of an FBI investigation because it seems like the best way of getting a semi-unpolitical, unbiased look at the evidence. That is, our justice system (flawed as it is) gives us a systemic process for deciding who is guilty and who isn't. One that is better than mob justice, or 'they seem guilty to me' mindsets. So hey, at least that gives us an out that doesn't devolve into who you find more believable.

That's all just background thoughts/feelings...and I can throw a few more in there before getting to what truly triggered this post. I have my own biases and prejudices, you see. A friend on facebook was talking about some of the investigations she's dealt with regarding sexual harassment, and how many were not considered validated, and she took it as evidence that a lot of women make this stuff up and she supports Kavanaugh. I, on the other hand, remember my experiences with a friend of mine in Afghanistan. I remember her practically in tears, feeling stuck in a situation she didn't like, almost word for word everything they taught us about in prevention of sexual harassment training, and I encouraged her to use our processes to make a claim against our commander. I know the investigation said the allegations were unsubstantiated. That's all fine and dandy, the process went the way it did...

But I know how I read his body language, his interactions, and I sure as hell did not want to continue working for the guy. I know how strange his behavior towards my teammate was, and it was most definitely not what I'd have considered 'okay'. Those things, though, are friggin hard to explain to others. After all, who can say whether grabbing someone's wrist - an invasion of their personal space that, when you think about it, is actually pretty unusual. How often do you reach out and touch someone, if they're not family or a close friend, after all? And that's the first time, in real life, I've ever seen someone give what I'd honestly call a 'murderous look'.)

I don't really want to drag this into ancient history, suffice to say that there's a difference between being able to prove something in court and being convinced something happened. And I can acknowledge that there was no reason to fire him or otherwise penalize him, while still insisting that I did not want to work for him (and seriously, I'm in Afghanistan. Aren't I putting up with enough without adding a creepy, possible sexual harasser on top of that? Especially since the only reason I think he didn't try something with me is because I somehow come across as 'intimidating'...weird though it is to think so. Hooray for being an intimidating woman, I guess. Seems to have saved me from at least some of the grief women put up with on a regular basis.)

Anyways. I'm biased towards believing the accuser, and not really liking Kavanaugh, and he really does come off as a privileged white male who doesn't even see his privilege (like how he got into Yale by 'busting his tail' when his grandfather went there. Typical problems with male privilege - you can work your butt off, and earn something, but that doesn't mean you weren't still benefiting from privilege. Saying someone was privileged isn't saying that they didn't have to work for it, it's saying that they had advantages that allowed them access (especially when they work for it) even though someone else, someone who may be just as talented, just as smart, and just as much of a hard worker, doesn't.)

But I do like to read various opinions, and see if someone can persuade me to another side, and that's why I had to stop and think after reading this article.  I do believe in the importance of assuming someone is innocent until proven guilty. I don't really like the online mob mentality, and how someone can face an unbelievable amount of pressure just because the public thinks they know what justice is in a certain situation. So even though things like the Stanford rapist bother me, and I really didn't like the sentence, I am also quite uncomfortable with the widespread hatred the sentence invoked. It's so decentralized and defused that only the target has any idea how much vitriol they have to deal with, and who can weigh how much of it is enough to be considered justice, anyway? Courts have a process, they look for evidence, and they come up with a sentence that is supposed to be appropriate to the crime. There's a ton of issues with our system, but it's a system. And when someone sentenced by that system has finished their time (or paid their fines, or whatever the sentencing says) then that's supposed to be enough. They did their time, it's done and over with unless/until they show that they didn't learn anything and commit another crime. (That's also part of why our attitudes towards ex-felons are so problematic. The Catholic sacrament of reconciliation is supposed to give you a path back, to reconcile with God after doing wrong. You honestly repent, do whatever penance is required, and God (and the public) forgives you. While the justice system is a civil institution, and not really the same, there's still supposed to be some way of showing you've finished your penance so you can move on. Prevent recidivism and all that.)

And there's another digression for you. So anyways, this article brought up some rather good points, I thought. Except I immediately found some counterpoints.

First - Kavanaugh is not on trial, and he's not going to go to jail. Unless someone is bringing charges to court, that is. So this is not exactly a legal battle... and although judiciary principles are important (that's how we're supposed to get past the political biases to find justice, see my previous comment about supporting an FBI investigation) the decision is really about whether or not he should be a Supreme Court justice.

So I think you can say 'no' to that without making any sort of presumption towards his guilt or innocence. It's a bit like how I can say "I don't know if that previous supervisor of mine was guilty or not, I am not asking that anyone say he's guilty or send him to jail. But I will not work for the man."

Innocent or guilty, can't we all agree that there are other potential candidates? Are we really so strapped for judicial nominees that he's the only one available? (If so, that's rather pathetic.)

Is not allowing him to be a Supreme Court justice truly 'punishment'? There are other potential candidates who've failed to get nominated, and everyone acknowledged it was just politics and not necessarily a 'punishment'.

The 'punishment' element seems more to do with that aforementioned internet mob mentality. I'm sure he and his family have already had some uncomfortable encounters with people who believe the worst of him, and it's probably going to get worse before it gets better. Especially so long as he's in the political limelight like this.

There is a part of me that does feel like...well...like it's a bit of self-centered whining when you compare the damage of dealing with the hatred of a few people, vs. the massive damage a woman undergoes when she's suffered a sexual assault. (Toughen up, privileged white boy! Grow a thicker skin. If you didn't really do what you were accused of then the ones who matter will know. And as for the rest of it, sticks and stones. Sticks and stones.) But we are social creatures, and the hatred of 'a few' people when you're talking about the internet and society at large can actually be quite...painful. It's not something I actually want to shrug off and say is acceptable.

Well, that and I guess it is a 'punishment' not to get a pretty awesome position. But whatever.

I have no idea what really happened. I'm inclined towards believing his accuser, and his overall behavior has struck me as all supporting the notion that he's a privileged prat who shouldn't be a Supreme Court Justice...but I'm biased, and I admit that.

I'm disturbed by how everyone is taking it, and hope that an FBI investigation gives us a way out of this mess that (if not necessarily pleasing to anybody) will at least seem somewhat fair and impartial.

School, Job Hunt, NCL, etc.

I kind of like how the material I've been studying is starting to come together.  One of my classes is covering the material for the Certified Ethical Hacker, which...well. I probably won't go for the cert, but I like knowing this stuff as a possible future defender. Anyways, the book only lightly touches on some topics because they expect you to know them already...

And I do. Some of it was covered in my CCNA classes (i.e. networking, the OSI model, ports, etc.) and some of it was covered in various other classes, but it's nice to feel like all those different topics are starting to form a more complete picture.

Oh, and my university had some recruiters from TEK Systems come earlier this week. I decided to drive the hour or so it took to be there. I'm not entirely sure when/whether I'll hear from them any time soon, but from what my professors say they seem to be a big deal.

I also decided to join my school's National Cyber League team. Seems like a nice way to build experience, and they take into account current experience so I probably won't be completely out of my league.

Other than that, it's just a matter of studying and doing homework. And beginning to put out feelers for the job hunt.

Did I already mention that I had to revamp my resume? None of my previous work experience directly ties into the jobs I'll be looking for, so I actually added a section for coursework. It seems weird to me, but I've had a couple of people look it over and they seem to think it's okay. The TEK Systems recruiters actually indicated I ought to expand a bit more (they said the 'one page' requirement doesn't really make sense in their industry, especially if you've got decades of experience, so I probably could have made mine longer. It wouldn't be computer science related, but bullet points on how much I contributed to the various organizations would still show that I'm a good hire. I hate that part, though... Meh. Stuff to work on for the next month or so.)

Deeper Laws

I blame C.S. Lewis.

Okay, that's not quite true...I just thought it'd be funnier that way.  Regarding C.S. Lewis, though, I distinctly remember when it dawned on me that the whole Aslan-dying-on-an-altar-and-coming-back-to-life was basically the story of Jesus.

Now I wonder how I didn't notice that before, it is sort of a 'Well, duh' thing.  In my defense, I was a child at the time, and I had grown up with Lord of the Rings, the Chronicles of Narnia, the Chronicles of Prydain (the movie 'The Black Cauldron' did a horrible mishmash of two of the stories there), Star Trek, Star Wars, and more.  (C.S. Lewis's science fiction books were...a bit odd.)  My brother reminded me that Dad used to read the Lord of the Rings to us - I'd almost forgotten.

In my head, I had a completely separate place for the science fiction/fantasy books and religion, and I didn't really think of them as related.

I brought that up, though, because I do think C.S. Lewis's description of Aslan's death and resurrection shaped a lot of my later thinking.  Aslan had this whole bit where he talked about a deeper magic.

There are the rules we all are mostly familiar with, but some things tap into a deeper magic.  In the right circumstances.

In the story that all had to do with his willing sacrifice, his innocence, and the resulting resurrection...but I think it has an element of truth to all sorts of things.

There are deeper laws at work in the world, sometimes, and doing the 'right' things often taps into them.  Take martyrdom - it seems sort of backwards that people dying (for a cause) can actually spread their cause further.  Yet  it has happened, enough that we all know the dangers of making someone a martyr.  (IMHO it's not just about dying...anybody can do that.  It has to do with the way they die.  I don't think Muslim terrorists, for example, are truly going to spread their beliefs with they way they go about it.  Their so-called martyrdom is all tied up with murdering others at the same time.  It doesn't tap into the 'deeper law' as described above, because they are hardly innocent when they are dragging unwilling victims into death with them.  Part of why they're foolish idiots...albeit violent and dangerous ones.)

There are often deeper laws at work in the world around us.  For example - kids and baby animals may be vulnerable and weak.  Yet baby features (like big eyes) invoke protective feelings in the adults around them, giving them a power all their own.  People will do all sorts of things to protect the young, in a way they wouldn't for a fellow adult.

Weakness can be a strength, and strength can be a weakness.  It's just tricky, sometimes, knowing when those 'deeper laws' are in play.  Going back to the whole Aslan thing, it wasn't just about dying.  It was about dying as an innocent.  Knowingly.  Willingly.

There's a similar power at play when it comes to being vulnerable...Brene Brown's Ted talk on vulnerability brings up a lot of great points regarding that.

It's funny, though.  How sometimes losing lets you win, and winning makes you lose.  Consider some serious oversimplifying of historical events - but ones worth thinking about.  The US losing in Vietnam may possibly have emboldened the Soviet Union to such an extent that they invaded Afghanistan...and then got bogged down in their own mess. A mess which may, somewhat, have been a reason for the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union.  Did American weakness lead to Soviet overconfidence lead to an ensuing failure later on? 

I was reminded of all this because of my previous post.  Not the one on certifications (which, due to costs and whatnot, I think I've got an idea of what ones I truly want).  Rather, the one on keeping things in perspective.  I mentioned that I had more respect for Al Gore after seeing the way he handled his loss in 2000.  I'm not sure that means I'd have voted for him if he ran again.  A lot can happen in an election year, after all, and it also depends somewhat on who the competition is.  But his loss there might have meant more support later on, if he had chosen to run again.

Maybe.  Possibly.

And, alternatively, a poor loser (or winner) can turn people away.  Though that doesn't seem to have happened to Trump yet.  Who knows?  People are weird sometimes.

This all depends on the situation, of course.  Just as game theory points out - people act different when they know they're never going to see someone again, versus situation where they know they will be dealing with the same people over a long period of time.  Politics, to my mind, is mostly the latter - the players will interact with each other over the long haul, unless they screw up so terribly that they lose.  (Given the rates incumbents get re-elected, you have to screw up pretty badly for that to happen.)  That means political strategies should keep the long view in mind. (FYI - most of Trump's modus operandus seems tied to one-offs.  His focus on getting the best of any deal might work in for one particular point in time, but seems pretty short-sighted and destructive when he's trying to make deals with the same people over a long period of time.  There's a reason why 'Getting to Yes' and finding the Win/Win are important negotiating tactics.)

Final Semester - Slightly Freaking Out

Whelp, this should be my final semester before I graduate with a Master's in Computer Science.  The course load doesn't seem too bad, and it's interesting and all, but that means I'm beginning to think about the next step - finding a job.

And, of course, I want to find a job before too much longer...but on the other hand I need to finish these classes in order to get the right certifications for the job(s?) I want.

And boy are there a lot of possible certifications!!!

I could spend $700 for a CISSP (we did cover most of the material in one of my classes, so if I study well I ought to pass).  Not sure about some of the other certifications listed here, maybe I would need some of them as well?  And yet that's another $700...

Then, well, this semester should be the final portion of study for the Cisco CCNA, which would be another $300.  I could go for that if I wanted a career in networking, but if I go for the CISSP and focus on cybersecurity than I may not need it. 

Another of my classes is focused on the CEH, but I'm not sure if that means I can take the exam at the end of the class (i.e. if the course is through an accredited partner, the cost may be bundled in with my tuition...but the course site said that the certification is separately purchased, so I'm thinking not.  In which case, I would probably need to go for one of the other options, which would be problematic since they focus more on work experience - and have a $999 certification fee.  If I went for that I'd run into the 'you need experience to get the certification, but you need the certification to get the experience' problem.  Which means maybe I'd just have to pay for the training through an accredited partner, except that seems like a bit of a waste since I'll have covered pretty much all of it in this course anyway.  Plus...how long would it take?  I definitely don't want to waste too much time getting the certifications and finding a job.)

I ran into a tech person while playing Pokemon Go the other day and was talking about my possible interests...I also mentioned my interest in virtualizaton, and he responded by mentioning some MORE certifications.  Because of course there are. 

Which, well, now that I think about it is not too surprising...

So maybe I need to get the VMWare certification?  Something like the VCP6-DCV?  Or some of the other VMWare exams?  Those would only be another $100-$250, right?

And that just made me think that I ought to check on the certifications for my other areas of interest.  Sure enough, it looks like if I want to work more with EnCase and digital forensics I should see about getting a GCFE, GCFA, GNFA, or some other such thing. After all, what's another couple thousand dollars?  Or are these the types of certifications you're expected to get after you're hired?

I think I have a solid foundation for just about any of those, what with the classes I've been taking.  But I don't think I can afford to go for ALL of the certifications...

So I probably need to pick and choose which ones will actually lead to the job I want.  It'd be easier if I already had a job lined up, since I could tailor my focus towards what I'd need for that job, but that's sort of a chicken and egg problem.

What a pain.