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.)