EMP Strikes

So if you want nightmares, or a reason to stay awake at night, go ahead and read the EMP Commission's report.

Came across this while doing research for a class paper, and since massive EMP strikes are one of my 'what's the worst thing that could happen to the United States' analysis I figured I'd share the horror.

The Rise and Fall of Empires

I've been thinking a bit about the world today. About why it is the way that it is. About ways it could be better (naturally), and how perennial a problem that is.  There seems something...inevitable...about it all.

I suppose I ought to explain what 'it' is in the first place.

'It' refers to the inevitable growth of an elite, one that increasingly grows out of touch and eventually loses power in the process.  'It' is a world where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer (until disruption of some sort occurs, temporarily reversing that...only for a new group to wind up on top, and start getting richer).

'It' is this sense of inevitability, this sense that we're always fighting the same damn fight.  And that, ultimately, it doesn't really help anybody.  Not the top 1%, not the bottom 99%, nobody.

There is a certain sense of inevitability, because this age-old pattern repeats itself over and over again for the same reason - human nature.

It's not that the people on top are all greedy, selfish, and self-centered idiots. If I were in their shoes, I would probably see things the same way.  Well, not now of course.  I think I've had far too many years being on the other end for that. (Maybe.  It is true that people change their opinions a lot based on who they're around, so if I somehow did join the 1% maybe I'd change more than I think.)

Some of it also comes from our own natural desire.  For safety.  Security.  To leave our children in a better place. So of course that Ivy League graduate is going to ensure their darling child gets into the same school.  And of course they'll pay for extra tutoring to achieve that, if necessary.  And of course they'd support their child in all those extra-curriculars that look good on a college application.  I'd probably do the same if I had the resources.  And all of these activities are things my Little, from Big Brothers Big Sisters, has no hope at all of having.  It's hard making sure she gets to band concerts, or to her archery practices and tournaments, and she's able to do so partly because I (someone who is not her mother, or grandparent, or the father she hasn't seen in years) helped drive her to these things any number of times.

What's funny in a tragic kind of way is that I don't really think anyone's happy with all this.  I can't speak for everyone, of course.  Humans are far too varied for that.  And there's a reason why  our Declaration of Independence only said we had a right to the "Pursuit of Happiness."  We're pretty awful at figuring out how to actually be happy.

There are studies about what does, and they match my own beliefs rather well.  Top-most factor is our social connections.  People feel happy when they have strong ties to other people.  Friends. Family.  Not the artificial ties where you can't really be yourself, not the show people put on when they're pursuing success...the meaningful ties you get from being around people you have good relationships with.

Also, going back to the whole Man's Search for Meaning, it comes from feeling as though what you are doing is important.  Meaningful. Serving some greater purpose than just yourself.

Which is why I find it kind of sad when our elites seem selfish and self-centered.  Like...are you really, truly, and honestly happy?  Here you are with everything society says are signs of success, and yet you seem somehow cut off from other people.  Isolated.  Stuck with superficial and shallow relationships where you can never really speak your mind, always have to portray some sort of image.

Of course, depressing as that all is, I do like to believe it's not inevitable.  Even though I said that at the beginning.  I suppose that's what I kind of like about some of the more topsy-turvy stories in the Bible.  You know, the ones that go against everything we know about success and human nature.  Like that Moses might have had a speech impediment of some sort.  Perhaps even stuttered.  That's hardly the image of a polished and charismatic leader.  In some ways, it also reminds me of Chuang Tzu.  Or, more particularly, this bit (copied from this translation):

A man with a club foot, a stooped posture, and who had no lips explained his theories to Duke Ling of Wei. Duke Ling was so won over by the guy that he thought anyone who would be considered to have a perfect form would have to have the same neck and shoulders as him. A man with a goiter on his neck as big as a huge jar explained his theories to Duke Huan of Qi. Duke Huan was so won over by the guy that he thought anyone who would be considered to have a perfect form would have to have the same neck and shoulders as him. Therefore, when virtue is predominant, a person's physical form is forgotten. If people remember what was forgotten, and then forget what was remembered - that can be called true forgetting.

I won't say I've experienced this for myself, but I have noticed that people can grow more or less attractive the more you get to know them.  That is, an attractive person starts looking ugly as you realize they've got an ugly personality.  And an unattractive person can start looking pretty darn good as you get to know them.  So, too, can some people become leaders despite not having the perfect looks.

And yet our system is so focused on charismatic appearances!!!

To bring this back to the world today -  to growing inequality, and an elite that comes across as self-satisfied and selfish - forcing people to be generous doesn't seem like the right answer.  Then it's done for the wrong reasons, and breeds resentment.  Yet I find it sad that so many people find reasons to shut themselves off from their fellow man.

We all become lesser, somehow, in the process.

Locus of Control vs. Faith, Jumbled Up

Since leaving my job, I've been on a bit of a roller coaster.  I'm happy to be done with that place, worried about how to pay the bills while I go to school, and everything in between.

I've thought about posting here, except I'm not really sure what to say.  Some of that is because I don't want to sound whiny...which makes me wonder why we have to try so hard to sound positive and upbeat sometimes.

I've been driving for Lyft and Uber, though I've noticed that there just don't seem enough calls during the day to make it worth the effort.  One ride in an hour seems hardly worth the cost of driving out to pick someone up and back.  Most of the good hours are in the late evening, which kind of puts me on a second shift schedule.

So I've been looking for something else to help make this work.  Ideally a telecommuting job with flexible hours.  I thought I found something (a site that pays you to research and answer questions), but I found I was spending far too much time doing the research with no real guarantee that it will pay off.  If they don't like your sourcing, that is.  I could probably get better at it, but I'm not sure the ROI is worth it.  (Seems weird to use that business term here, but it really is a calculation of how much I'd get paid vs. the amount of time I'm putting into it.  I just don't see it.)

Meanwhile, this brings up an ongoing internal debate of mine.  If you've ever heard about locus of control, it's tied up with that.  Locus of control vs. religous faith, for an overly short version.

So here's the dilemma. For the most part, I believe in an internal locus of control.  That is, I can influence events and their outcomes.  My efforts can dictate the result, and if I can just make the right effort I can get wherever I want to be.

However.  I'm also aware that it's not as easy as that.  Life happens.  Plans get derailed.  You have to plan, but you have to be aware of changing conditions and change the plan if you need to.  In some ways, people who get too locked into their plans do themselves a disservice (like spending years learning to be a doctor or lawyer, and not pay attention to the fact that you hate what you do for a living.  Or pushing to become successful and wealthy, only to realize that you're on a never ending hamster wheel...always chasing that next sign of success without taking the time to discover who you really are and what makes you truly happy.)

I wonder how much of my thoughts are tied up with how I was raised re: money...over and over again books on success say that you have to have the right attitude towards money, and it's such a consistent message that I wonder if I sabotage myself because I don't have the right attitude.

Or, again...is it better not to chase it too much?  After all, some biographies of the wealthy make them seem sort of...disturbed.  Again, so focused on signs of success that they demonstrate the worst in humanity.  Shallow, superficial, obsessed with showing off their wealth while internally they show a poverty of spirit (not naming any names here.)  And yes, there's that religious upbringing again.

Okay.  So that's a brief overview of the locus of control issues.  I can control my fate, more or less, though some things will require a drastic change (so drastic I'm not even sure how to get there).  Or maybe I don't have as much control as I think.

On to the religious side.  Best captured, I think, by the bicycle story.  There are dangers in trying to control too much, there are experiences you miss, when you insist on a set path.  It's part of why everyone is suspicious of certain kinds of politicians.  The person at 20 who says "I'll never get a tattoo, because it might ruin my chances for office", or who says to themselves "This is someone I can date, because they'll look good beside me when I run for office."  They're setting up the path they think will take them where they want to go, and in the process how much do they miss out on?  How shallow is a relationship chosen simply because someone makes a good trophy wife?  Or husband, to be fair, though odds are more likely it's a trophy wife.  Plus, as I said earlier, "Life happens".  Too much of an attempt at control can lead to disastrous results.

So being open to new experiences, open to God...that seems important, too.  My Catholic grade school had a class once on "God's body language".  What I recall (20+ years later) was it basically was saying God 'speaks' to us through each other.  So for example, if you are hearing the same thing over and over again from different people in your life it could be God speaking through them to you.  (I don't feel I'm doing justice to that argument, and this was so long ago I don't even remember how it was taught to us, you probably ought to go talk to someone with a theological background if you actually want to understand it.  This is just what I remember).  Tied in with this is the whole "whenever one door closes, another opens".  Its...

It's about being open to the path God is leading you towards.  It assumes that there is a God, and that He (or She - I use 'He' more out of familiarity than any attempt to restrict God to a specific gender) is actively involved in your life, and leading you in a certain direction.  It also kind of assumes that God is leading  you somewhere that you want to be.  There are times when I quibble with these assumptions, like does He even exist?  If so, is He some distant deity concerned with weightier things than my worries and concerns?  Or is He active to the degree these statements imply?  Or would God make my life difficult, because He is so distant from our daily concerns that frustration, fear and insecurity are meaningless to Him?  Like, why should He bother to make sure we're financially secure?  The Bible had that whole parable about the flowers of the field, that get what they need without effort. (Leaving aside that droughts happen, and that flowers don't always get what they need...or a specific flower might not, even though the species of flowers may be doing just fine...but let's say the parable is true and the flower really does get what it needs)...would God really care about giving us financial stability?

Or are we supposed to trust that the bills will get paid, even if we don't really know how or when?  (and what kind of crappy life is it, when you're always dependent on some miracle coming in at the last minute?  Or are we supposed to learn to do without things like a house, and car, and mortgage?)  If we're supposed to trust in God, can we really trust him to care about material things like that?  Especially when so much of the Bible tells us not to get too hung up on worldly goods?

So...if I'm unhappy, or not where I want to be, is that because He is trying to lead me in a different direction, or am I just not hearing His will, or is it all a bunch of nonsense and I should dig in and use that locus of control to get where I want to be?

Like, where's the friggin sign?!?  Is it crazy to even expect a sign?!?  If there is one, can you make it bright neon, with arrows and everything...because apparently I'm not so good at reading the more subtle things.  (and, again, that nagging sense that it's ridiculous to sit around waiting for a sign in the first place.)

To add another layer to this, I want to relate an anecdote describing the types of signs I'm talking about.  A man had a house in an area threatened by a flood.  The water was about a foot high, when someone came by and offered to take him to safety.  The man said "No thanks, God will save me."

A little while later, the water continued to rise.  The man had to move up to the second story of his house.  Someone came by again, in a boat, and offered to take him to safety.  Again, he replied "No thanks, God will save me."

Finally, the water rose to the top of the house.  The man had to climb out onto his roof.  This time a helicopter came by, and again they offered to take the man to safety.  Again, he replied "No thanks, God will save me."

The man died, and when he got to heaven he said "God, why didn't you save me?!?"  to which God said "I sent you help three times!"

Is it faith, to sit around waiting for a miracle?  Mostly I think not.  That way lies danger...like the old Templars who died at the Battle of Hattin.  God seems to be on the side of those who use their brains, not those who expect Him to come through with a miracle.

And I know we have this tendency to fit our life experiences into a narrative.  When things are good, we look back and say "bad things had to happen that way, for me to get where I am now" and we make our peace with it.  That is to say, we can look back and say "God must have wanted x to happen, otherwise I wouldn't have done y"...but whether or not that's true has more to do with us making our lives into a story than anything objective.  Faith, at the heart of it, is rather subjective.

And yet, and yet...

and yet I can't help hoping there's some sort of meaning to it all.  It's exhausting to think it's all up to me.  I'm not up to the job.  There's all these people out there, competing...better positioned than I am.  Smarter than I am.  Better at networking then I am.  Better looking than I am.  Younger than I am.  Better at building support, or selling themselves, or whatever it is.

I'm not really quite sure what it is I'm doing wrong, but if I have control over my fate and I'm not happy with where I am, then I must be doing something wrong.  That is, if locus of control is all it's cracked up to be.

I used to think I knew what I was doing, now not so much.  And if all my plans and goals and efforts failed to get me where I wanted to be, maybe it's because I'm headed in the wrong direction.  Or that I'm not as good as I thought I was.  Or...I dunno, something.  That's exactly when you hear people of faith saying things like "Let go and let God", or something like that.

So I circle back to that openness to God, and almost feel like I'm throwing down the gauntlet.  Like "I know you're the Almighty, All Powerful, Creator of Heaven and Earth and I'm just some peon in no position to challenge You, but if You exist and want to be a part of my life then frigging Do Something!!!"

Which seems a horrible thing to demand.

Meanwhile, well...classes are still going well.  And it's not yet time to panic about the bills.  I do have some various ideas of things I can do, and will figure something out.  It's more a question of how painful this is going to be, and will I regret making the choice I did (after all, I did make the decision to leave my job and focus on school...so if it does get painful it's totally my fault.)

Whelp, I did it.

Friday was my last day at work.  It feels - right.  Was rather a relief to leave.

But I'm still rather nervous about how I'll pay my bills from now on.  Yes, yes...GI benefits, student loans, and working for Lyft and/or Uber will hopefully fill in the gaps.  I'll know better in another month or two.

Still, it feels right.  Classes, btw, are going well.  I rather like them even more than I expected.

I haven't spoken out much about current events...I may or may not do so at some point.  I kind of wanted to compare and contrast the different narratives centering around Trump, plus what I see as evidence for and against each.  Still, it seems a bit...opaque, with lots of conflicting information.  Not sure if or when I'll get around to it.

Update

Classes have started, and so far so good.  I find that I'm enjoying them more than I thought I would, even though (or perhaps because) the material is challenging.  I'm taking four courses - Intro to Programming, Discrete Mathematics, a class on the Internet and American Life, and a class on Human-Computer Interaction.

The programming class is teaching Java, and so far it's been kind of fun.  I've had the expected trouble remembering syntax, though the programming environment has improved considerably.  I vaguely recall studying C++ over twenty years ago, and if I forgot to add a colon or got something wrong I don't recall getting a notice before running the program.  I vaguely remember poring over code trying to figure out what I did wrong.  Now, the IDE tells me exactly where the issues are and gives some clue as to what.

The Internet and American Life is neat, because it fits my new interest nicely with my old one.  We're reading various material on internet topics, like privacy or access to broadband.  It's making me dig into topics I've been only peripherally aware of.  So...computer science and public policy, basically.

The Human-Computer Interaction one is interesting, because it's making me think about the various interfaces I've used over the course of my life.  Everything from changes to Windows, to the things we did to modify our Warehouse Management System, to my work with an IT person to develop a Filemaker database.  Dad said that going back to undergrad classes after doing a master's was a hoot, and I think he's right.  (Ask me again when finals and term papers are due!)

I've saved the best (or worst) for last.  Discrete Mathematics.  I kind of love it, though I think it could be quite intimidating if you'd never had anything like it before.  Our first few chapters cover logic and other things.  Propositions, predicates, truth tables, set theory, matrices.  Really, it's quite a lot to cover in the first two weeks!

Luckily, as I said, I've had classes rather like it before.  One was a class on logic, twenty years ago.  Or rather, a class called "the Darkside of Rationality" that covered how illogical we are, but had to cover logic to kind of show how often we aren't.  I think.  Again, it was twenty years ago.  I'm actually a little impressed with how much it's coming back to me.  I'm also drawing on my high school calculus and pre-calculus, where I did get introduced to matrices.

So the course is challenging.  I find myself reviewing the material a lot over the course of the week, and some of it's a little slippery.  But it's also kind of fun, as it reminds me a bit of sudoku puzzles, especially those times when you're able to figure out the number through some fancy bit of logic.

To give you a sense of how intimidating it can be, here's something from the wikipedia on De Morgan's laws:



It's basically saying that if there is some function (or proposition) 'P(x)' that is true for all possible x values, it's the same as saying that "no x exists that is not P(x)"

Okay, that doesn't come out very well when I type it.  Or rather, something that seems so clear in my head is clearly not so crystalline when I try to explain it.  I originally was going to read this off like I do internally but it just doesn't work quite right.  "For all of x, P(x) is logically equivalent to saying that it is not the case that there exists an x which is not P(x)"

It gets even stranger when you realize x can be anything, even a statement like "humans have belly buttons".  So the first part would say "for all humans, humans have belly buttons" and you can evaluate that statement for whether it's true or false.  Those three stacked lines that look like a suped up equals sign indicates logical equivalence.  It basically says that the statement to the left will have the same truth values to the statement on the right.  It's not saying that it's true, or false.  Just that when you evaluate the statement "for all humans, humans have belly buttons", its truthiness will be exactly same as the second half...which can be roughly translated to "there is not a human who does not have a belly button"

You could make x something else, like "cats have hair".  Then the first half would say "for all cats, cats have hair" and the second half would say "there is not a cat who does not have hair", and since we all know that such cats exist we know that both statements are false.  And since the truthiness of those statements are the same, they're still logically  equivalent.

Okay.  I'm leaving it at that.  Let's just say, classes are kind of fun.  I am quitting my job in a month.  Part of me wonders why I gave my workplace such a long notice.  Particularly when something annoying crops up at work.  But I will be training my replacement soon and just have to do one more month.  Then I can start freaking out about paying my bills.  (I did get my certificate of eligibility saying I qualify for 70% of the post-9-11 GI Bill, and submitted all my paperwork.)

Oh, btw, I got all signed up to drive for Lyft and Uber.  FYI - it's pretty common for drivers to use both apps, here.  I don't think there's enough ride requests to stick with one and only one.

I hope that driving will give me the schedule flexibility and income to make things work while I go to school.  I've driven a couple of times, just to try it out.  I haven't done it extensively yet so I don't know how well this will work as a side job, but we'll see.

Anyone reading this who wants to try riding or driving with either company, feel free to use my referral codes.

For Lyft, it's: CHRISTINA93597

For Uber, it's: 6D5BZMZ1UE

Patriotism

I was always one of 'the smart ones', which sometimes meant I had opportunities others didn't.  For example, in middle school I participated in a field trip to a mental health hospital.  At least, I think that's what it was.  I mostly remember a magician performing various tricks (I got a deck of cards that showed all black jacks if you flipped it a certain way) and also talking about mental health.

Okay, it sounds weird when I type it out like this.  Especially as I find myself questioning the details...it was over 20 years ago now.  Despite distance and time, however, the magician said something that has stuck with me all these years.  He said that maturity was recognizing that your parents were flawed.  Imperfect.  And loving them anyway.


I would expand on that 'parents' bit, and say it applies to anyone or anything that you idolize and put on a pedestal.  See, if you love it only because you think it's perfect...then you are seeing only a partial image of what you love.  And you are at serious risk of becoming disappointed, cynical, and angry when the façade inevitably fails.


We are all...imperfect.  And there is something powerful in being able to admit our flaws, and knowing we are loved and accepted anyway.  Powerful and scary, of course.  We try so very hard to pretend they don't exist.  We don't want to be vulnerable, get embarrassed when someone sees us screw up.  And that is part of why it is so amazing, when someone does see all that, and accepts us anyway.


This view on love and relationships has it's downsides, of course.  It makes it harder for me to get swept away, since I believe/know that the initial chemistry/Eros is just that.  And in the back of my mind is the question of "what happens when we start seeing past that?"  Will this person really stand by me, even when they see me get short-tempered and curt?  And can I stand by them, in turn?  Can we expand from Eros into Agape and Phileo and Ludus and Storge kinds of love?


Still, it seems more...healthy.  Wholesome.  I think putting anyone or anything on a pedestal is a recipe for disaster.  You're just one eye-opening experience away from having it all crash down on you.  Besides, it's a lot of work living on a pedestal.  You have to be perfect, you can't make mistakes.  (It reminds me a bit of the movie The Full Monty, and the guy who couldn't admit to his wife that he'd lost his job...so he kept leaving the house every day pretending that he was gong to work.  His wife, in that case, couldn't be a comfort and support.  He was too busy keeping up appearances for her.)  Don't put them on a pedestal, but don't get cynical and go looking for flaws.  It's about accepting and loving anyway, not tearing people down for not being perfect.


But I titled this post 'Patriotism', because all of this is background for my love of country.  That is - I think putting America on a pedestal and insisting we're perfect (and awesome) is as superficial and shallow as that first stage of love.  It means acting as though any hint of criticism is an attack, as though anyone suggesting we do things different or better is somehow saying that our country is not worth supporting.


At the same time, there is a strand of exactly that in some critiques.  Yes, we have problems.  Boy, do we have problems.  And yet there's something to be said for a society where the majority of our people feel like it's safe to completely ignore politics.  Where we don't have to worry about losing our jobs or being turned in by a neighbor (or family member) if we insult Trump or Hillary.  Or Bush, or Obama, or any of our leaders. 


I struggle with my definition of love, sometimes.  I'll use work as an example.  Sure, there's always the honeymoon period.  The first year or so, where you think your work place is awesome and really enjoy being there.  When something comes to disillusion you, is it just paving the way for a more mature understanding of the company?  Or is it a true indication that something is wrong, that maybe this isn't the right fit, and maybe it's time to move on?  I thought I gave up on finding that 'perfect' place to work, you see.  And yet I find that there are still things that grow more irritating the longer I work here, to the point where I needed to make a change.


So anyways.  I'm writing this as a bit of an explanation for why I'm still taking a hiatus on national security.  It's not exactly about Trump's election.  (I'm worried about what will come, and not too thrilled he won...and yet I'm also kind of pleased at how much the DC establishment is freaking out about it.  It's complicated and I may try to explain more later.  It's like...I don't like racism, sexism, and his crude and inconsiderate behavior...but the reaction to his win seems to add weight to some long-standing conservative critiques that I'd previously dismissed.  And there are such radically conflicting perspectives that I have a hard time sorting it out.  But I'm digressing.)


I love my country.  I will shamelessly use my military service in support of that statement, because it disrupts the assumption that any criticism comes from a lack of patriotism. 


That said...there are times where I really question who we are and what we're doing.  I'm having a hard time finishing that book on Kissinger, for example, because so much of what he (and the establishment at that time.  I don't want to put it all one guy, he had support) did in Cambodia was just flat out wrong.  As in 'banality of evil' wrong.  Kind of made me sick to read it, which is sad to say about something that happened well before I was born and that I am completely unable to do anything about.  And yet he's considered a well-respected statesman!!!  Hillary was talking about how she has his support!!!  


The Wikipedia article I linked to said that "One of the key issues that prevented congressional inclusion was the embarrassing fact that five key members of both political parties had been privy to the information and had neither said nor done anything about it". 


This is the kind of thing that really bothers me, because it implies that this really isn't about one or two bad decisions.  It implies that the bi-partisan establishment consensus supported what happened.  And that even if it was only a few key players, the rest of the establishment would rather hush it up and carry on than actually do anything to prevent it from ever happening again.


It's also the kind of thing that makes me wonder if I'm naïve, in thinking that our nation is mostly a force for good in the world.  That maybe the corruption really has gone too deep.  It's the kind of thinking that, frankly, Donald Trump was able to tap into. (Even though what I just described has more in common with far left critiques.  Yes, I know.)


There's more I could get into here.  Hillary's e-mails.  Foreign policy.  Russian hacking.  The CIA and FBI and conflicting analysis thereof.  The establishment. 


A lot more.  But...I don't think I'll ever have the access to answer those sorts of questions.  Not really.  To give you one example of what I'm talking about - I posted something on Facebook about Russian hacking, as almost everything I heard indicated that the Russian government was really involved.  Only to have a friend (who has a clearance, has served at the Pentagon, and is now part of the new cyber command) say that there was reason to doubt their involvement.  I think she probably has the access to know...and if that's true, then wth is going on with all the news reports saying differently?


This happened before the election, I think it was in response to something I posted about Trump's comments during a debate.  And yet that was in the back of my mind during the more recent discussion about CIA and FBI analysis on Russian involvement.  If my friend is telling the truth, then the media and CIA are not.  Their narrative of Russian interference falls apart.  And what are the consequences of believing that narrative?  Of having a large and influential group blaming Russia?


And vice versa. If the media and CIA are telling the truth, then there's an alarmingly large and influential group of people who disagree...and what are the consequences of that?
Of course, now the news says that the FBI supports the CIA narrative of Russian interference.  So maybe there is a consensus.
Then again, my friend also said she knew members of the Secret Service who confirmed some of the negative stories about Hillary...and yet Secret Service leadership publicly discredited the book written by that ex-Secret Service guy making similar allegations.  Which says either the author was writing about second-hand accounts, or that Hillary has enough pull to make the Secret Service cover for her.  Or something.


There are a lot of things going on right now, and I'm not really sure what to say in the face of it.


So hey, I'm going back to school and studying computer science.  Maybe I can't shape the course of American national security, but I can at least learn something new and interesting and hopefully get a good (non-corporate) career out of it.

Further Updates

I've decided to go back to school, for a second bachelor's in Computer Science.   I've already been accepted to the online program at U of I, Springfield.  I've applied for my post 9/11 GI benefits, though I don't think I'll get 100% (my commitment from ROTC doesn't count towards time in service for this, so when they calculate the percentage it'll be based on the year or so after I finished that)

I feel -  good.  Yet terrified.  But good.

That is, it feels like the right decision.  I've got some more details to work out (I want to study Finance as well.  UIS has a finance minor, but not entirely online.  I might be able to transfer to U of I, Champaign Urbana later.  Maybe.  I've got options and possibilities.)

It feels right... but holy hell, what have I just gotten myself into?!?  I'm going to quit a rather decent paying job (with benefits!) to study something that will require calculus (which I haven't done in over twenty years) in a field where I -  a woman pushing 40 - will definitely not be the norm.  And what will this do to my finances?!?  I think I can find freelance work or a part time job to fill in the gaps, but I'm worried that three months from now I'll be kicking myself for doing something stupid.

So.  Yeah. 

Scary.  But exciting.