Update

I'm over in Indiana visiting relatives for a but, but this fit in too well with my recent posts not to share.

Cuddle Parties and the Death of Platonic Male Touch https://melmagazine.com/cuddle-parties-and-the-death-of-platonic-male-touch-596048c79745

Charlottesville

I haven't posted much because a close friend suffered a personal tragedy last week, and I went to be there for her and her family.

Meanwhile, the world has gotten even crazier.  I have to admit the reports from Charlottesville are disturbing, and I'm worried about what it means and where we're headed. 

I saw this on Facebook today and found it very disturbing - https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1637545369612833&id=100000721566451

I hope and think that this won't get out of hand.  That many people are disgusted by these extremists.  I hesitate even to call them right wing extremists, tbh. In some ways it does remind me of the Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq, you see.  Things in Iraq really started to get out of control after the bombing of the al-Askari mosque, which led to an escalating cycle of violence.  There are people in the United States who seem to WANT to ignite a race war, like Dylann Roof.  I personally think they are idiots trying to unleash hell, but there are always people who seem to think they will win any such war and will gain something if they can do so (think of the Algerian independence movement, or the underpinnings of the break up of Yugoslavia, or - yes- the violence in Iraq after that bombing)

So far, the US as a whole has resisted any such thing.  For how long, though? 

If this FB post is accurate, the extremists need to be shut down, and shut down hard.  While respecting their right to peacefully assemble, and to engage in free speech.  But home invasions?  Drive by shootings?  That's not peaceful assembly, and it needs to be shut down hard.

More on modern expectations on masculinity

Back when I was a young junior officer in the US Army, some friends and I would visit various places when we had an extra long weekend.  Tucson, Nogales, Las Vegas, Rocky Point, Phoenix...

Since we were junior officers (and not exactly rolling in resources) we'd often share a hotel room or two.  For us women, that was nothing...but it was always rather hilarious to see how the guys sorted out their rooming situation.  Inevitably someone would be uncomfortable at the idea of sharing a bed, and would sleep in a chair or on the floor or something decidedly unlikely to ensure they had a good nights sleep.  Tbh, I always felt kind of sorry for them - trapped by some stupid notion of how men should behave, worried about I don't know what (that someone would roll over in their sleep and drape an arm on them?  Or some stranger would see them and assume the worst?  Or...I dunno, it all seemed rather silly to me) and made me kind of glad I'm not a man.

I didn't have to deal with stupid, silly little BS.

I call it stupid and silly, because on one level it is...and another level it's deadly serious, and devastating.  Tragic.  I said it was hilarious to see the men sorting out sleeping arrangements, but it's also kind of sad.  Like, we want our men to be proud and stand strong.  To be independent. To challenge the status quo.

And then we trap them with social expectations, so that they can't actually be all that. Not when it comes to anything that goes against current norms of male behavior.  How can they be men, and be so utterly dependent on social approval at the same time?  So unwilling to say "screw what people might think, I'm going to sleep comfortable tonight.  Only an idiot would assume two men can't share a queen sized bed in a hotel room without something happening."

What's crazy is that so much of this is...recent.  This is not the way things have always been.  It's not even the way things have always been here in America.  I read Doris Goodwin's book, Team of Rivals, where she mentioned that Abraham Lincoln often shared a hotel room with other men when traveling the eighth circuit.  That it was fairly common at that time, and nobody considered it erotic.  Actually, I'll share a bit more of her book here:

Their intimacy is more an index to an era when close male friendships, accompanied by open expressions of affection and passion, were familiar and socially acceptable. Nor can sharing a bed be considered evidence for an erotic involvement. It was a common practice in an era when private quarters were a rare luxury... The attorneys of the Eighth circuit in Illinois where Lincoln would travel regularly shared beds. (58)

Men used to be able to share hotel rooms with no problem, to express affection, to say they loved each other.  This page has a bit more on the topic, to include pictures of men showing affection to each other.

Now?  Now there's a code for masculine behavior that seems, as an outsider looking in, stifling.  It's a caricature of manliness.  Restrictive.  And, as my previous link showed, it can also be quite deadly. 

It forces men into a prison, one that keeps them from fully being who they can be, and keeps men from forming the connections they need to feel happy, to live life fully.  To stop feeling lonely.

In a strange twist on the conventions, the men who most act in keeping with our modern caricature of manliness often seem like the ones who are the most afraid.  And, as a result, they are the most isolated of all.

Men, friendships, and society

https://medium.com/@remakingmanhood/why-do-we-murder-the-beautiful-friendships-of-boys-3ad722942755

Found this today and posting from my phone.  It fits in with something else I'll post shortly.

School Update

I did well enough in one class that the professor has waived the final, I know my grade for a second class, and I'm just waiting on the grade for my final project in the third.

Which means I'm pretty much done until the start of the Fall semester. :)  Two A's for sure, and possibly/probably an A in the third class pending results.

I'm going to go hunt some Pokemon for a bit, and try to get a really good Articuno.

I Sometimes Pity Donald Trump

I think I heard a story about Donald Trump some time ago.  That when he was young he went to some sort of bridge opening ceremony, and noticed that nobody really recognized the name of the architect who built that bridge.  That he was determined not to be overlooked like that.

I don't know if that's true or not, since I can't recall where I read it and can't find a link (searching 'Trump', 'bridge' and 'architect' brings up a whole bunch of other stuff).  If true, though, I think it shows something about Trump's driving need for recognition.  Something anyone with any passing familiarity with him would recognize, since he plasters his name on everything. (obligatory warning: I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist, I do not know him personally, and I'm just guessing based on things I've read and seen.  Take it for what it's worth).

This obviously sets him apart from other wealthy individuals, since many are not well-known outside their own circles.  Your average person can name someone like Warren Buffet or Bill Gates, but not much beyond that.  It's assumed celebrities and CEOs are at that level of wealth, as well, though you shouldn't always make that assumption.  And if you've been paying attention to wealth inequality and our political troubles, you'd know that the Senate and House of Representatives are mostly composed of millionaires.

I don't know what created such an intense drive for recognition, of course.  But for someone desperate to get his name out there, becoming president should ease some of that pressure.  I mean, say what you will about Trump (and I disagree with much about him), nobody is going to forget his name any time soon.

Children will learn to recite President Trump along with all the other presidents they get taught about in school. Historians will be debating his presidency fifty years or more from now, just as they still write about Andrew Jackson, Richard Nixon, Lyndon B. Johnson, and even the less well known presidents (like Rutherford B. Hayes, John Tyler, Franklin Pierce, etc.  Though who could forget the sideburns on President Martin Van Buren?)

Now, it's one thing to make it into the history books.  It's another thing to be considered a positive force in history.  Hence why so many people like to discuss a president's (any president's) legacy.  You may get recited by schoolchildren, but do you want to go down as a George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and FDR?  A Richard Nixon or Warren Harding?  Or just get as close to forgotten as any president can get, like some of the presidents I listed above?

So here you've got this guy who is highly driven for name recognition, and to a certain extent he's achieved that.  (That would be disturbing to anybody, in and of itself, since once you've achieved a lifelong goal you're left wondering "what next?"  Once you've reached the summit, what purpose do you have?)

Except I don't think he's had time to reflect on that, and as embattled as he's been since before he even took office, I doubt he considers it achieved. 

I'm going to take a slight detour now, but it's with a sense of purpose I promise.

I, like almost anyone who has ever held a job, have sometimes been overruled and the group decides to do something I don't agree with.  (Shocking, I know!).  For the most part, I believe in contributing to the discussion while it's still a discussion...but once that decision has been made you have to support the decision.  With certain exceptions, like if it's immoral, illegal, or unethical of course. 

Some of that may be my military background (when you're taking direct fire, it might be better to go left or to go right, but if you stand in the open arguing about it the question is soon moot as you'll all be dead.)  But there are other reasons, and it's not just because I'm nice or unwilling to speak out.

It's because only two things are possible then - I'm either right, or I'm wrong.  If I'm right, it'll be obvious enough on it's own.  If I'm wrong, then Hey! - I learned something.

But if I actively try to undermine (or even sabotage) the effort than I actually just muddle the issue.  I make it easier for them to believe the problem was my lack of support, rather than their own bad idea.  Sure, they may still finger point and find some other excuse (and life is complicated enough that they might even be right)...but at least I'm not the one providing the fig leaf.

Which means that, barring extreme cases like I listed above, once the decision has been made I'll do what I can to make it work.  (This has caused problems, of course, since sometimes I find myself trying to tell my people to follow a policy I personally don't agree with in the first place.  Deciding when it's too much is a personal decision we all have to make for ourselves.)

So anyways.  When thousands of women protested Donald Trump the day after his inauguration, I felt it was a little - premature.  I get why they did it, I understand and saw some of the same things they did, and I won't tell them they shouldn't do it.  But I, personally, did not participate and did not feel it was the right time.  (I know I have a personal line where I would take action.  I did call my Representative about healthcare, for all the good it did.  Don't plan on voting for him in the next election, but I wasn't really planning to in the first place.  I do plan to vote, obviously.  And if someone actually tried doing something stupid like forcing Muslims to register I'd probably go down and register as Muslim myself...because that's Just Not Right.  But I'm throwing that out there as an obvious example of what would cross the line, not as an indication I think it will happen or that there isn't a line before that.)

The thing is, Donald Trump has been so embattled by opposition that it almost makes you feel sorry for him.  Plus he really puts a bee in the bonnet of all the rather self-satisfied and insular 'establishment' that we all like to hate so much.  But then he keeps tweeting horrible things, and suggesting horrible policies, and hiring horrible people.  It's like...the Democrats are giving him a fig leaf, except it's a bit too small to cover up all the problems.

So to bring this back to my earlier point, that becoming president is a guarantee of your place in the history books...

Donald Trump has achieved a level of name recognition that must be close to what he's clearly desired.  Yet he can't really appreciate that, and go through the stages of figuring out who he is without that driving need for recognition, because in a way that name recognition is threatened by the massive level of opposition (and in some cases, I'm sure, active sabotage.)

So he feels threatened and lashes out.  All of which makes things even worse, of course.

Update

The summer semester is coming to an end, all of my homework has been turned in and I just have to study for a final later this week.  Still waiting on my grades for two assignments, I hope/think I did alright.

I've been doing a lot of extra reading on the side, mostly because I felt I had to in order to make sense of what I was learning.  For example, I was initially a little confused by references to registers and registries, but I think I've got it all straight now (very different things!).  Assembly Language Step by Step is a really awesome book, btw.  Loved it.  Of course, I don't know if I would have understood the importance of what it taught if I hadn't seen how that information matters when it comes to understanding malware and computer hacks.

I don't want to get too technical (those who know probably know this even better than I do, and those who don't probably aren't too interested in hearing the details) and I may have misunderstood something, but I'll give a very small snippet, explaining part of why I felt the need to get this book.

There's a bit of a co-evolution going on between cyber defenders and cyber attackers.  Sort of like we have with bacteria and anti-bacteria.  Any time one side changes their methods, the other side changes to counter it.  We have anti-virus scanners, so the people who write malware want to create programs that can't be detected by the scanners.  There's a couple of different techniques, one of which is to change up the code (in a way that has no real impact on it's functionality) so that scanners can't easily compare the program to it's known list of programs and identify it as malicious.

Some examples of such junk sequences are:

XOR register, register
SUB register, register

or (used together)
INC AX
DEC AX

If you are like I was just a short little while ago, this doesn't really make a lot of sense.  I did know that the first part was instructions (XOR is "Exclusive Or", SUB for subtract, INC for increment and DEC for decrement) but registers?  AX?  Or (not listed in the commands above) other registers like EBP, EIP, ESP, EAX, etc?  And what do those commands above do?

Without trying to go into too much detail, I'll illustrate with the first two sequences.

'register' is just a stand in for any of the computer registers in your processor.  That gets into the mechanics of how your computer runs a program.  Overly simplified short version is that the computer loads whatever the program needs into a designated memory space, and in that space it will refer to what it needs by the memory address.  The various addresses and values are stored in the registers.  That's how it knows where to find the next instruction, or what value you told it previously when you want to add 2 + 2.  So the instruction above could say XOR EAX, EAX or XOR EDX, EDX, just substitute an appropriate register in the code.

The style is to write the action (XOR), destination and source.  So this is saying to XOR the EAX register to the EAX register.  When you tell a computer to take an "exclusive or" action, you're telling it to compare the source to the destination.  Remember, this is all in binary (1s and 0s).  Whatever data is in EAX is going to be something like 010111.  "Exclusive or" means it can be one or the other, but not both.  So if you compare 110 to 101, it looks at the first digit in each number (0 and 1) and asks "are they the same? or different?"  If they are the same, it returns a '0'.  If not, it returns a '1'.  It then compares the next two digits, and so on and so forth.  XOR the values 110 to 101 and it will return 010.

If you compare something to itself, it will always return 0 since each comparison will be a match.  And if you subtract something from itself you will also get 0.  Both lines of code do the exact same thing, but it's done differently...which means if an anti-virus scanner tries to compare something containing the code XOR EAX, EAX to something containing the code SUB EAX, EAX...it doesn't look the same. 

Anyways, I wanted to write a little bit more about another topic, so I'll do that next.