Re-evaluating Where I Stand With Myself

Ever since I understood what psychological issues were and that I had a great many, I knew that my demons were smarter than me. They know exactly what to whisper in my head to crack and collapse any feelings of light, warmth or love in me. And they have been working in my head long before I knew they were there and knew enough to combat them in any meaningful way. Every once in awhile, I come across a long standing source of pain. And recent events in my life have uncovered one.

I have been going through a lot recently. The events themselves don't really need to be discussed here, but they have prompted me to re-evaluate a great many widely held ideas. You know, clear out all the unimportant clutter in my head and really get down to the core ideals that I really take to heart. Without all the complications that corrupt and corrode those ideals. Given the time of year, a lot of these thoughts have to do with romantic ideals.

Magic On YouTube

I love performing magic. I got bit with the bug when I was a little kid watching a show called Square One TV where they had a segment called Backstage with Blackstone. Harry Blackstone Jr, a very well respected magician, would perform a trick and then teach how it was done demonstrating some mathematics principle. In the intervening years, I kept an interest in magic. I will admit, life took some major turns and performing magic was placed on the back burner for a long time. But my interest never fully went away.

The Friend Zone Re-Imagined

Today, I read an article that brought into question something that I hadn't really considered in a long time: the idea of the friend zone. Before you start rolling your eyes, let me explain. This isn't one of my "woe is me" rants about my bad luck with women. This is about the whole idea of "the friend zone" itself. Apparently, I've been out of touch because the article I read presented the idea that "the friend zone" as a misogynistic idea. I've linked to the article so you can read it yourself, but here's a quote:

Thoughts On... The 2013 VMAs

I have always known that I had a disconnect with current popular music, but every once awhile I get a reminder. My most recent reminder came last night as I watched the 2013 VMAs with my roommate. And now the next day, I have to thank Kevin Hart, Lady Gaga, and Katy Perry. Without them, I would not have made it through the entirety of the broadcast without my roommate strangling me with her blanket.

Thoughts On... Goals

Everyone has goals in their life; things they want to either get done, or simply get. For most people, those goals are nebulous.(Get rich.) For a few people, including myself, goals are concrete. (Get a 2004 Dodge Durango.) The problem with non-concrete goals is that without a fixed point to shoot for, it's difficult to come up with a plan to get there. Take for example, the goal "get rich". What do you mean "rich"? How much money counts as rich? Give a homeless man $100, and in his mind, he's rich. For a long time, my goals were all nebulous. Then I got set straight by several people along the course of my life, and I re-worked my constantly evolving list of life goals into specific concrete items I can achieve. I even accomplished one this past weekend! See my previous post for the details. We all know that life isn't just a simple check list of events and achievements, so writing down some stuff and working to make that stuff happen isn't really going to cut it.

Thoughts On... This Blog's Name

For a little while now, I've been getting some weird feedback about my blog. Not about the content, but about the name. Yeah, the NAME! Seriously, why is the name of a blog important?? Who really cares about what some nerd names his blog anyway, right? Well, as it turns out, some of my readers care. Which is, in a weird way, very touching. Not only do I have readers, but they care enough about the blog to actually want to make it BETTER! *sniff* I promised myself I wouldn't cry. *sniff, sniff* Now, the reason I called this blog "Deliberations of Dilking" is because Dilking is a shortened version of my middle name, Dilkingson. (Don't ask. It's a long story.) However, it turns out that "dilking" is an actual term with a particularly negative meaning according to the Urban Dictionary. Check it out:

Thoughts on... Writing Code

One of the things I almost NEVER write about on here is computers. I never really made a conscious choice about it, but now that I think about it, I figure that most people just wouldn't be interested in a post about the latest tech thing I saw or piece of code I wrote. Granted, not that many people are interested in this blog AT ALL, but to lose the few readers I have due to boring content would be completely and irrevocably stupid. Which, in a bizarre kind of  way, is the exact point of this blog post. Recently, I read a couple of blog posts about programming and people. Specifically, they were about programming and whether or not everyone can do it. It all started with this video created by a company called Code.org.

Thoughts On.. How Much TV I Actually Watch

I am an unapologetic aficionado of movies, and TV. Look over the posts on this blog and you'll see that a disproportionate number of my posts have to do with television in some form or another. But it's not just about watching the shows, I talk about them, think about the themes presented in them, etc... A recent conversation with a friend of mine got me to thinking about how many shows I actually watch. So, I decided to make a list.

Thoughts On... The Constitution

I am not a political junkie. I am not someone who follows all the news all the time, and I certainly do not have intimate knowledge of the finer points of the law. Therefore, I ask you to forgive me when I tell you that I just recently (within the last year or so) found out about an idea floating about that the Constitution of the United States needs, in writer's terminology, a "page one re-write". This means that there are those out there who think the Constitution needs to be re-written from scratch to meet the issues being brought up by modern day society. And, to be quite honest, I find this idea EXTREMELY provocative.

Think about the argument for this: The Constitution was written by people who lived over 200 years ago. Think about how life has changed in that time. There was no electricity, no cars, no internet, no phones, no regular running water, no supermarkets, etc. How could those men foresee issues like digital copyright laws? Or Nuclear weapons? Computer hacking? Privacy? At the time that the founding fathers wrote out the Constitution, the life we have now would have been seen as fairy tales and the height of science fiction. They weren't psychics. How could they write laws or even fathom the moral implications of stem cell research? Nano technology? Climate change? These concepts, while completely beyond the realm of their thinking at the time, are providing challenges to our society today. Do we really turn to laws written so long ago?

I mean, the founding fathers knew their limitations, and they built the system of the Constitution to be adaptable and changeable to needs of an evolving country. They had to, because at the time, they had NO IDEA where the United States would go. But there is a limit to how much the Constitution can change and adapt, right? At a certain point, one has to see the Constitution as just an old, outdated set of laws that should be updated for modern times, right?

I can sum up my opinion on this in two words: HELL NO!

The Constitution is MORE that just a set of rules. We all know that life is more complex than any simple set of rules can possibly cover. So, the founding fathers didn't just write a set of rules that this country has to follow to the point of dogma. They infused the laws they wrote with an underlying philosophy. What we now call the "spirit of the law" as opposed to the "letter of the law". A philosophy that is so pervasive the founding fathers could not conceive of the after-effects creating it would cause and also so subtle, they had no idea the areas in which they fell short of their own creation. That philosophy, that spirit is one of tolerance, freedom, openness to debate, and a recognition that societies MUST evolve and change to survive, but in doing so, in making those changes, CAN NOT forget the reasons for which they exist.

Over time, we have analyzed and researched and delved into that philosophy and gained a deeper understanding of it. Realizing the errors of claiming a free society and still having slaves. Understanding the conflict in being of, for, and by the people and not letting women partake in their own government. And we still have more challenges ahead of us: gay rights, gun control, being more intricately connected to other countries than EVER before are just SOME of those challenges. And yet, the traditions written by our forefathers still apply 200 years later. In this ever changing world, those rules, still work.

Now, I will grant you, my dear readers, that we have stepped far away from that underlying philosophy. In a sense, that leads to my second issue with this. I mean, our those traditions have been used as vulnerabilities against us, by forces outside AND INSIDE our nation. Think about that for a moment. If we do have a full rewrite of our constitution, who does the writing? In an era where we can't trust our politicians to do anything right, or on time; where we are in fear of losing the basic rights assigned to us by the Constitution, who do we trust to re-write the DNA of the United States?

Put it another way: who do we trust, as a nation, to re-write what is and isn't legally allowed in a country that has one of the  most FEARSOME NUCLEAR ARSENALS on the planet? A country that has a budget for defense greater than the next 20+ countries on the list (most of which are our friends)? Who do YOU want to rebuild the core, fundamental ideas that will define what the United State of America will stand for over the NEXT 200 years?

From a political perspective, the founding fathers, in creating the Constitution, gave the world the political Big Bang. They formed an entirely new universe of political thinking that has worked, with adaptation and amending, for 200+ years. And now, people want to essentially re-write the laws of political physics? I don't think that's a good idea. It's too dangerous for the global stage, and I don't trust any of the people who would be doing the re-writes.

What do you think, my dear readers? Sound off in the comments below!

Thoughts On... Envy

One of the things I like about the bulk of the tv shows I watch is that they all spur some kind of meta thinking in me. Just a few days ago, I watched an episode of Big Bang Theory. In that episode, one of the main characters had a fit of envy that ended up ruining a romantic dinner with her boyfriend. I'm not going to get into the details of the event, but it did get me thinking about envy, both as a general concept and the last time I really felt envy.

Now, let's get something straight off the bat. I'm talking about envy, NOT jealousy. While everyone seems to think they are interchangeable, they aren't. Jealousy is the fear of losing something or someone that you're attached to or possess to someone else. Like losing a girlfriend to another guy. Envy is the resentment that you feel when someone has something that you want, but don't have. Understood? GOOD. There'll be a test afterwards. Now, getting back to the point.

The last time I felt real envy was a few months ago, and it lasted all of 45 seconds. See, a few months ago, I found out that a friend of mine has a very singular talent. When he sings, he has the ability to turn women to mush. I've seen it on multiple occasions. He'll start singing and every woman in the room, regardless of age, turns her focus directly on him. Within moments, they get the glassy eyes, start breathing shallowly and slowly, and lose all conscious recognition of anything else but him and his singing. You could bowl them over with a feather.

Watching this happen right before your eyes, the effect is frightening at first. But then you realize the power that has. You could sing your way into the heart of ANY girl you wanted. No chance of rejection of any kind. What a power! And it's WASTED on a guy who is already married!!! And here's where the envy started. I spent a good 30 seconds (which for ME is a long time) focused on the injustice of it all. Why should a married guy get the power to wilt all women? He already has one! With my bad luck with women, a power like that... and so on.. I spent the next ten seconds listing out all the women I could have had as girlfriends if I'd had this power. I went so far back as to my sixth grade teacher, Mrs. Butler. (Yeah, she was hot!) At the 40 second mark, my rational side kicked in and stopped the whole mental rant with two questions.

"Isn't the point of music, according to you, to dance and party? Isn't that why you hate slow songs?" 

I then spent the last 5 seconds with the envy fading in my mind as my rational side brought up how BORING it would be to be up there singing the same slow songs over and over again. Not being able to do anything up tempo, to get the blood moving. And reliving all the times I performed with my bands and got that adrenaline rush when the crowd connects with the energy you throw out and the performance just intensifies taking you for a ride that no drug could EVER match.

And I came to the realization that I never really wanted the power my friend had. Getting women to melt over me, while sounding good, wasn't what I really wanted musically. I wanted the groove. I wanted the ability to start a song up and by the end have everyone on their feet dancing and moving to the music I was making. And that, I already have. After that, I enjoyed the rest of my friend's performance and rejoiced with him as all the women listening started fanning themselves and started taking deep breaths to calm down. Later on, I got up to sing. People danced. And all was right in the world!

See that's the sneaky thing about envy that they don't cover in Sunday school when they talk about Envy and the six other deadly sins. It has nothing to do with the person you're jealous of in any way. It has to do with a weakness or flaw you see in yourself. So you want the thing the other person has not because of the thing's inherent value, but because it will remove the flaw you see in yourself and restore you to the perfection you had before. A lot of people don't get over that and cause themselves, and others, a lot of pain. They never really understand that having flaws and not being perfect is a major component of what makes us human.

In the end, the only real way to get over envy is to truly understand what you want for yourself and enjoy those things with the knowledge that they are just things and not ways to fix flaws that no one else can see.

Thoughts On... The Best Kiss Of My Life (so far)

I don't know about you, my dear readers, but at the beginning of every new year, I find myself looking back on things. Not really for nostalgia purposes, although that does come into play a little bit, but more for life assessment on the order of "this is where I am, and that's how I got here". It comes in really handy for planning goals and the like for the upcoming year. At any rate, this particular post is about one distinctly interesting trip down memory lane I took after a discussion I had at a party I attended recently, with a friend on the topic of kissing. She was semi-drunk and doing most of the talking. I was mostly just trying to keep her from falling over.

After she passed out, I found myself thinking of the relatively small amount of romantic kissing I've done, what was MY greatest kiss? It turns out that the award for single best kiss of my life (so far) goes to my first girlfriend, Amanda. No, it wasn't our first kiss. That would just be too trite. Actually, this story is about a random kiss somewhere in the first month that Amanda (or Manne, as she liked to be called back then) and I were together. No, this kiss was special for a different reason. But first some background info: As you know my dear readers, I've always regarded my mind as my most precious resource.

One of my mind's greatest talents (and flaws from a certain viewpoint) is the ability to keep track of many different thought processes simultaneously. The drawback to this talent is that, at times, I find it difficult to keep focus on a single task due to all the competing and conflicting ideas floating in my head, vying for my attention. To be honest, a good portion of the women I meet I can't interact with because they just can't hold my interest. But Amanda was different, she was smart, creative, goofy and beautiful. Looking back on it now, our relationship was MAJORLY dysfunctional, but at the time it was awesome!!

Anyways, back to the story: One of my favorite places to hang out in college was this lounge area in McCullough Hall that was just past the main hall/stage area. There were some very comfortable chairs and a huge TV there. One day, I was hanging in the lounge and Amanda happened to be walking by, saw me, and came over to talk. As all new couples do, within a few minutes we were kissing. We had kissed before and it had been awesome. Electric, even. But this time it was different.

Our lips met, and my mind shut down. There were no other thoughts, there was no alternate ideas, no random problems from schoolwork that I was still trying to solve. My mind was perfectly still and in the moment. And all of my considerable intellect was focused on her. Her taste, her scent, the warmth of her breath, her hair brushing against my face; every aspect of my mind was taken up with her. Nothing else existed. The truth of reality at that instant was that she and I were the only occupants of the universe. It was with that kiss that I knew not only that I loved her (which wasn't really anything new, I had been in love with other women before), but that she loved me in return. (THAT was the part that was new. No one had EVER loved me BACK before her).

In real time, the kiss lasted maybe a minute. Ninety seconds at the longest. Subjectively, that kiss lasted for hours. Eventually, we came up for air. She had to go somewhere and said good bye. And that was it. The single best kiss of my life so far. As of this blog post, I've only ever had two girlfriends. The interesting part is that I had a similar experience with my next girlfriend. It wasn't nearly as powerful as it was with Amanda, but strong enough that I think that's my sign.

If I kiss a girl and feel anywhere close to the way I felt during that kiss with Amanda, I am sure that we are in love.

Thoughts on... Gun control

I would like to preface this by saying that I believe the only guns we should have should be in video games.

My dear readers, this blog is usually full of fluff and nonsense. It's meant to be a vehicle for me to write out the thoughts that run across my brain and not to be a bastion of hard hitting journalism or soul changing philosophy. However, after the events that occurred in Newtown, CT there has been a lot of arguing about why these shootings keep happening. And this has sparked up, once again, the gun control debate in this country. And to be honest, there are valid points on both sides of that particular debate.

But if you really look at the cause of the issue (either the Newtown incident or gun violence in general), the problem isn't the guns, that's just a symptom. The problem is PEOPLE. In one of his comedy specials, Chris Rock proposed a unique idea to resolving the issue of gun violence in this country:

Gun control? We need bullet control! I think every bullet should cost $5,000 dollars. Because if a bullet cost five thousand dollars, we wouldn't have any innocent bystanders.

This statement, while meant to be a joke, has two pieces of remarkable insight. 1) That there are more ways to deal with gun violence than banning guns. After all, the GUN is protected by the U.S. Constitution, not the BULLETS the gun fires. 2) To really get to the source of gun violence you have to manipulate the PEOPLE. Charging $5K a bullet changes the entire framework of how people relate to guns. It's not just a few hundred dollars and a 15 day waiting period, now it's a MAJOR expense. You could buy a car for $5K, put a down payment on a house, go on a cruise, etc... So, is it really worth it to go shoot someone at that price? It gets you thinking and changing your behavior. This is called manipulation.

Governments have clued into this a long, long time ago. This is WHY they delve so deeply into controlling the information we receive. Controlling information controls what conclusions you make based on that information, those conclusions build your worldview, which controls how you think and react to the events around you. This is mind control. REAL mind control. Just on a very subtle scale. But at the end of the day, when you strip all the fancy terminology, it's just manipulation. However, the issue right now is how to reduce gun violence in schools.

And to be completely honest, I think Chris Rock's idea is a good one. so, up the price on all ammunition!! And then funnel all the proceeds of the inflated pricing into a pool of money for each state with IRONCLAD laws(meaning no legal wiggle room) that explicitly states the money will fund the following:

1) An expansion of school budget to hire a small squad of unemployed veterans to protect the school.

This lowers our unemployment rate (helps the economy), gives our veterans a sense of purpose (they are protecting our country's greatest resource our children), so suicide rate amongst them will drop, gives the school expert personnel to run school shooting drills, teach gun safety to the children (which will cut down on accidental shootings), help with PE (which can reduce the country's obesity problem), give self defense training to girls (reducing their chances of getting raped in the future), and increases the available staff for things like study halls and detention (freeing up time for teachers to get other work done).

2) The creation and maintenance of state run mental health programs so that the people of this country have access to way to ease the stresses of their lives and prevent them from going "postal" and shooting up schools.

Let's be honest. If the shooter was in therapy, he wouldn't have been shooting up the school. And with the awareness of the programs, people will become more mindful of the warning signs, in themselves and in their loved ones. Everyone goes through tough times, and invariably what gets us through it intact is the other people around us.

In the end, the idea is solve the problem from BOTH sides of the issue and not to argue over whether just getting rid of guns is the answer. Let's get real here, if guns weren't freely available, the Anarchist Cookbook (go and download it, it's freely available) shows many other amazing ways of killing people, including several delightful types of bombs. And people can freely murder each other with knives, belts, shoes, pillows, sticks, rocks, plastic bags, and the ever present hands and feet. Hell, in a TV show I watch when they ran out of bullets, they switched to swords. There has never, is never, will never be any shortage of available weaponry with which to be violent.

No, the real answer is work with people. Give them opportunities to express themselves; to vent their frustrations and anger in safe, non-lethal ways. Eventually, we can get to the point where we don't want to shoot each other. However, this is a long, involved process taking a great deal of time. In a country as attention deficient as the US, I'm not sure we can ever get there. But I hope that we can take the time and make the smart policy changes to get us there.

Thoughts On... Further Training

At the end of my training, and assuming I pass the exams, I will have two of the Microsoft Certified Technology Specialist (MCTS) certifications. Namely:

70-515 - MCTS: .NET 4 Web Application Development
70-516 - MCTS: .NET 4 Data Access

This will put me at 50% completion for the next level up in certification, the Microsoft Certified Professional Developer (MCPD, no cop jokes, please!). Specifically the web programming cert, MCPD: Web Developer 4. The Web Developer 4 certification requires the following MCTS training to be completed:

70-513 - MCTS: .NET 4, Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) Development
70-515 - MCTS: .NET 4, Web Application Development
70-516 - MCTS: .NET 4, Data Access
70-519 - PRO:    .NET 4, Designing & Developing Web Apps using .NET 4

Now, there are TONS of .NET web developers out there. And it's entirely possible that I will be able to get a position as a Web Developer with no issue. But the success of any job search is in making yourself stand out from the pack as much as possible, which makes the other option a bit more attractive. The other option being, Windows Developer 4, which requires the following MCTS training to be completed:

70-511 - MCTS: .NET 4, Windows Application Development
70-513 - MCTS: .NET 4, Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) Development
70-516 - MCTS: .NET 4, Data Access
70-518 - PRO:    .NET 4, Designing & Developing Windows Apps using .NET 4

Logically, the next course I have to take is the 70-513 WCF Development. Assuming I can get the money to pay for the course. My state funding ends with the training I have now. Either way, I'm going to have to make due with what I'll have by the end of my training. But the question I have is what direction I should go in to get the MCPD certification? Either way I want to get the MCPD, but which one?

Thoughts on... Romantic Insanity

A couple of years ago, a friend and I were talking about the side effects of love. You know, the crazy shit that you are suddenly capable of doing because you are attracted to someone. She told me this story of braving a major snowstorm to be with the one she loved. It was a harrowing journey, but she said being with her loved one made all the problems, fear, and nearly dying on the icy, snowy roads completely worth it. Listening to the story, at the time, was horrifying. I mean how in the hell would anyone with a sense of self-preservation even CONSIDER a trip that could potentially KILL them just to be in the presence of someone? Even if it's someone you care about! No matter what she told me, it just didn't seem real to me. It was just pure insanity! And then there was watching her tell the story. The far away look in her eyes as she told me about all the near misses she had with other cars and how she almost drove off the road into a ditch. I was in total shock. I simply was incapable of understanding why she would do that! That is until this past weekend. 

This past weekend, I came a little closer to understanding where she was coming from. See, recently, I found myself attracted to someone. And this past weekend, I had a possible opportunity to spend some time with her. There was just one problem. The place we were supposed to meet was a half hour drive from me and I didn't have enough gas in the car to make it there and back AND be able to drive to my classes the next week. For a moment, I bowed down to reality and decided not to go. I even went so far as to tell her that it wasn't going to happen. Then, something clicked in my head and I had this intense desire to just drive to see her. My head kept saying, "Just GO!!" After several hours of trying to be reasonable, I just did it. I let her know that I was going anyway and just drove down there. It was completely insane. I could have been stranded far away from home, and missed my job training. The safe play was to just stay home and re-schedule for another night. But, I was COMPELLED to go and see her.

And for the few minutes we were together, it was actually really fun! She looked amazing! And being in her presence was simply.... intoxicating. It wasn't for as long as I'd hoped because something came up and she had to leave, but it was awesome for as long as it was. And completely worth the risk of being stranded and/or missing my classes and being kicked out of the training.

Only now, at the end,  do I finally understand what my friend had been saying all those years ago. But I still think that driving into a NEW ENGLAND snow storm was completely insane, and even now I still wouldn't do it. But I can follow the motivation that drove her to taking that trip.

What about you, my dear readers, what have craziness have you done for the one to whom you are attracted?

Thoughts On... Computer Training

I wrote a post on my selection of a training program awhile back. So far, it's been going well. I'm currently at the tail end of my third class, Intro to Web Development with Visual Studio 2010. I have to admit I was a bit nervous about getting into training. It's been a long while since I was in school and it seemed like completely alien stuff that I had to learn. The "being in school" part was not a problem. I've always loved school and being back in training was like riding a bike. 

What surprised me was how much of my "old" software development training STILL applied. I can see how these classes could be exceedingly difficult for someone who is brand new to any type of programming, but for me it was like redecorating a room in a house I've lived in for years. The bulk was still the same, just a few new details have been added in. The development environment (Visual Studio 2010) is very intuitive and makes stuff that I remember taking FOREVER to code, much faster and much easier! Looking back on it now, I could have just picked up a book and pieced together this training on my own. But it wouldn't have the same effect.

Let's be honest here, I'm doing this because I want to get a job. And, anyone will tell you that getting a job is about WHO you know and not WHAT you know. Taking official training gets me a couple of things that I wouldn't have gotten otherwise:

1) Standardized training in a wide range of items that training on my own just wouldn't have gotten me. I would have focused on the parts that I found interesting and left the rest alone which makes for an ad-hoc training style.

2) Official recognition that I actually TOOK this training. Depending on how things work out with some other stuff, I might be going for official Microsoft certification, which is a badge of honor saying that MICROSOFT says I know my stuff. It's not just me babbling at you, a recognized leader in the software industry is saying that I know my stuff and I can be relied on to develop software. Right now, I have a world-renowned training facility backing me up. Who do I know? I know THEM. And they are vouching for my skills!

Now, I'm not really done yet. I still have a lot at home practice to do before I'm fully comfortable with the new stuff I'm learning. But I didn't have to learn as much as I thought I did, which means I'm much further along than I was expecting. Things are going to get really interesting from here! And who knows what my future holds?

Thoughts On... Person Of Interest

You are being watched. 

The government has a secret system: a machine that spies on you every hour of every day. I know because I built it. I designed the machine to detect acts of terror, but it sees everything. Violent crimes involving ordinary people, people like you. Crimes the government considered irrelevant. 

They wouldn't act, so I decided I would. But I needed a partner, someone with the skills to intervene. Hunted by the authorities, we work in secret. You'll never find us, but victim or perpetrator, if your number's up...we'll find you.

-- Intro Voice Over of Person of Interest

What would your reaction be if you found out that the government had a machine that was spying on you (and everyone else)? The point of the surveillance is to detect and prevent acts of terror. And, what if you found out that the system actually worked and had stopped many act of terrorism? What would you think? Would you be scared? Angry? Confused? Intrigued? Would you keep it a secret? Would you want to tell the world?

That's a portion of the premise of the show, Person Of Interest. The show is being told from the point of view of the creator of the Machine, and follows the effort of the creator and an associate in tracking down people who have been flagged by the Machine as either a potential victim or possible perpetrator of a crime. (The acts of terror are handled by the government.) The show has been running for almost an entire season (there's one ep left), and while I had my doubts when I heard the premise, the show's execution has been for the most part, flawless. The reason I'm writing about it today is because of the latest episode of show and how it changed my perception of the events of Person Of Interest.

Looking back on the inaugural season of POI, what I see is the slow unfolding of a particularly well crafted conspiracy. The most intriguing part is that POI keeps you on the INSIDE of the conspiracy. We, as viewers, are clued in to the hidden events and back story of the people. And it's done piecemeal over the 22 episodes aired so far. It was so smooth in its delivery of that story, that you forget to ask questions. In the latest episode, the Machine flags someone who, it turns out, HAS been asking those questions. The "client" has no clue what he's getting into, but that drive he has to find out shatters the web that POI had spun for the past 21 episodes and turns things around, forcing you to imagine what this entire operation would look like to someone on the OUTSIDE. Small threads of information, events that look normal, but don't quite add up, and then people trying first to frame you, and then to KILL you. All for something that you don't even understand. You don't even have the information to make an ATTEMPT at understanding what is going on around you!

It was an impressive shock to the established pattern of the show, and one that started me asking questions about the underlying philosophy of POI. After all, it was deceptively easy to buy into the premise of two people with extraordinary resources and skills trying to help people and operating just outside the parameters of the law. Since the show is following them, we can see the choices they make, mistakes that happen and the problems they have with the morality of their means to an end. But the questions aren't only on THEIR side of events. As someone who is being watched (within the mechanics of the show), how would you feel about the existence of that Machine? (Please don't bring up any Sky-Net references. While interesting, that's not the point of this particular post.) Would you give up privacy FOREVER, to potentially save the lives of your fellow countrymen? Would you be happy with just the ILLUSION of privacy? Would it make you feel better knowing that it was a machine and not some government spook watching you, cataloging your life, and looking through your private files?

The most compelling part of all this is that these questions are no longer as far-fetched as they would appear. Humanity may not have the tech to build this machine yet, but we will and very soon. As I mentioned in a previous post, science can do it. The question is SHOULD science do it. In my mind, it really comes down to a matter of trust. Not necessarily in the faceless monolith of "The Government", but in the individuals that make up that monolith. The human beings that are just trying to do their jobs and do what they think is right given the information & power they have. So, my dear readers, I put the question to you:

Would you trust the government to use the Machine properly?

Thoughts On... Customer Service

Two months ago, I started working on getting some training to update my coding skills so I might be able to land a job writing software. After jumping through some hoops to get into the program, I was faced with a unique and distinct challenge: picking a training program to attend. The training was funded through the NH Unemployment office and they gave me a list of three schools in the area that were approved for the funding and had the proper classes for my training needs. Two of them were close to me; the third about 30 min away. I was told that I had two weeks to determine which school's program I wanted to attend.

After that Monday meeting, I went home and called the three schools. I left messages for Programs A and C. Program B, the far one, had a real live human being that I spoke to and told my training goals.

Program A: They called me back within an hour of getting my message. They made an appointment for the same day. They walked me through their facility and their available classes. They told me that that it would take a week to finalize the schedule for my specific training needs. I'd have it by Friday to take to the Unemployment office.

Program B: I got a call back on Thursday to arrange for a conference call the following Tuesday to get a better idea of what training options I was looking for.

Program C: Never called me back.

At the end of the first week, I had an email with my recommended class schedule from Program A. Given that Program B was a 30 min drive away and in the same week, couldn't even get their act together to give me a list of available classes, I dropped them from consideration.

I went to my meeting at the Unemployment office and told them what had happened and that I was choosing Program A. Per state regulation, I was required to speak to at least THREE schools. And so, Program C was back on my radar. I had some personal stuff & some interviews going on so I had to delay the meeting a few days. The appointment was set for Thursday.

When I went in, I got a bad vibe at the start. There was no one at the front desk, and there was a security camera aimed at the front door. That tells me that having no one there to receive people is the norm. The rep for the program came out and we had a very good talk. They went over their program, and gave me a great deal of detailed information. He answered my questions with ease. I asked about the class schedule for me and he told me that it would be ready by that evening. I made it a point to mention that I had an appointment on the following Monday and I needed the schedule for that meeting. The rep agreed.

I didn't get the Schedule that night. I sent an email on Fri morning asking about the status and reminding them I needed it by Monday. I was informed that they were "putting the finishing touches" on it. That was at 10am. By 8pm on Fri, I still hadn't received the schedule. As of Monday morning, I didn't have the schedule. In fact, I didn't receive it until about 10 min before my meeting with Unemployment.

I still went with Program A. Getting the schedule on Mon would have been fine, except that I was promised the training list on Thur. Program C failed on the initial callback, didn't have a proper reception, and failed on their promise of delivery. All the positive energy they built up in the face to face meeting has been lost.

Needless to say, I didn't choose Program C.

So, after looking at the three schools, my initial decision still stands. Program A wins. The people at Program A presented themselves well, received me at their facility well, and delivered on their promises.
 
People always wax poetic about how important customer service is. When I was in retail, it was all my managers would talk about. In the end, it's true. And part of customer service is delivering on what you promise your customers, ESPECIALLY when it's a POTENTIAL customer. Program C had a MASSIVE fail. And, now that the funding is approved, my training with Program A starts next Monday!!

Thoughts On... Science & Religion Part 2

There are very few things that the bulk of the world can agree on. One of those things is the seemingly eternal battle between Science & Religion. For some reason, people believe that there is no reconciling the scientific method with a belief in the existence of God. And for a long time, I was convinced of the same thing. But then I read an article in a magazine (I think it was Time, but I don't remember for sure) about scientists finding God through their work.

In particular, there was a segment about a scientist who had spent a great deal of effort calculating the exact voltage of an electron. What struck him about his finding was how specific the voltage was. He tried working some standard equations with other values for the voltage and came to the conclusion that the universe as we see it today would never (COULD NEVER!) have come into existence if the electron's voltage was ANY other value. To have that voltage arrived at through an evolutionary process of trial & error was a problematic premise and one that this guy was not able to entertain. Which led him to the conclusion that this value had to have been built into the electron. And if that's true then SOMEONE had to have done that. Who? Well, the only answer he came up with was God. Interesting, right?

After reading that, I started thinking about the battle between Science & Religion. A lot of disparate ideas came together in that session and I realized that I never really believed that Science was at odds with God. The real battle is Science vs Human Arrogance. And THAT is a battle that will NEVER end.

Part 2 - Science

Now before I give you the wrong idea, I want to get something straight. You already know I don't believe that there is a conflict between Science & Religion. The reason why there is NO conflict between science and religion is because they deal with fundamentally different aspects of this world that have very little overlap. The core tenet of science is really simple: explain how the universe, and everything in it, works. That's it. That's the whole point of all aspects of science: to discover the rules and principles which govern the universe we live in. Religion deals in the meaning of living in this universe and in the study and honoring of God. Personally, I can think of no greater way to honor God than to study Her greatest work: our universe.

Now, in all my historical readings & research, I found that one thing rang true for most of human history: Religion ruled all. Despite the presence of all sorts of royalty, the church was on top. After all, they stood between the people and their God. They dedicated their lives to the study of the Word of God, to better and more fully understand the true meaning of God's intent towards us and our purpose in Her plan. They gained a measure of respect for that, and the people mistakenly put Religion in a position it was unsuited for: explaining how the world works. Religion was at a distinct disadvantage because they had no real way of knowing how the world actually worked, but the people asked and they looked to the bible for answers. When they couldn't find answers, they just made them up.

Based on the Bible, Humanity was the last creation of God. That led them to believe that Humanity was the best creation and most favored of all of Her creatures. And as a sign of that favor, our world was placed in the center of God's universe, with the sun and all the stars revolving around us as proof of our status. And for a little while, the information scientists uncovered supported that position. But the scientists kept pushing and analyzing information, and that's where the problems started.

Their new info suggested that their initial conclusions were incorrect. It seemed that the universe was not centered around the Earth (the religious view supported by science so far) but instead around the Sun. Which from a religious viewpoint makes more sense. After all, God is represented as being of light & warmth, right? Kind of like the sun? And don't we all bow and worship Her? One could say our lives REVOLVE around God. So why shouldn't our planet? But the Church's higher ups had spoken and could not be wrong. For this was the word of God and God is never wrong! (For those of you keeping track, this is a picture perfect example of Pride. One of the Seven Deadly Sins!) So, rather than owning up to a misinterpretation the word of God, or just admitting they were wrong, they instead chose to vilify and demonize the scientists that were contradicting them. One of the most famous examples, of course, being the trials of Galileo.

At the end of the day, science doesn't really care about God. There is too much left unexplained about THIS universe to start dealing with issues regarding others, such as Heaven or Hell. Despite the differences between the realms of Science & Religion, they are both being practiced by people. And people can use anything as justification for the things they want to do or want to believe. Just like with religion, there are many times in our history where people have used science and the "Quest for knowledge" to support ghastly, evil deeds (like the "experiments" conducted in the Nazi concentration camps) or blatantly false ideas (like the WWII idea that Negroes have "bad night vision" which makes them unsuited for combat). The cold, hard facts would contradict those ideas, but people refused to accept them.  

For the most part, however, people accept that science is always changing, evolving, and becoming more accurate in its representation of the universe we're in. As new facts are discovered, new questions are being asked. Old theories are challenged and what proves to be false or outdated gets discarded, while certain theories get re-affirmed.  

Earlier, I said that there is very little overlap between science and religion. The one part that both these realms have in common can be summed up in one word: ethics. Religion tries to determine what does it mean to be an ethical (or moral) person, and since it's people that are working to further the scientific understanding of the universe, ethical behavior becomes an important consideration. Many potential avenues of discovery have been delayed or shut down entirely because of ethical considerations.

And, I completely agree with that. It's all too easy to get caught up in the chase and get so hyper-focused on a particular thread of inquiry that one forgets to consider the cost of that knowledge or how that knowledge (or the pursuit of that knowledge) will be applied in the world outside the laboratory. There are things that scientists wish we could unlearn. The most famous example being of course, Oppenheimer's reaction to the first atomic bomb detonation in New Mexico:

"Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

Science and religion aren't at odds with each other. And they never have been. It's human arrogance that set these two realms of thought against one another and created a kind of cold war that has echoed down through history. And the worst part about this is that it didn't have to be this way. Because when they are used at the best of their true potential, religion creates the ethical prism through which the light of science can shine and enlighten our world, making human life all the better in the process.

Thoughts On... Science & Religion Part 1

There are very few things that the bulk of the world can agree on. One of those things is the seemingly eternal battle between Science & Religion. For some reason, people believe that there is no reconciling the scientific method with a belief in the existence of God. And for a long time, I was convinced of the same thing. But then I read an article in a magazine (I think it was Time, but I don't remember for sure) about scientists finding God through their work.

In particular, there was a segment about a scientist who had spent a great deal of effort calculating the exact voltage of an electron. What struck him about his finding was how specific the voltage was. He tried working some standard equations with other values for the voltage and came to the conclusion that the universe as we see it today would never, COULD NEVER, have come into existence if the electron's voltage was ANY other value. To have that specific voltage arrived at through an evolutionary process of trial & error was a problematic premise and one that this guy was not able to entertain. Which led him to the conclusion that this value had to have been built into the electron. It had to be part of a design. And if that's true then SOMEONE had to have come up with that design. Who? Well, the only answer he came up with was God. Intriguing, right?

After reading that, I started thinking about the battle between Science & Religion. A lot of disparate ideas came together in that session (and others since then) and I realized that I never really believed that Science was at odds with God. The real battle is Science vs Human Arrogance. And THAT battle will NEVER end.   


Part 1 - Religion

Now before I give you the wrong idea, I want to get something straight. I believe in God. There is no doubt in my mind that God exists. However, I don't use my faith as an excuse to stop using my brain. Seriously! Those of you who know me, know that I am a very logical person. I cherish the ability to think and use that ability as much as I possibly can. My faith in the existence of God doesn't turn that part of me off or invalidate it in ANY way. In fact, God made me this way, so it would be an INSULT to God to NOT think and use the talents bestowed upon me. As such, the tenets that are normally attributed to God take on a slightly different meaning to me because I've taken the time to actually think through those tenets.

For example, God is everywhere. Do you really understand the SCOPE of that statement? Most people accept the statement that God is everywhere, but operate as if God only resides in churches. But if God is EVERYWHERE then God is there in your bedroom as you masturbate or have sex and call out to him (I'll deal with the gender thing in a moment). God is there as you beat your kids within an inch of their lives. God is there as you embezzle billions of dollars from the nation. God is THERE as you step in and stop a stranger from jumping in front of a bus. And if you want to talk to God, you can just start talking. Right now. He's right there listening to you.

Now, if God is everywhere, then it follows that God is seeing everything. So, God knows everything. Including the fact that you went back to your mistress after taking confessions so she can give you that blow job she does oh so well, or that you played with your altar boys after mass yesterday where you condemned homosexuals as agents of Satan, and you don't feel a DAMNED BIT SORRY for your actions. After all, if you were REALLY sorry about your actions you would STOP DOING THEM, wouldn't you?

Another point of contention is the gender of God. Women tend to believe that God is a woman, and men tend to believe God is a man. Here's what I believe: God created the universe. The last thing created was humanity, including all the traits of humanity. Like say, for example.... GENDER. God existed before the creation of male & female. Therefore, God is NEITHER man or woman. Using the term "he" to refer to God is just a peculiarity of language and of the English language at that. For all we know, people referring to God in Swahili use "it" when speaking about God. Fighting over the gender of God is POINTLESS... (By the way, this argument also applies to the "race" or "color" of God.)

Here's another tenet of faith: God created everything. Again, think about the SCOPE of this statement. Everything means everything... PERIOD. Not just everything GOOD. Want to talk to the source of all evil? Don't talk to Satan. Talk to God. After all, God CREATED Satan. That's right, God is Satan's FATHER. Why do you think Satan is the PRINCE of lies... Cause God is the KING! The disease that is killing your loved one? Yep, created by the same God you're praying to, begging him to save that very same loved one. Why is there evil in the world, you ask? Because our beloved God said so, that's why! (Granted the answer to that is a bit more complex, but I'm hoping you get the point I'm trying to make.)

While we're on the subject of God's creations, what kind of God would create a world that he has to constantly maintain? Watch, influence, manipulate, or judge over... Okay, the judgement part I can understand. But to have to constantly make sure that every living thing takes breath and flies off the ground every single time? Come on, that is simply poor craftsmanship. If humans can build houses that last hundreds of years, I would think that a divine being with the power and intelligence to create the universe we're living in, could create a universe that he wouldn't have to poke and prod every single instant of its existence to keep it running. The universe exists and we live, not because He is pushing on my lungs and shoveling air down my throat, but because He SAID SO! And that's why I worship God.   

Speaking of worship, what happens if you pray to God and he says No? Everyone seems to think that God will answer all prayers with a resounding "YES!" But what happens when prayers conflict? When a pedophile priest prays that his favorite altar boy stays in his reach forever & that boy prays to get away from the priest as soon as possible? God answers all prayers, but some of those answers are "No". Are you still going to pray to God? I will, because I trust that whatever God gives me is what I need to become the person He intended me to be. Will I fuck up along the journey? Damn straight I will. Will God forgive me? Good question... I don't know. Why don't I know?

Because, in order for God to do all the things that He has to do, He has to have an existence INFINITELY beyond anything I can experience. How in the name of all that is holy would I, a simple human, be able to PREDICT what He will do? I have no idea if I'm saved or not. I have no idea if I'm even FORGIVEN or not. And I won't know until I hear it from God Himself! As for the rulebook(a.k.a. The Bible), why would I trust that? The language that it was originally written in isn't even SPOKEN anymore. Not to mention that there have been slight errors in translation (as well as blatant revisions! Check out the Politically Correct bible if you don't believe me!) over the two THOUSAND years (at least) that the book has been in circulation. Not to mention all the texts that might have relevant information that WEREN'T included in the bible. Plus, the bible itself states that even the enemies of God can use the holy scripture against you. Even the Devil himself used the Word of God to tempt the Son of God during his trials. What does that tell you?  

You know what it tells me? The bible is SUBJECT TO INTERPRETATION! It's not a literal truth. In fact, it's actually ESSENTIAL that the bible NOT be a literal truth. Because if it were, then it would be concrete proof of God's existence. If you have proof, why do you need faith? Therefore, I can hope and pray that I'm saved (and I will operate on that assumption), but until the gates of Heaven open to let me in, all I have is faith. There is no guarantee that I'm actually saved. And like the bible being a literal truth, to have that guarantee would go against the whole point of faith, don't you think? Not to mention that the fact that the bible is open to interpretation allows for our understanding of the Word of God to adapt and encompass all the myriad complexities we discover in this universe as we grow older and more mature in our society.

The Church has hundreds of people (possibly thousands) dedicating their lives to reading the holy texts and figuring out the meaning of the words, not just for language translation but to attempt to fully understand the message of God. And that's just for what God SAID!! Now, practically every religion on the planet agrees that God created the universe. If the Church can spend hundreds of years learning and interpreting what God SAID, why the hell are they giving crap to the people who are spending JUST as much time trying to understand what God actually DID??

I'm not attacking God. I'm not attacking believing in God. I'm not even attacking organized religion. (Believe me, there is enough ammunition there for me to go on for DAYS) Belief in God has allowed for a great many things, and has given great comfort to many millions of suffering people. What I'm trying to get you to see is that believing in God does not excuse you from using the complex and powerful brain that God saw fit to give you.

Thoughts On... 3D Movie Remakes

In a previous post, I talked about my stance on movie remakes. Basically, I'm open to the idea of remakes. A modern take on a film can reveal deeper themes in the movie's story. I can't count how many times I've re-watched films and come across concepts that the filmmakers simply didn't address. And there are some remakes that have been nothing less of Godsends to the original story. And then there's the latest crop of re-makes. You know the ones I'm talking about; the remakes or re-releases of movies solely to show them in 3D.

Honestly, I think they are a waste of time, money, and effort. Take the re-release of Titanic, for example. There have been NO changes to the story, NO additional scenes. No changes at all. The ONLY difference is that it's now in 3D. I know that Hollywood is always on a quest for money, but this is much more blatant than usual. I have never been a proponent of 3D. There is really no benefit to the plot of a movie to 3D. In fact, it could lead to a drop in the quality of stories since it would be easier to rely on 3D's immersive nature to make the plot more compelling as opposed to writing in a more compelling manner. Admittedly, that would take awhile and would require the widespread acceptance of 3D for ALL films released, which might not ever happen.

But my biggest issue with 3D is that studios are trying to force directors to use it. The most noteworthy of which was when the studios started putting pressure on Christopher Nolan to shoot his third, and final, Batman film in 3D, which he flatly refused to do. In his statement to the press, Nolan said that filming in 3D should be one of the tools available to a filmmaker for making films and not something that is forced upon filmmakers. Frankly, I completely agree. What about you, my dear readers, what do you think about the latest 3D movie releases?