Stomping on a Cockroach

OK, I've already gotten ahead of myself.  I'll start here:  Death should never be celebrated.  It is not dignified or glorious or even special.  Some people need to die, true.  But that does not mean their death should result in some giant party.

My internet connection here is shoddy, so I can't provide video evidence, but take a look at news footage showing the streets of cities in the Middle East on September 11th.  Look how they cheer, wave flags, celebrate, chant.  Now take a look in front of the White House today, or in the streets of New York.  Don't these scenes look disturbingly similar?  Are we really so base that the death of one person can throw our country into such jubilee?  How are we better than the primitives we fight against by cheering this on?

Don't get me wrong... I certainly feel some sense of vindication, maybe even closure that the person is dead.  But as a dead person, he acts no more.  He no longer has the ability to make something of his life.  Instead, those living are the ones making him so big and important.  If you are vengeful and angry at the pain he has caused our country and the world, why not deliver the ultimate insult by forgetting him?  He is nothing more than a hiccup in our planet's history.  Don't glorify him by praising your deity that he's been killed.

Have you ever stomped on a cockroach?  Or sprayed a spider with Raid?  What did you do afterwards?  Did you take to the streets and play bagpipes and wave flags and shoot fireworks and sing?  Or did you scrape the mess off your floor and go about your day like nothing happened, perhaps slightly happier to know there's one less bug in your house?  Wouldn't the greatest insult conceivable be to relegate this man to the backwaters of our memory as one of the countless other cockroaches we have smashed?

I've quoted it before and I'll do it again: Let us "live above the common level of life."  Let us never sully our tongues with his name.  And let us celebrate not that he is dead but that we continue living, and that our way of life is intact.

Mr. President, I applaud your administration for doing what the last administration couldn't - whether you deserve the credit or not, I'm giving it to you.  But let's not make this a "momentous occasion."  Can we control our feelings of revenge and satisfaction and schadenfreude?  No.  But we can at least differentiate ourselves from the savages we are fighting by controlling our behavior.

In summary:
1. Never celebrate death.  It is at once too grave and commonplace to ever be celebrated.
2. Don't add meaning to a bad person's life by adding meaning to his death.

Libya

Now you have to hear my two cents about Libya.  Let me qualify this first by saying I am no expert about North Africa.  I know only what I read in the news.  I am, by virtue of my profession and education, an expert on Just War Theory.  Plus, I value my own opinion very highly and think you all should read it.

Disclaimer: these opinions are my own and in no way reflect the position or values of my employer or the United States Government or its allies.

What the hell is the world thinking?  I'm all for rooting for the underdog... in sports.  But a revolution to overthrow a dictator is the exclusive province of the country in which it is happening.  Other countries not liking the man is not a valid reason to commit acts of war against his country.  I'm no fan of Gadhafi, but his regime does not represent an imminent treat against the United States or its vital interests.  And by virtue of being the legitimate ruler of his nation, he has the right (some would claim even the obligation) to quell violent uprisings.  The violence being exercised on behalf of the Libyan government is targeted toward rebels, there is no indication of impending genocide or invasion of another nation.  I don't see what is to be gained by intervening militarily in the affairs of another country.

Perhaps if there were a violent uprising in, say, Canada, the United States would be well advised to intervene in order to defend its friendly neighboring government and to prevent the war from crossing our international border.  But as it is, I don't see much military or diplomatic necessity in launching missile strikes at the soldiers of a foreign nation.  On a bigger scale, the West stands to improve its credibility in the region by allowing the nations of that region the autonomy and independence that they so desperately crave.  Unless there is reason to expect large-scale crimes against humanity, we ought to leave that country alone and when the dust clears, work on rebuilding ties with whatever legitimate government ends up winning.

What if the situation were reversed?  What if rebel groups started violently attacking our military installations in the US?  Would we welcome foreign intervention?  Or would we react and destroy the rebels and resent the international community for backing the revolutionaries?

Egypt

If you are one of my super excited, optimistic, youthful, college-educated, naive friends who is excited about the developments in Egypt because you like sticking it to to the man and love popular revolutions because they are en vogue like moving to the Bay Area and wearing Peruvian Alpaca hats... grow up.  Drink a nice tall glass of pragmatism and listen closely: Egypt is descending into chaos and you are cheering it on.  Watch the following clip for illustration:





What's the moral of this short vid?

Phase 2: ?

Understand?  I'll spell it out just in case.  These revolutionaries have no Plan B.  They have an award-winning physicist offering to lead a transitional government, and while I think physicists should have far more influence in the affairs of man than, say, lawyers, it defies logic to believe that a man supported by a small minority of the nation whose political experience is limited to begging people not to build nukes is going to gloriously unite a country that is in civil war.

What is your Phase 2?  Phase 1 is overthrowing your current government and allowing no transition period.  OK, fine.  Phase 3 is living in harmony with all of God's creatures in an Arab Utopia or whatever.  Cool.  That's everyone's Phase 3.  What the hell is your Phase 2?  Do you expect things to just work themselves out like the autocorrect on your latest English paper?  Phase 2 is anarchy, because there is no plan to transition from what you have to what you want.

Radical Islam feeds off anarchy.

Again... Radical Islam LOVES anarchy.

Do you think the ensuing power vacuum will be filled by idealistic graduate students who practice civil disobedience to effect popular change?  Doesn't it seem more likely that an international interest with access to all kinds of money and religious figures will swoop in to "restore order" and, oh, by the way, Sharia Law also?  I'm not even talking about the Muslim Brotherhood.  That group is just a bunch of grumpy old men like me trying to make things the way they used to be.  We're looking at an Egyptian Taliban, or yet another religious dictatorship like Iran seizing the reins of Egypt's government and establishing another Anti-US, Anti-Israel force in the Middle East.  Chalk one up for Al Qaeda, whose goal is to reestablish the "good ol' days" of the 12th century Caliphate.

I really hope I'm wrong.

That's enough ranting for now.

One more thing:  "seize the reins" has two violations of the "I before E except after C" rule.  What a terrible phrase.

A note to my Commander-in-Chief

Sir,

Good job.

Most Respectfully,

Daniel Miller
First Lieutenant, Engineers
United States Army
Tucsonan


I have been meaning to post about the following topic for some time now, and am finally getting around to it, spurred on by the events that happened in my home - my neighborhood - last week.  You may have been able to surmise that I'm not the religious type.  That doesn't stop me, however, from seeing the wisdom and brilliance of the following prayer:

O God, our Father, Thou Searcher of human hearts, help us to draw near to Thee in sincerity and truth. May our religion be filled with gladness and may our worship of Thee be natural.
    Strengthen and increase our admiration for honest dealing and clean thinking, and suffer not our hatred of hypocrisy and pretence ever to diminish. Encourage us in our endeavor to live above the common level of life. Make us to choose the harder right instead of the easier wrong, and never to be content with a half truth when the whole can be won. Endow us with courage that is born of loyalty to all that is noble and worthy, that scorns to compromise with vice and injustice and knows no fear when truth and right are in jeopardy. Guard us against flippancy and irreverence in the sacred things of life. Grant us new ties of friendship and new opportunities of service. Kindle our hearts in fellowship with those of a cheerful countenance, and soften our hearts with sympathy for those who sorrow and suffer. Help us to maintain the honor of the Corps untarnished and unsullied and to show forth in our lives the ideals of West Point in doing our duty to Thee and to our Country. All of which we ask in the name of the Great Friend and Master of all. - Amen


A couple of you may recognize this as the Cadet Prayer from West Point.  Like the pledge of allegiance as a child, I didn't fully understand or soak in the words as I recited it regularly as a plebe.    There's not really much I can add or take away from the Cadet Prayer.  Just know that I consider it to be about the best possible use of 231 words I have ever read.  Read it over and over again.  Try reading it once per day, and each day, picking out a sentence on which to focus and absorb.

One last thing:

A friend of mine listed said the following as their Facebook status:

"Bear Down America"

Amen. (For context, google "John Button Salmon").

More Existential Thoughts

I will begin with a thought I had recently for no particular reason that helps to explain some things and certain peoples' behavior:

Metal-heads care more about their music than normal people.  Metal is not categorically better than all other kinds of music (though it does beat rap and country hands-down).  Metal-heads know this, but they also care so much more about music, and especially metal, than most people can even fathom, so their behavior may seem odd at times to the untrained eye.  Metal-heads are a small and passionate enough group that when they see each other, they instantly connect - even if they don't know each other (hence wearing metal t-shirts all the time).  It's like a beacon to other followers.  That's all I have to say about that \m/

Now a more philosophical point (and a counter-point to a number of people).  Nature does not give a damn about you.  The universe is indifferent to your successes and failures, to your ecstasy and suffering.  The sun will burn and the planets will orbit and the roaches will crawl long after you I or the human race is gone, as they did before we existed.  I don't think some great invisible entity is waiting to transport you to heaven after you die, and even if they were, how would that add meaning to your life?

Bear with me...

I think this is good news.  I, for one, find it comforting to think that my life is significant only to the people with whom I choose to surround myself.  That my life has meaning and value only because I ascribe those to it.  I am not wasting my life doing what I think is right only to be judged by some great power in the sky upon my death.  Instead, I think of my life as only being what I make of it.  It would not comfort me to believe that the same fate (or perhaps one of two fates) awaits all souls in the afterlife - if that's the case, my 75 (hopefully) years of life as I know it seems like kind of an unnecessary middle step.  I am accountable to myself and I owe it, not to the gods or the saints or whoever, but to myself, to make the most out of it.

In that sense, I am my own judge.  I am accountable only to myself, and must ask myself if the things I am doing - the actions I take on a daily basis - are things that I can be proud to have done when my turn is up.  But, as I am accountable only to myself, you need not take it upon yourself to judge me.  I will hold myself to my own standards, of which truthfulness and integrity are paramount.  You hold yourself to your standards.  If I live up to your standards, and you mine, then good; we can be friends.  If not, there are billions of other people to play with.  It's not a big deal not to like or be liked by everybody.  Perhaps if nobody likes you, then you might consider re-evaluating your life and relationships.  But if everyone likes you, then do you really have a personality of your own?  I think you are either betraying your true self, or worse, concealing your true self if your goal is to make everyone like you.

Re-cap:
Nature is too big to care about you
Therefore, it's up to you to care about you
Don't worry about other people caring about you

Pascal's Wager

First, a note about football (since I'm watching MNF at the moment):  I LOVE defense!  Sacks, interceptions, forced fumbles, mega-hits, goal-line stands...  That's unrelated to the rest of this post, but I needed to share it.

Moving on, today we discuss a philosophical notion called Pascal's Wager, named after French philosopher and mathematician Blaise Pascal.  You may recognize this name from 8th grade algebra (his eponymous triangle is instrumental in polynomial expansion), and we engineers of course love Pascal the unit (a fairly small measure of stress or pressure; the yield strength of structural steel is 250,000,000 Pa; atmospheric pressure is roughly 100,000 Pa).  Pascal's Wager, interestingly enough, was not publicized until after his death, when many of his surviving notes were compiled into the Pensées, a collection of thoughts arranged in somewhat random order.

A disclaimer before I continue:  I'm not trying to convince you of anything or sway you from your beliefs.  I'm simply inviting you to glimpse my own spiritual struggle.

His wager, from note 233, is as follows:

1. God is, or He is not.  (this is a postulate! math rules!)
2. A game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
3. According to reason, you can defend neither proposition.
4. You must wager.  It is not optional.
5. Let us weigh the gain and loss in wagering that God is.  If you win, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
6. Wager then, without hesitation, that He is.

Essentially, his argument boils down to this:  If you assume God exists and live your life so as to please Him, then you are either right, and will be rewarded by heaven, or wrong, and you just die (and perhaps wasted a finite number of hours of your life worshiping a non-entity).  I arrived at this conclusion back in elementary or middle school and at the time it satisfied me.  The problem, for me, arose out of a couple things.  First, the religion in which I was brought up professes that one must have faith in God in order to be granted admittance to His Kingdom.  Sounds easy enough, except that one can't convince oneself to have faith.  That's part of the definition of faith (here's the definition my pastor supplied: "belief that is not based on proof").  So, with Pascal's Wager in mind (I didn't realize this concept even had a name until only a couple years ago), I felt like I had a gun to my head and no right answer.  It's not faith if I'm doing it out of coercion, and I can't convince myself rationally that God exists.

I'm going to interject a note here to keep you believers reading.  I'm talking about myself here.  I pass no judgment on your faith or religion so long as you don't go around trying to make people believe the same way you do.

So I have been thinking recently that since I can't force myself to be a believer, my options are either damnation until the End of Days or simply absolute and final death, which are both horrifying.  (I'm not going to touch how complicated this gets when we introduce multiple religions, but you can see it gets quite convoluted)  I read more on the subject, and found counter-opinions of Pascal's philosophy.  Richard Dawkins, a British scientist, argues that living for God and a religion will make one tend to live a less fulfilling and good life (he cites holy wars, forced conversions, bigotry based on religious tenets, etc.).  I'm not going to go that far, but I am reassured by this passage by Richard Carrier, which I ripped off of Wikipedia:


"Suppose there is a god who is watching us and choosing which souls of the deceased to bring to heaven, and this god really does want only the morally good to populate heaven. He will probably select from only those who made a significant and responsible effort to discover the truth. For all others are untrustworthy, being cognitively or morally inferior, or both. They will also be less likely ever to discover and commit to true beliefs about right and wrong. That is, if they have a significant and trustworthy concern for doing right and avoiding wrong, it follows necessarily that they must have a significant and trustworthy concern for knowing right and wrong. Since this knowledge requires knowledge about many fundamental facts of the universe (such as whether there is a god), it follows necessarily that such people must have a significant and trustworthy concern for always seeking out, testing, and confirming that their beliefs about such things are probably correct. Therefore, only such people can be sufficiently moral and trustworthy to deserve a place in heaven — unless god wishes to fill heaven with the morally lazy, irresponsible, or untrustworthy."


Though the preceding passage was rather irreverently worded (Carrier is an evangelical Atheist), I tend to believe it.  I think it's hard to deny that there are religious fanatics who, either out of blind faith, or a cold desire to subjugate others to their will, commit acts of evil.  On the flip side, there are unwashed heathens who, though not living in accordance with any particular religious philosophy, sincerely wish to do good.


Let us simply always be ever willing to challenge our own beliefs regularly in order to ensure that they make sense and cause us to do good instead of evil.


In the future, I think I might discuss what differentiates good from evil (philosophers like me call this ethics) but right now I'm spent.


On another Pascal-related note, I've had some people ask me what a fractal is lately (generally after I explain to them that the blown-up-specimen-slide-looking pictures hanging in my living room are fractals).  Fractals are repetitions of a pattern, as on a snowflake, or in this case, appropriately enough, Pascal's Triangle.

Pascal's Triangle is also cool in that it looks like a bunch of Triforces.  Yes, that was a Zelda reference.

Videos

I've ripped a page out of the Tosh.0 Playbook.  I'm going to give you some commentary on a few videos I've seen lately.  Some hate, some humor.  Here goes:

Commercial One: Nissan Leaf






















Shame on you, Nissan.  You might have a leg to stand on here if our country weren't afraid of nuclear power. But as it stands right now, most energy in the US comes from fossil fuels (coal is number one; natural gas, number two).  So even if you buy the argument that human CO2 emissions are raising global temperatures and killing the polar bears, it's not as if buying a Nissan Leaf and plugging it into your coal-powered wall outlet in your garage is helping out.

Commercial Two: DirecTV

This commercial is an excellent philosophical critique of the dilemmas we all face in our modern society.  The spokesman articulates perfectly what we all feel: "I like the best... but I also like savings de money."

Video One: Big Girls Don't Cry

This one is just classic.  This is their performance on the Ed Sullivan Show.  Yes, it looks old and somewhat silly, but it's respectable and plain awesome in a way that's hard to describe.  An oldie but goodie.  What follows is an oldie but... er.... yeah....  Suffice it to say, I don't think these guys will ever be described as classic.

Video Two: Grammy Awards, 1990



Of course as usual, I will leave you with a detailed analysis of a pressing current event:

Apparently there's big money in bedbugs now.  Indeed, 250 people are on the waiting list for this year's Bedbug University North American Summit.  (We industry insiders just call it BUNAS).  For my part, I've been working on an invention called PsiBug that telepathically controls bedbugs instead of killing them, making them gently nibble away excess earwax and painstakingly clean your hair (among other chores that can be programmed in with the attached iPad or smartphone).  Expect it to hit the retail shelves in time for the Christmas shopping season!