Keeping one foot always in the air

everythingisaremix is a rehash

2011-08-04T08:59:00.000-07:00

A friend of mine pointed me recently to http://www.everythingisaremix.info/. I watched parts one and two, and I thought they were interesting but underwhelming relative to the thesis.

For example, doesn't every movie buff know that Lucas lifted this shot from Triumph of the Will?
It's quite well-known that Lucas was intentionally hearkening back to the serials of yesteryear, so the Flash Gordon tie-ins, while not something I already knew directly, were hardly surprising.

The "Language of Christianity" piece was even less impressive, because (for me) there wasn't any new trivia to discover. It was also disappointing to discover that a primary achievement of this video is simply to rehash some old confusion again. Take this screenshot, for example:

Well, as Kirby has already said in this video, "salvation" is a word with many meanings. The authors of the scriptures knew that, the Hebrews knew that, the Jews in Jesus' time knew that, Jesus knew that, Paul knew that, Augustine knew that... Now we skip a couple millennia and realize that Kirby's just figuring it out.

Furthermore, since this screenshot shows his attempt to clarify 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, it's obvious that he still doesn't understand the different meanings very well. Those verses are clearly about death and resurrection. (See verse 13 if you're not sure.) Kirby's argument seems to be: (1) The Bible refers to "salvation" in some places in the sense of making things better in this life. (2) 1 Thessalonians 4 seems to be referring to "salvation" somehow (even though the word isn't mentioned at all in , e.g., the NIV, which I happened to check first at biblegateway.com). Therefore, the concept of the "rapture" as it is drawn from 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 is merely based on confusion about what "salvation" means. There are some problems with that argument as Kirby makes it.

Kirby is one more in a long line of folks who are confused about the Gospel of Christ. It includes both justification (by which Christians are made right with God) and sanctification, the process in which Christians strive to do good as the Holy Spirit refines them in the image of Christ. Justification and sanctification are not the same thing. Kirby's right: words can be tricky. I wish he had done a bit more research on the ones he attempted to expound.

I don't mean to knock what Kirby Ferguson is doing too much -- it's interesting storytelling with some surprising trivia for those of us who aren't experts in each of the areas he covers. It looks like Parts 3 and 4 get into the nature of creativity -- and that sounds more interesting, and more promising.

Lastly, I want to mention that Kirby doesn't really seem to be claiming that everything is a "remix". You "remix" recorded stuff: footage, sounds, etc. He talks about that once in a while, but he's really focused on ideas. I think his real thesis is that everything is a "rehash" of old ideas -- and both Solomon and I agree with Kirby about that:

What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
Ecclesiastes 1:9

Perhaps ironically, the fact that everythingisaremix is itself a rehash of a very old observation only goes to prove its point.

The Twits

2010-03-14T20:16:00.000-07:00

Today Joel Spolsky (Joel on Software) wrote the following, with which I heartily agree:

Although I appreciate that many people find Twitter to be valuable, I find it a truly awful way to exchange thoughts and ideas. http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2010/03/14.html

I just can't get myself the least bit interested in Twitter, but I can't help being interested in why other people are interested and I'm not.

Maybe the thing I don't like about Twitter is how empty it feels to me to "shout [sound bytes] into the abyss", as Joel puts it. I related this to a friend (in IRC, which is arguably not that far away from Twitter on a certain continuum) and he replied that "it's not the abyss. It's your follower's inboxes." Fair enough. But what percentage of Twits have followers, and why would I ever want to follow a Twit?

There's a certain type of fascination many people seem to have with being broadly up-to-date on lots of topics. Many of these people probably use readers (such as Google Reader) to keep up with the RSS feeds they've subscribed to and filtered. I tried using Google Reader briefly, until I realized rather quickly that I just don't care about using the Internet that way.

I also have trouble caring about the "status" of the hundreds of people I know (sorry, Facebook). I like reading longer, more thoughtful updates on people's lives, but I don't care what you had for breakfast today (sorry, Sarah). I log into Facebook every once in a while just because there are occasionally new connections made with old friends, and it's as good a way as any to keep some sort of link so we can contact each other if we want to. Once I'm in there, I often end up reading just a bit on somebody's wall, or looking at somebody's photos, or something. But "keeping up" is just not something I worry about at all, and my Facebook apathy seems to well up from the same spring as my Twitter apathy.

Maybe, someday, I'll catch the wave and become a Twit myself. But in the meantime, I plan to keep puzzling out why the Twits care so much while I don't give a hoot.

Edit: On an ironically related note, see http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2010/03/14/.

4-Handed Pits Rules (card game)

2010-01-03T19:38:00.000-08:00

Today I played a fun, four-handed version of Pits. Here's what we changed relative to the only written rules I know about.

drop all spades and the deuce of clubs (so only 40 cards remain, four of which are wild)

Scoring:
1. 1st place wins 3 points, gives least desired card (face up) to 4th place in next hand
2. 2nd place wins 2 points
3. 3rd place wins 0 points, but gets to deal and lead the next hand
4. 4th place wins 1 point, gives highest single card (face up) to 1st place in next hand

play to 26 points

we played with equal jokers (because otherwise it feels like you should also order the deuces)

The advantage given to the 1st-place finisher by taking the highest card from the 4th-place finisher in the next hand isn't as pattern-forming as I expected. Three of the four of us finished 1st several times, and the 4th person got 2nd once.

(Thanks to Tim Hunt for introducing me to 6-handed Pits.)

The End Of Faith: Preliminarily, meh.

2010-01-02T13:07:00.000-08:00

I'm reading Sam Harris' The End Of Faith because a friend recommended it to me as a moving book. I'm only 23 pages into the book, and I have dwindling hopes for any real argumentation to follow that may substantiate any aspects of the so-far endless string of assertions. Here's an easily isolateable assertion that makes me fear the book will have no real argument:

The only reason anyone is "moderate" in matters of faith these days is that he has assimilated some of the fruits of the last two thousand years of human thought (democratic politics, scientific advancement on every front, concern for human rights, an end to cultural and geographic isolation, etc.). The doors leading out of scriptural literalism do not open from the inside. The moderation we see among nonfundamentalists is not some sign that faith itself has evolved; it is, rather, the product of the many hammer blows of modernity that have exposed certain tenets of faith to doubt. (Harris, Sam. The End Of Faith. W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. New York, NY. 2004. p. 18-19.) [emphasis original]

This statement would be embarrassing to its author, were he familiar with the last 2500 (or so) years of human thought about Judeo-Christian scripture. Augustine was interpreting Christian scripture non-literally in the fourth and fifth centuries (a 10-second google search finds reference to this in Augustine through the ages: an encyclopedia. (Fitzgerald, Allan and Cavadini, John C. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Grand Rapids, Michigan. 1999. p. 367.)) But even before Augustine, scripture is seen to take itself non-literally (in at least some sense -- though what it means to take something "literally" is not always very obvious). For examples, we need look no further than the Skeptic's Annotated Bible:

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." God says that if Adam eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then the day that he does so, he will die. But later Adam eats the forbidden fruit (3:6) and yet lives for another 930 years (5:5). 2:17

God promises to make Isaac's descendants as numerous as "the stars of heaven", which, of course, never happened. The Jews have always been, and will always be, a small minority. 26:4

If Genesis 5:5 doesn't take Genesis 3:6 literally (in at least a certain sense), then Harris' assertion is almost as groundless as it could possibly be. Judeo-Christian scripture has never been taken entirely literally, so it can hardly be the case that modernism has at last come to our rescue and knocked some sense into all those otherwise exclusively literalist believers.

I will cheerfully add an assertion here that Harris and the Skeptic's Annotated Bible are both making the mistake of criticizing without any apparent regard whatsoever to how Hebrews and Christians (at least) have historically viewed scripture. It is not difficult to conclude that an opponent's view is ludicrous if you apply all of your own presuppositions to it while ignoring those of your opponent. In fact, I'm inclined to think that creationists of the 6-24-hour-day camp far too often take such an approach with regard to science.

Instead of ignorantly railing against the beliefs of others, we should all strive to understand one another and carry on respectful discussions. This goal became easier for me when I read Harris' acknowledgments at the end of The End Of Faith. "I began writing this book on September 12, 2001..." (p.323) I can empathize with Harris -- this book is clearly a cathartic work for him, and I can respect that even while I see that his seemingly-extensive research unfortunately did not apparently include anything to bring him understanding of or respect for his opponents.

But, as I mentioned, I'm only on page 23. Maybe he'll surprise me with thoughtfulness somewhere in the remaining 204 pages -- I hope he does.

Avatar: Meh

2009-12-19T00:04:00.000-08:00

Films don't often inspire me to write, but Avatar is an exception. As a visual experience it is fantastic, stunning, vibrant, inventive. Unfortunately, there wasn't anything else particularly interesting about it.

The premise -- obvious from the trailers -- is that there's some military-ish group of humans on some extra-terrestrial world, and they have some way of taking on bodies that match the indigenous people. Now that you know the premise, you're all set. Imagine the story you would expect to be told based on that premise, and imagine the characters you would expect to meet. Imagine the character arcs intersecting with all the main plot lines at all the major plot points. Yep, that's the movie. And the experience of your expectations being precisely met doesn't end with this exercise -- it continues in much greater detail through the entire film.

Titanic didn't tell a daring story, either. That's probably why I only saw it once. I'll want to see Avatar again in the theater, definitely in 3-D (again). But after that, I don't expect to maintain any lasting interest in the film. This is obviously a case of high expectations being dashed -- if only I hadn't expected a daring film, I might be going to sleep right now thinking about how gorgeous it was. But I had hoped for more than a retread of the stereotypes, clichés, and Messages ("war is bad (but using LOTS OF GUNS to illustrate this is entertaining)" and "yay for the environment!") that I've gotten from Cameron before.

Avatar's timid story has really distracted me from how great it looks, and that's a shame. It's just worth seeing, just for the seeing.

Wishing for Truth in Politics

2009-11-09T16:49:00.000-08:00

On the way home from work today, I heard an NPR story about the Stupak Amendment to the health reform bill that just passed by a narrow margin in the House.

NPR read the text of the Stupak Amendment after "translating it into plain English" in order to clear up apparent confusion about what the amendement actually does. Bart Stupak claims that it merely applies the 1976 Hyde Amendment, which prohibits using certain Federal monies to pay for abortions, to the new health reform bill.

When I arrived at home, one of the emails that greeted me was a statement by president of the National Organization for Women (NOW) Terry O'Neill. It contains a few short paragraphs, but the meat of the email says that "The Stupak Amendment, if incorporated into the final version of health insurance reform legislation, will:

Prevent women receiving tax subsidies from using their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion;

Prevent women participating in the public health insurance exchange, administered by private insurance companies, from using 100 percent of their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion;

Prevent low-income women from accessing abortion entirely, in many cases."

I suppose NOW is very concerned about getting attention, and, unfortunately, not very concerned about telling the truth in this case. The actual text of the Stupak Amendment (IANAL) directly contradicts the first two points, which are the meaty ones (casting aside the unintentional meaning of "100 percent of their own money"). Here's what the bill says:

Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting any nonfederal entity (including an individual or a State or local government) from purchasing separate supplemental coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under the section, or a plan that includes such abortions, so long as--

...and then there are some stipulations. But the stipulations appear merely to pedantically establish that this document is consistent with itself. The freedoms granted for individuals and States to purchase abortion coverage simply cannot be exercised with Federal money, which is the whole point (IANAL) of the amendment in the first place.

I really felt like I should be able to respond to the email's senders and point out the obvious untruth of the claims being made, but I know there would have been no beneficial result. At least now this is off my chest.

Skim Once and Move Along

2009-01-18T12:05:00.000-08:00

In tangential response to Is Google making us stupid?:

I used to be able to romanticize the past like nobody's business. These days I can't even get a good reminiscence going. *sigh*

One of the coolest moments ever. Sort of.

2009-01-02T18:49:00.000-08:00

Mark your calendars, because Fri Feb 13 23:31:30 UTC 2009 is on its way. Run

date +%s -d 'Fri Feb 13 23:31:30 UTC 2009'

if you want to know why that's interesting. (Ah! Or you can google it instead if you like.)

Worrying About Scared People

2008-11-09T20:19:00.000-08:00

Obama isn't scary, but I worry about the people who are scared by him. A friend just pointed out these two articles to me, and I think they shed helpful light on the misguided political path of Evangelicalism in recent years.

Evangelicalism, Realpolitik and the Gospel

Slinging Mud and Other Objects

And while I'm on the topic, Obama's Call to Renewal Keynote Address from June 28, 2006, is, in my opinion, one of the best speeches I've heard[1] a politician give on the topic of faith and religion. Those looking carefully might notice that he doesn't state a position on Biblical inerrancy, and he doesn't acknowledge that slavery as described by Leviticus was not identical with chattel slavery as it was practiced in the United States. But those are hardly reasons, in themselves, to reject his claim to be a Christian. His gentle reprimand toward those who "cynically use religion to justify partisan ends" is such a welcome breath of fresh air, especially coming from the lips of the man who is now on his way to the White House.[2]

I think Evangelicals would do well to heed the words of Barack Obama, and not just the words of people who would use scripture or religious authority to incite fear of him.

[1] See a video of the speech here.
[2] In ironic contrast, after you read Obama's speech you might want to note some of the Michael Moore-style (i.e., unfair and unreasonable) mish-mashes of the above speech readily available on youtube, such as the one entitled "Barack Obama Mocks And Makes Fun Of The Bible--No Christian Would Do This".

Some Logic about 6-Day-24-Hour Creationism

2008-10-24T11:30:00.000-07:00

[Note: I was really writing about stereotypes and mistakes in doctrinal priority, so I was not very careful to distinguish among various theories of creation. In general, I am critical here of 6-day-24-hour, young earth creationism. --Matt (Sat Oct 25 20:33:40 EDT 2008)]

One day (many years ago), I realized that one of the following must be true:

Scientists are in a massive anti-religious conspiracy,

scientists are so biased against creationism that they're ignoring vast amounts of creation-confirming data or faking vast amounts of evolution-confirming data,

Christians are in a massive pro-creation conspiracy,

or Christians are so biased against evolutionary theory that they're ignoring vast amounts of anti-creation data or faking vast amounts of creation-confirming data.

I could easily imagine #4 being true, and within the health-and-wealth section of American Christianism I suspect massive insincerity, so that there is a conspiracy is easy to believe.

Think about the Christians you know (if any), and then think about the scientists you know (if any). Are you clearly in one group or the other? If so, think about the stereotypes you have of the other group. I'll tell you about the stereotypes I have; they are based both on personal interaction and reading works authored by representatives of these groups.

I think every scientist is biased about her science[1], but I think the scientific community recognizes this problem and continues to worry about it and debate ways of dealing with it...just as Christians worry about their interpretations of scripture and continue to debate how to do it properly.

I think every Christian is biased, usually toward what she has been taught. I think a lot of Christians have been taught a particular biblical hermeneutic that posits, as a cornerstone of Christianity, no less, a particular "literal" understanding of Genesis 1-2. I think the majority of these Christians are ignorant about not only the contested nature of biblical hermeneutics within the history of their own faith[2], but also about actual scientific history and practice. I also think the majority of these Christians don't know any practicing scientists (and are therefore willing to believe #1 or #2, above).[3]

I don't think many scientists are in conspiracies, and I don't think scientists' inescapable bias is covering up vast amounts of pro-creation data. I think many Christians ignorantly believe simplistic pro-creation assertions that are not borne out by actual science. Furthermore, I think Christ's command to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind" (Luke 10:27) implies that we need to be intellectually honest, and many 6-day-24-hour literalist creationists are unintentionally breaking that commandment.

When general revelation (creation (the universe), see Romans 1) tells us that, according to our best theories, the Earth is billions of years old, we need to accept that as being probably true.

When I was a child, I was taught that "if you deny 6-day-24-hour creation you might as well throw out the whole Bible!". Then, when I looked into the issue by taking scientists seriously instead of merely reading creationist assertions against them, and in following Christ's command to be intellectually honest, I had to deny 6-day-24-hour creationism...and my faith in scripture was fundamentally shaken because that particular interpretation of those particular passages had been improperly wedged into the foundation of my Christianity. That was 10 years ago, and I'm still struggling with the consequences that unwise teaching had for my faith.

As the book of Job famously illustrates, it's OK to struggle with our faith (or lack thereof), and I think doubt can be quite healthy. But raising particular views about creation to equal importance with the Gospel of Christ is foolish. Beyond that, at this point in history, in my opinion, it violates Christ's command to love the Lord with "all your mind". When a particular interpretation (science) of general revelation (the universe) contradicts a particular interpretation (hermeneutic) of special revelation (scripture), we should be wrestling with that. I see ignorance and wishful thinking in many 6-day-24-hour arguments, and sincerity and a high probability of truth in science's differing conclusions.

One time I had a conversation with a classmate of mine who had some stereotypes about Christians; she seemed to assume that Christians were never serious about science, and always willing to believe whatever would confirm their faith. She seemed surprised to discover that Copernicus was a devout Roman Catholic, and [perhaps less so] that I, too, was a Christian who took science seriously. Christians and scientists alike would do well to foster a healthy respect for each other; we're all bringing personal bias to the problem of interpreting something. Both Christians and scientists have a duty to interpret the universe correctly, and if we're looking for common ground upon which to base a productive discussion of differing views, we couldn't ask for more than all the "ground" that exists.

[1] In his masterful book The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory, Pierre Duhem discusses the difficulty of avoiding bias. (Duhem, Pierre. The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Translated by Weiner, Philip P. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. 1982. See page 182.) Duhem is responding to Claude Bernard's work in An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine. (Bernard, Claude. An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine. Translated by Henry Copley Greene. Dover Publications, Inc. New York. 1957. See pages 40-43 for Bernard's discussion of respect for authority within the scientific community.)
[2] For one of the most ancient examples, and to show that old-earth views were not newly invented in the 19th century to accommodate Darwinian theory, consider St. Augustine's commentaries on Genesis. Howard J. Van Till's post at http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/199804/0345.html might be a good starting point.
[3] Of course, there are very educated, informed Christians who believe in a 6-day-24-hour creation event; I know at least one. I have not found them to be the norm.

[Note: Retitled from "Some Logic about Creationism and Evolutionary Theory".]

Mis-heard

2008-10-22T07:22:00.000-07:00

In case anybody else is wondering, "Through constant pained disgrace" != "Through constipated grace".

http://www.lyrics007.com/Metallica Lyrics/Unforgiven Lyrics.html

Enjoyable quotes from Claude Bernard

2008-10-14T20:11:00.000-07:00

These both come from his book "An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine", and the context is quite unnecessary to appreciate them.

"...small eels in mildewed wheat..." (p. 119)

"...place a small animal under an air pump..." (p. 120)

The Missing Altruistism Gene

2008-09-20T22:49:00.001-07:00

Nobody is suggesting that children deliberately and consciously deceive their parents because of the selfish genes within them. And I must repeat that when I say something like 'A child should lose no opportunity of cheating...lying, deceiving, exploiting...', I am using the word 'should' in a special way. I am not advocating this kind of behaviour as moral or desirable. I am simply saying that natural selection will tend to favour children who do act in this way, and that therefore when we look at wild populations we may expect to see cheating and selfishness within families. The phrase 'the child should cheat' means that genes that tend to make children cheat have an advantage in the gene pool. If there is a human moral to be drawn, it is that we must teach our children altruism, for we cannot expect it to be part of their biological nature. [emphasis original]

That's on page 139 of my copy of Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, and the irony is thick. One of the primary purposes of the book is to make some headway on the naturalist's problem of explaining altruistic behavior, and at the halfway point we find this frank admission that the most intriguing part of the project cannot be completed. If naturalism cannot explain human altruism by appeal to our biological nature, then what else is there? We can't escape by claiming it is a social phenomenon, or if we do, we must admit that some propensity toward altruism has been injected into our social nature from somewhere other than our biological makeup. Either biology completely explains who we are, or it does not. If it does not, then naturalism finds itself in a philosophical pickle.

It's difficult to see how a naturalist can ever fully back up the claim that we "must" (or "should", or "ought to") teach our children anything about morality, since that's exactly the issue at question for the naturalist. To put it bluntly: If we need to teach our children altruism because it is biologically unnatural for them, then it is also biologically unnatural for us, so what is the explanation for our conviction that we ought to be teaching it at all?

I have not yet read beyond the chapter-ending quote above, so perhaps Dawkins makes more headway than he seems to admit here. But if not, then not even Dawkins thinks he's made any real dent in a theist's argument that human morality is not satisfactorily explicable within the framework of naturalism. In fact, a theist might be very much in favor of the idea that the human propensity toward altruism has been injected into our social nature from somewhere non-biological.

[Mon Sep 22 10:22:55 EDT 2008 Edit: I accidentally misspelled "altruism" in the title. The error was pointed out to me and I fixed it...and then realized that "altruistism" is not only amusing (to me, anyhow), but actually kinda gets at a helpful idea. So I'm replacing the misspelled word.]

If friends were...

2008-09-08T15:13:00.001-07:00

Seen in various and sundry places: "If friends were flowers, I'd pick you."

If friends were roses, I'd cut you.
If friends were whiteboards, I'd erase you.
If friends were baggies, I'd pop you.
If friends were markers, I'd cap you.
If friends were ice cream, I'd freeze you.
If friends were geese, I'd cook you.
If friends were deer, I'd hunt you.
If friends were photos, I'd frame you.
If friends were packages, I'd post you.
If friends were doors, I'd shut you.
If friends were matches, I'd burn you.
If friends were fences, I'd paint you.
If friends were seeds, I'd plant you.
If friends were rifles, I'd shoot you.
If friends were clothes, I'd launder you.
If friends were pianos, I'd play you.
If friends were cars, I'd wax you.
If friends were shoes, I'd wear you.
If friends were footballs, I'd kick you.
If friends were cabbages, I'd boil you.
If friends were potatoes, I'd peel you.
If friends were pizzas, I'd slice you.
If friends were onions, I'd chop you.
If friends were marshmallows, I'd toast you.
If friends were burgers, I'd grill you.
If friends were video games, I'd beat you.
If friends were nails, I'd pound you.
If friends were laundry, I'd wring you.
If friends were glasses, I'd empty you.
If friends were cans, I'd recycle you.
If friends were pistols, I'd fire you.
If friends were food, I'd eat you.

The Shakiest Gun Shot Liberty Valance (and missed)

2008-07-16T16:56:00.000-07:00

A couple of weeks ago I was suddenly struck by some memories of a movie I watched repeatedly as a kid: The Shakiest Gun in the West. I remembered the line "...a...seven-shooter?" and realized that entire scene was a comedic riff on a much better film, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. Just now I happened to read the plot synposis of Shakiest Gun, and even the basic premise (educated/effeminate wimp sets out to civilize the west) is borrowed from Liberty Valance. It's probably been at least 14 years sine I watched Shakiest Gun...maybe I'll keep it that way. My fond memories of Don Knotts might be safest left alone.

My Canterbury Tale

2008-05-11T11:19:00.000-07:00

I wrote the following when I was a senior in high school. Our assignment was to draw a character from a hat (I drew "Methodist minister") and add that character and his/her story to Canterbury Tales. So my classmates and I wrote introductions and then stories from our characters' perspectives.

I did have a couple semi-conscious inspirations for the story; one came from Twain and the other from Chaucer (of course). In the years since I wrote this story I've also encountered Robert Burns' "To a Louse", which may seem a likely inspiration though it wasn't. (I highly recommend reading it.)

Please forgive the spelling and grammar mistakes, the repetitive vocabulary, the stereotypes a teenager in Nebraska in 1997 had about people in Alabama in 1895, and the assertion that hard work and loving families don't promote good learning and common sense.

-- Matt Oquist, June 12, 2005 (updated October 25, 2007, and May 11, 2008)

Original text
Methinks, my brethren, that I have a tale so spun that all the Boy Scouts in America could not unravel its plot. I shall place the populace of my anecdote in Wefarthere, Alabama, in approximately 1895.

Now in Wefarthere there lived a young lady whom was called Dottie. Dottie Smythe was one of the simple folk who inhabited the region. Among her peers were the children of blacksmiths, mill workers, and farmers alike, all working their bones raw to provide for their families. They were a rather close lot, as people of this sort tend to be. Neither hard work nor a loving family promote good learning and common sense, however, and Dottie was lacking in both.

Now Dottie was a girl at the tender age of 14. She was at that point at which a girl is transformed into a woman by the ver-present and watchful mother, who offers advice and gives counsel for whatever situation may develop.

It came to pass that, one Sunday as they sat in church, Dottie's stomach began to growl. Now Dottie, although simple minded, was not ignorant to the workings of the gastrointestinal mechanisms. She knew if a stomach goes "rrrwwwwulg," it means "I'm hungry, feed me." She knew "ppbbtp-p-p-pt" with a slight tingling at the bottom of the throat meant gas was on its way up. She also knew that a "ppbbtp-p-p-pt" with any sensation at all at the other end of the system meant gas was moving towards that end.

Now Dottie was used to her mother's watchful eye, and she knew the listening ear was present as well. She glanced at her mother. With relief, she noted that as of yet, Mrs. Smythe had not noticed the digestive disturbance. Dottie concentrated on sitting up straight, with her back to the back of the chair, leaving her midsection relaxed and in the least stressful position possible. For a time, this worked. Soon, though, the noises started up again, and this time Dottie could feel the muscles contorting and working themselves into strange positions.

She quit concentrating on her stomach altogether, and tried listening to the sermon, in hopes that the lack of attention would make her tummy settle down.

It was a right lively sermon, with the pastor jumping up and down, and running to and fro in front of the congregation, holding his arms in the air and gesticulating wildly. "hallelujas" were ringing out from all quarters of the congregation, and the preacher himself added one here and there. Presently, however, Dottie's stomach simply intensified its efforts to be heard and attended to. Dottie's mother had now noticed these gurgles, and was giving Dottie looks of reproval.

Now Dottie knew it was unladylike to let one's stomach rumble, so she tried hard to stop it, but Lord, no, it could not be quelled, try as she might. Needless to say, it was driving Dottie batty.

Now Dottie began to get more uneasy. Without a doubt, the gurgle was signaling a gaseous substance, and she had begun to sense the most queer ticklish feeling in her lower abdomen.

She was not slow to realize what the situation was. Determined that never should gas pass from her in church, she wedged her rear end into that pew, crossed her legs, and tensed her muscles, resolute in her determination.

She concentrated on the pew in front of her. It was a strong, sturdy pine, stained dark brown as all the others. The grain stood out sharply, following the contours of the pew as if the contours had been there first.

She noticed an old lady two pews up. Her white hair was curled and relatively short, as most older womens' is. A fly had nestled itself in it, and the older lady seemed not to notice.

Gurgle. There went her stomach again. She gave a quick, sideways glance toward her mother. Mrs. Smythe must have been listening for some time, judging by the look on her face. The corners of her mouth were pulled down so far she thought they would be pulled off her face, and there was fire in her eyes. Dottie's heart skipped a beat. She would have some explaining to do later, after church.

Quickly she turned her attention back to the fly. It was now buzzing around in the woman's hair, seemingly in circles. Dottie stifled a laugh, and thought "That old lady should get that fly out of her hair before the situation becomes even more embarrassing."

Suddenly, without warning, that's what the old woman did. She reached up and gave herself a tremendous "THWACK" on the back of the head.

The fly was now dazed, and it managed to find its way out of the hair maze and begin flying in confused, lopsided circles in the air.

Dottie's stomach chose that moment to let go with a tremendous groan and her mother's whispered "Dottie!" made Dottie squirm.

The fly did another circle, the preacher another "Hallelujah!", and Dottie's stomach again made a loud, offensive noise. This time her mother's "Dottie!!" was not so quiet. After a hurried glance of acknowledgment to her mother, Dottie began to panic. She could feel a lot more activity going on in her midsection now than before. What if she could contain herself no longer?

Now pressure is an interesting thing. Released a little at a time, such as when one blows through a straw, it is hardly noticeable, just a soft "Phooooooh." Released all at once, such as when a balloon pops, it can be very noisy.

Well, Dottie had been allowing pressure to build up in her digestive system for so long, that it came to the point where all her muscular control was no match for the raw power of nature. All the pent-up gas was released in a belch from the bottom so forceful that the hymnals rattled five pews over.

Before the entire congregation could even turn to locate the source of the rude noise, Dottie's mother stood up, her face bright red. Dottie recognized the signs and mentally prepared herself for a very humiliating public tongue-lashing. Her mother's nostrils were flared, and her mouth was wide open. She sucked in a huge breath with which to initiate a verbal tirade.

At that moment, the unfortunate fly happened to be flying directly under her mother's nose. It was sucked in with the large intake of air, directly through the right nostril and into her windpipe.

This was not a good thing to happen to Dottie's mother, who immediately began coughing and clawing her throat, trying to rid herself of this annoying tickling thing. Dottie's father was, of course, deeply concerned, and, with the curious congregation watching the whole spectacle, tried to ask her what was the matter. She, attempting to look proper and dignified, with her purple face, bulging eyes, and hair rapidly coming undone, couldn't tell him.

So it ended that the Smythes went to find the doctor, who was a Lutheran.

The three elderly women in the back pew immediately leaned in toward each other to discuss the situation.

"Dreadful." said the first.

"Shocking!" said the second.

"Indeed," said the third. "Mrs. Smythe should know better than to pass gas in church by now."

I'm a Metallica fan.

2008-05-08T10:28:00.001-07:00

I considered my fanhood official when (after deliberation) I purchased a Master of Puppets t-shirt this year.

Having grown up in the wastelands of CCM, I've been playing cultural catch-up since sometime toward the end of high school (mid-nineties). I now own and listen to every Metallica studio album, as well as Garage Inc. and S&M. My experience over time has followed this pattern:

I hear a Metallica song I don't know, and I enjoy the sound.

As I listen to the song repeatedly, at some point I catch a bit of the lyric that interests me.

I look up the lyric and realize that James Hetfield is actually singing seriously and with depth about a weighty topic that interests me.

The first occurrence of this was when I borrowed Ride the Lightning from a friend at work in 2001. I got to the song Creeping Death and realized that it's about the 10th plague of the Exodous -- hardly the sort of thing I was expecting from one of the four defininitive 80s thrash-metal bands.

Fast forward three years, and I hear S&M being played at a friend's house. I decide I like the sound (of course - I like film scores and Michael Kamen arranged and conducted!) and purchased a copy for myself. I also purchased their self-titled 1991 album around this time. Sometime during the next year of listening, the lyrics of Through the Never sank into me and I realized how thoroughly this band was considering the same philosophical questions that preoccupy me. (I also recall contrasting that song with Joe Diffie's "Third Rock From the Sun", which I believe is inclined toward a darkly humorous escapism.)

In addition, Holier Than Thou echoes Christ's teaching in Matthew 7, and The God That Failed is about disappointment when God fails to meet our expectations. This was likely written in relation to the death of Hetfield's mother, though I believe the title phrase is a double entendre referring also to Christ's unexpected self-sacrifice.

Conversations with friends left me with low hopes for Load, but I've been very pleased over the past three months to come to appreciate "Bleeding Me", "Thorn Within", and "The Outlaw Torn". Additionally, I could listen all day to Hetfield singing

My body my temple / this temple it tilts

in The House that Jack Built. (Now I want a Load t-shirt, too.)

I'm not settled on this, but I read Bleeding Me as a reflection on the consequences of being part of fallen humanity.

The Outlaw Torn is a beautiful and plaintive prayer -- one I pray regularly, but more quietly, more privately, and with fewer guitars.

Thorn Within demonstrates that Metallica has a better understanding of sin than most culture-shunning American Evangelicals.

As so often happens when I have an idea, it turns out that somebody else has already had that idea and done something significant with it. (For example, Augustine pre-empted me on a theology of God and time.) In this case, it just now occurred to me to search for "Metallica theology" to see what other people have said, and lo and behold! Metallica and Philosophy is available for purchase.

So I decided to write this up now, before I read that book. In any case, I think there's plenty of room for a whole adult Sunday School curriculum built around serious consideration of Metallica's music...but I'm not going to search for "Metallica Sunday School" yet. I need to give my wounded sense of originality a break for now.

STOP global climate change! Really?

2008-04-23T08:00:00.001-07:00

One of the sponsors of NPR (at least in the NH-area) is wecansolveit.org, and their NPR tagline claims they want to "stop global climate change". They don't want to, say, eliminate human influence on the global climate (if there is any that is significant...), they actually just want to stop the whole darn climate from changing, period. Pesky physical processes of the universe, always shifting things around when it's most inconvenient for us. I assume the tagline is simply an unfortunately shallow and hysterical distortion of the actual views and goals of the people at wecansolveit.org. But the fact that this tagline has been playing on the radio -- for weeks at least -- is still an indicator of how carried away it is easy to get about global climate change.

I suspect that we would do better in the long run to focus on a much better understanding of global climate change and plans to mitigate harmful consequences for humanity of such change. And, in the meantime, we should continue to make serious efforts to transition to using renewable energy sources, especially ones that don't contribute to a global food crisis. I hope I'm not the only one who finds it ironic that people who want to "stop global climate change" are sponsoring NPR reports about how biofuel initiatives are contributing to a global food crisis. At least they're sponsoring NPR; I suppose that's one measurably beneficial effect of their organization.

Volition's Crucial Ignorance

2008-04-18T18:53:00.000-07:00

Of the papers I've written, this is my current favorite; I think it's always fun when I manage to find an excuse to worry about free will and determinism. In this paper I argue that ignorance is fundamental to volition, whether we like it or not.

Kant's Critique of Pure Reason

2008-04-18T18:12:00.000-07:00

I wrote this paper for a class on Kant. You might find it interesting, or not. Be warned -- reading Kant is like chasing very important and delicious butterflies through a minefield. In this paper I've attempted to collect a few of the butterflies in a small room, so perhaps you will find the morsels closer to hand, and, I hope, just as tasty.

Can you spot the odd man out?

2007-11-11T19:56:00.000-08:00

This sample box of cereal showed up with our daily newspaper the other day. Maybe someone should've spent a bit more time in the photo editor, because one of these things is not like the others.

UPDATE: I've been told that this image is used on lots of Curves packaging, and on other printings it's more obvious that she's wearing another shirt underneath. It looked awfully suspicious on the box I had. *shrug*

HP7: Beautiful

2007-07-21T22:30:00.001-07:00

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is a beautiful book. Once in the past I began commenting on a book in IRC immediately after finishing it, and I later regretted my haste. In the future I'll probably become more critical of this book, as well. But I announce right now that I believe it is beautiful work.*

Pullman, eat your heart out. The hollow hope that motivates your work can never bring satisfaction to your readers the way that works by J.K. Rowling, C.S. Lewis, and J.R.R. Tolkien have done, and will continue to do throughout coming decades. The conventions and types upon which they rely work because they strike a chord of truth that resonates in the soul. As long as you keep playing your same shrill song, you'll just have to get louder and worse to continue to get attention...and you were already embarrassingly shrill in The Amber Spyglass.

John Granger, POMPOUS STYLE NOTWITHSTANDING, got the most important stuff right, writing way back in 2002. Good for him.

* This is to be taken in complete separation from my previous post containing predictions about HP7. As I acknowledged there, Rowling had much better ideas than I was willing to imagine she might.

Prediction: Harry Won't Make It

2007-06-27T19:36:00.000-07:00

I, like almost every other Harry Potter fan, have been wondering for years whether Harry will be alive at the end of book 7. Until last week*, I was still wondering.

At this point, I'm convinced that he won't be; I'll be disappointed if he is, actually.

I'm sure Rowling's got loads of much better ideas than I have, but I won't be surprised if Harry dies in part because he's saving the life of Draco Malfoy or Severus Snape. Or perhaps Snape will sacrafice himself to save Harry**, and Harry will die defeating Voldemort and simultaneously resucing Draco.

Of course, there is this enormous question of who else has been collecting Horcruxes, and I haven't the slightest idea how that character may fit into all this.

That's all. I expect I'm the 37,253rd blogger to make this prediction.

* Yes, Joe, our conversation was the turning point.
** I'll be surprised if Snape is actually evil; it will just be too delicious if he's good.

Technology in Education: The Bad (rant warning)

2007-06-05T19:15:00.001-07:00

I am increasingly of the opinion that having any classes whatsoever on "applications" is definitely the wrong approach. The proper [and advanced] use of applications is something that should be built into the rest of the curriculum; learning "how to use applications" when there is no purpose at hand is boring and useless, and quickly forgotten. Instead (for example), math classes should use advanced spreadsheet graphing and statistics, English classes should use the word processor and presentation tools, Industrial Arts/Vocational/Career & Tech. Ed./New PC Buzzword classes should use CAD programs, and so on and so forth. (Note that I deliberately did not name "PowerPoint", "OpenOffice", etc. As much as possible, education should be product-agnostic.) However, there is still room for a technology curriculum, and the content of that curriculum should be actual technology concepts, not technology usage. That is, programming, data management, systems administration, etc.

Am I open to changing this opinion? It is constantly changing, and I don't pretend to have all the answers, or the definitive answer. I've never studied a single bit of curriculum design. So I openly admit that I may be wrong, or at the very least that I may overestimate what is possible in real-world classrooms with real-world teachers and real-world students. But:

I went through high school in the mid-late 90s (so I've been a student under a curriculum like those I'm criticizing).

I obtained a B.S. in Computer Science after that (so I'm a user and a programmer).

I have worked as a software engineer and I still write code for a living (so I know what the marketplace is actually like, and what aspects of technology education pay off in the real world).

I now work for a school district, and my wife is a teacher (so I've been in and witnessed classes like those I'm criticising, I talk with quite a few teachers and technical folks who work in educational environments, and I've seen very exciting alternatives to what most schools are spoon-feeding today's kids).

I simply can't help but point out what I believe are serious problems in the approach that is so often currently taken, and point toward what I believe is a vastly superior pedagogy of technology. This is intended to be the first of a three-part series of posts on this topic.

Problems with Current Practices in Technology Instruction

Note: I'm going to speak in very general terms, but of course I realize that most technology teachers don't fit this mold precisely, and I expect that many could do a much better job than I of stating these and other criticisms. Also, note that I'm focused on K-12, though similar ideas apply to other age groups.

Here are some characteristics that typify an impoverished approach to teaching technology:

Class or assignment titles such as "Business Applications", "Office Applications", "Word Processing", "Desktop Publishing"

Class or assignment titles with company, product, or project names: Microsoft, Macromedia, Inspiration, Autocad, Power Point, Excel, Shockwave, OpenOffice, GIMP, etc.

Predominance of classroom instructions concerning mouse movement ("OK, everybody, click on 'File', then click 'New'..."

Assignments such as "Write a pretend diary entry"

Assignments such as "Pretend you're on a vacation with your family, and create a postcard to send home to Grandma."

Programming classes such as "Intro to Visual Basic"

Here are some problems with the above approach:

Companies and products go away, and the ones that don't, change. If you think it's important to teach kids how to use the dominant products in the marketplace today, think about how valuable it was to teach kids Word Perfect, or Windows 3.1. Obviously schools will use many software products and projects that are currently dominant, but their dominance should never be the reason for using them (quality and cost to the taxpayers are vastly more important considerations), and nothing specific to a particular version of a product/project should ever be the focus of what is taught. Kids should learn how to teach themselves how to use software, because spoon-feeding them now does them a disservice when the real world will expect them to be dynamic self-teachers.

In the above examples technology is taught and used only in an aimless sense that needlessly heightens disinterest. Rote usage of applications is boring. Pretending, when the pretense is uninteresting, is boring. These examples show a lack of creativity on the part of the instructor, and that lack of creativity extinguishes whatever spark of initiative the students may have. But worse than this, the end goal of these assignments is nothing. Who cares about a pretend diary entry? Who cares about a fake postcard from a pretend vacation? One might care about them in English class, but when the students know the object is to learn to use the software there is no motivation to care about the writing, which is the only possibly interesting part.

Many kids already know the basics of computer usage...it's the teachers who need classes in computer basics. So much of what passes for technology curriculum today reflects not the needs of students, but the limitations of their teachers. Even most of the kids who don't know the basics don't need the plodding approach that teaches Microsoft Word one semester, and Microsoft PowerPoint the next.

Using expensive software in the classroom dampens the opportunities for interested kids to learn outside of class. There is so much Free Software available now that almost all but the most specialized software needs of K-12 classrooms can be met without spending taxpayer dollars, and without denying interested kids the Freedom to explore their interests further at home.

I can't imagine a worse first programming language than Visual Basic. Well, I suppose it beats INTERCAL, but that's about it. Any programming environment focused primarily on producing GUIs starts new programmers definitively on the wrong foot. New programmers should be learning the concepts of structured programming and data structures, and the temptation to play with GUIs (and even working in a GUI environment, IMO) is solely a distraction from these core concepts that should be the focus. This isn't to say that writing good GUIs has no place in a HS curriculum...but the "introduction to programming" class isn't that place.

Substantial portions of the above curriculum could be directed at monkeys almost as well as to children. Training is when you show people how to use a product. ("Today we're learning Microsoft Word. Click 'File', then 'New'...")

A technology curriculum such as the above leaves the rest of the curriculum and the rest of the teachers unchallenged to integrate technology well. There already aren't general purpose "how to use a graphing calculator" classes, because the higher-level math courses include that. There aren't "how to use CAD software" classes because the classes where kids learn to use CAD software are focused on architecture and design. Including any classes in the curriculum that focus on software usage makes it easy for teachers of real subjects to avoid real integration.

Next: Characteristics that typify a rich approach to teaching technology

Ubuntu Network Installs made easy

2007-06-04T12:29:00.000-07:00

The following high-level instructions allow you to PXE boot and install Ubuntu just as if you had a CD in the drive.

Install an NFS server and a TFTP server on a system on your network.

Download the ISO you want to boot over your network.

Mount the ISO and copy all the files to the NFS server, and export the directory.

Copy the contents of install/netboot from the CD into the tftpboot directory on your TFTP server.

Copy vmlinuz and initrd.gz from the CD (you may have to search for them, they're usually in /install or /casper) into the tftpboot directory; rename them to be something unique if you will have more than one version in the directory.

Edit pxelinux.cfg/default to point one of the LABEL entries to your kernel and initrd, with the following options to tell casper to mount / via NFS -- your entry should look a lot like these three lines:
LABEL edubuntu kernel vmlinuz-edubuntu-iso append vga=normal initrd=initrd-edubuntu-iso boot=casper netboot=nfs nfsroot=10.20.1.2:/opt/ltsp/edudesktop-iso --
nfsroot points to your NFS server and the path to the directory where you copied all the contents of the CD.

Set the following options in dhcpd.conf on your DHCP server:
next-server 10.20.1.2; # this is your TFTP server filename "pxelinux.0"; # put this in verbatim

Profit!

man casper for more information about casper, which is what makes this so easy.

Update: This is more fully explained in the Ubuntu community documentation.

Warning: Improper handling of this product may damage your vehicle.

2007-04-21T21:23:00.000-07:00

Today I dented the side of my car with a UPS.

JCS in MA

2007-04-12T21:24:00.000-07:00

Just got back from seeing Jesus Christ Superstar on-stage in Lowell, MA. This is the second time I've seen it live; the first time I ever saw it was in the summer of 1996 in the St. Louis Muny. In between, I've seen the movie a couple of times and listened to the Original London Concept Recording (highly recommended) an uncounted number of times.

I never liked Neeley as Jesus in the movie; I thought his vocal performance was weak and nasal (in contrast to Gillan's in the concept recording), and I thought he was relatively uninteresting to watch -- but tonight he redeemed himself in my eyes. His first number was unimpressive (I thought to myself "Oh no! Am I going to spend all evening waiting for Judas to sing again?"), but the destruction of the temple and the Gesthemane sequence were wonderful; I could listen to them instead of the concept album and be satisifed, which is not true of the sound of any part of Jewison's film.

Judas' (Corey Glover) performance was fantastic throughout, but his volume range was unmatched by the sound system. The quietest parts were consistently overpowered by the orchestra, and this deleteriously affected the title number "Superstar", which I was greatly anticipating. Also, I remember a strong bass part driving this song in both the concept album and the film, and tonight I realized how much that lends to the piece since I couldn't hear the bass at all during that song. Judas was a pleasure to behold, nonetheless.

Mary Magdelene (Tiffini Dodson) was also very good, with a strong, affectionate, and conflicted performance. I preferred tonight's more conventional vocal approach to the slidey performances (I'm sure there's a technical term for this) of the concept album and film.

Herod's number, the only opportunity for comedy in the entire musical, was well done, and they took good advantage of it. I prefer the concept album's circus rendition of the instrumental part to the salsa-fied version I heard tonight, but the tone was right, the chorous of dancing girls was great, and Herod was as pompous as possible. Delicious.

I loved the lighting for the crucifixion scene; with only side lights the matte black cross disappeared and only Jesus was left, suspended cruciform above the stage.

Now for a tangent: There were a couple moments when I couldn't help weeping, and I can't really explain why. In fact, I can't even remember when they were. Every so often a particular piece of music will grab hold of me, and for a time it's able to effect in me such a profound response that I cry. Once upon a time, believe it or not, Hedwig's Theme from the first Harry Potter soundtrack could do this. (I still enjoy the piece, but it no longer evokes such a response from me.) The bottle dance in Jewison's Fiddler on the Roof does it every time (whether I'm just listening or also watching), as does the moment when Tradition wins out over Tevye's love for Chava, and as does the intercultural tavern dancing scene during "To Life!". I think it's some shifting combination of grief and joy about beauty and tragedy that brings these tears to the surface, but it's difficult to pin down in description.

I highly recommend (again) the Original London Concept Recording. Buy it and listen to it.

Jewison's movie is worth watching, but the only real highlight for me is "Simon Zealotes", which I have watched several times all by itself. The choreography and direction complement joyous performances (in the midst of which, I must add, Neeley stands to no great affect).

Overall, tonight's performance was a very satisfying experience, right up there close to seeing The Producers on stage in Boston in 2005. If you get a chance to see Ted Neeley's Jesus on a stage near you, I recommend it.

Think Like a Philippian

2007-03-18T12:29:00.000-07:00

I preached in church today. I had never preached before. For various reasons, I decided to write the entire sermon out word for word and read it. So if you want, you can read it, too.

MacBook + Ubuntu (Edgy)

2007-02-22T19:29:00.001-08:00

Notes on getting my brand new (arrived from apple.com on Tuesday) MacBook working with Ubuntu (single boot -- I only want Linux!):

Ubuntu Edgy Server disc was unusable, b/c the keyboard isn't available at the CD menu screen and there's no timeout.

Ubuntu Edgy Desktop CD (32-bit i386) installation went without a hitch.

mouseemu under Edgy freezes the trackpad until I stop the service again.

pommed under Feisty works 50/50. The function keys started doing the things they're supposed to, but I wanted them to be F-keys by default, and only do special things when I hold dow the 'fn' key. I couldn't make this happen.

I was unable to get right/middle clicking to work until I installed xkbset and put the following in my .bash_profile:
- xmodmap -e 'keycode 116 = Pointer_Button2'
  xmodmap -e 'keycode 108 = Pointer_Button3'
  xkbset m
I can middle-click by holding down the right Apple key, clicking, and releasing the Apple key.

The little "enter" key next to the arrow keys is a right-click.

I installed mpd and mpc and sound is working fine, except that after a while I noticed:
1. I'm only hearing the right channel of stereo sound through the internal speakers. It's playing only the right channel, through both speakers, as if it's mono.
2. The internal speakers keep playing even when headphones are plugged in, as other people have experienced while running Windows on Intel-Mac hardware. *BIG FROWNY FACE* This is very annoying. I'm shopping for USB sound devices now (anticipating that there won't be a fix soon enough to suit me) and I'd really rather not be.
Update: I just bought a USB Sound device that looks just like this one (different color plastic) for $15 from my local PC shop, and it came right up. Here's what showed up in syslog:

Feb 23 14:28:14 kant kernel: [17239422.824000] usb 2-1: USB disconnect, address 2
Feb 23 14:28:28 kant kernel: [17239436.988000] usb 2-1: new full speed USB device using uhci_hcd and address 3
Feb 23 14:28:29 kant kernel: [17239437.144000] usb 2-1: configuration #1 chosen from 1 choice
Feb 23 14:28:29 kant kernel: [17239437.228000] input: C-Media USB Headphone Set as /class/input/input20
Feb 23 14:28:29 kant kernel: [17239437.228000] input: USB HID v1.00 Device [C-Media USB Headphone Set ] on usb-0000:00:1d.1-1
Feb 23 14:28:55 kant kernel: [17239463.224000] usb 2-1: USB disconnect, address 3
Feb 23 14:29:11 kant kernel: [17239479.864000] usb 2-1: new full speed USB device using uhci_hcd and address 4
Feb 23 14:29:12 kant kernel: [17239480.024000] usb 2-1: configuration #1 chosen from 1 choice
Feb 23 14:29:12 kant kernel: [17239480.108000] input: C-Media USB Headphone Set as /class/input/input21
Feb 23 14:29:12 kant kernel: [17239480.108000] input: USB HID v1.00 Device [C-Media USB Headphone Set ] on usb-0000:00:1d.1-1

I added an /etc/asound.conf file:
```
kant ~ # cat /etc/asound.conf 
pcm.!default {
    type hw
    card 1
}

ctl.!default {
    type hw
    card 1
}
        
```
...and I modified my /etc/mpd.conf (this is only for people who use mpd instead of, say, xmms, or totem, or whatever) to have the following alsa output
configuration:
```
# use this if you want to use ALSA audio output
audio_output {
        type            "alsa"
        name            "my ALSA device"
        device          "hw:1,0" # optional
        format          "44100:16:2" #optional
}
        
```
I couldn't be happier with a $15 usb sound card purchased at the last minute before a trip overseas. :)

The madwifi drivers were insufficient (no wlan0 showed up in iwconfig output), so I eventually resorted to ndiswrapper, which has been working fine. (See further discussion here.) Note: I just installed ndiswrapper-utils-1.8, grabbed the D-Link driver, did ndiswrapper -i net5416.inf; modprobe ndiswrapper; echo ndiswrapper >> /etc/modules, and iwconfig listed wlan0 and I was good to go.

Suspend failed to come back up with the backlight. I had to CTRL+ALT+F1 out of X, log in, and restart, without seeing what I was doing. :) (I don't have networking configured to start automatically, so I couldn't ssh into the system to restart it.)

I am, as I type (on my desktop workstation) testing hibernation...(*BONNNNNGGGGGGG*, says the MacBook)...and we're booted successfully! Hibernation looks like a go.

I haven't messed with iSight yet, but I've read that it doesn't work. I've got a copy of the MacOSX /System/Library/Extensions/IOUSBFamily.kext/Contents/PlugIns/AppleUSBVideoSupport.kext/Contents/MacOS/AppleUSBVideoSupport file that desrt mentions here, so I expect to be able to get it working whenever I get around to it.

Oh, yeah. CD ejection...I don't have that yet b/c pommed isn't available in Edgy. But just now, I added the following to my .bash_profile:

xmodmap -e 'keycode 204 = F13'

and the following to my ion2 configuration (yes, I know...I haven't even upgraded to ion3):

kpress("F13", make_exec_fn("eject /dev/hda"))

...and now the CD eject key works as expected. :) (Use 'xev' to figure out keycodes, btw.)

I also have the following in my .bash_profile to make the left Apple into "Alt" and the "alt/option" key into a "Windows" (Super_L) key. I haven't yet gotten this to work with my normal ion2 bindings to manage mpc (music player), but someday I will...

xmodmap -e 'keycode 115 = Alt_L Meta_L' xmodmap -e 'clear mod1' xmodmap -e 'add mod1 = Alt_L Meta_L' xmodmap -e 'keycode 64 = Super_L' xmodmap -e 'clear mod4' xmodmap -e 'add mod4 = Super_L'

The resolution comes up as 1024x768, but installing 915resolution and restarting X (or the whole system) gets me 1280x800 pixels.

Resources:
1. Google :)
2. desrt's "Ubuntu Edgy on the Apple Macbook" page
3. Debian Wiki MacBook page (I didn't use it, but I wish I'd found it earlier)

Keeping one foot always in the air

2007-01-01T19:45:00.000-08:00

I'm renaming my blog from "Rare Thoughts: One Every Few Months" to "Keeping one foot always in the air".

Speaking of feet in the air, my wife and I flew home from Lincoln, NE through Detroit on Saturday. The parts while we were in the air were fine, but the parts while we were on the ground were less so. We were delayed for two hours as we waited for our plane to arrive in Lincoln, and since most of us were going to miss our connections in Detroit anyway, the NWA folks offered hotel vouchers to anybody who wanted to wait for a later flight. Since they promised hotel accomodations in Detroit, most of the 30-40 passengers elected to get to Detroit instead of waiting...but after we got to Detroit (and sat on the tarmac for 30+ minutes while additional people missed connecting flights), the word from the woman at the gate was "Sorry, this is weather-related, so NO HOTEL FOR YOU!". This was 9:15 pm local time.

Approximately 30-40 passengers were quite irate.

According to this keeper of the gate there were no available cusomter service representatives or managers, and there was nothing she could do beyond printing 10% discount coupons for area hotels. No apology, no empathy, not even any detectable sympathy. She didn't care a whit that we'd all been promised Detroit hotel vouchers by NWA in Lincoln, or even that we could all have stayed in free hotels in Lincoln if we'd so chosen.

The five most stubborn of us sat waiting by the gate until the next flight went out in hopes that something more could be done, and then we had the idea of calling the Lincoln airport. A fine gentleman named Jason answered at the NWA desk there, and he promised to get his manager to call the Detroit NWA folks right away to straighten things out. In the meantime, the gatekeeper put on her hat and coat, and without a word to the five of us sitting there in hopes of hotel vouchers, she took off down the concourse toward her own warm bed. The time was 11:45 pm.

We chased her down and told her about the expected phone call, and only then did she have the brain-wave to mention that we could go to the NWA ticketing counter, where the phone call would come in. We found the ticket counter closed, but the NWA luggage claim and customer service desk had a line with 40 people and at least five polite, apologetic, empathizing, sympathizing NWA customer service people. We got to the front of the line and explained that our plane was two hours late in arriving in Lincoln, and a very nice woman named Karen immediately printed hotel vouchers and meal vouchers and provided each of us with a small toiletries kit for the night.

I'm not sure whether to chalk the gate-keeper's behavior up to ignorance or malice...but surely anybody would think of the customer service desk before telling 40 people there were no customer service representatives available. That eliminates ignorance and leaves malice, which I hope this gate-keeper left behind in 2006.

I'm not addicted yet

2006-12-04T20:20:00.000-08:00

Two weeks ago, at 27.83 years of age, I became a coffee-drinker. I had tried coffee a few times in the past, including one notable time in HS when I put in so much cream and sugar that I felt sick. I've probably had fewer than five (OK, maybe ten) cold iced-coffee-chocolate concoctions in the years since then.

My wife and I were at Borders to relax and read, and I had a lot of pages in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason to get through. So I decided I would see how bad coffee could really be...you may not think it counts because I picked something that included chocolate and sugar and dairy, but from that beginning I've now drunk one latte and two normal cups of French Roast from the Tufts library in addition to several more drinks along the lines of Borders' "Peppermint Mocha Trio". The quality of my study time has improved, the burned feeling on the tip of my tongue is fading, the moon has been brighter, and my car's been getting better gas mileage. I have no intentions of going back.

On a totally unrelated note, yesterday was my one-year earring anniversary. Yay!

Clarifying Calvinistic Confusion

2006-11-27T21:52:00.000-08:00

In Sunday School this week we discussed one form of what is commonly called "hyper-Calvinism", and I noticed for the first time how poorly named it is. The phenomenon being described is a doctrinal confusion, so I suppose we shouldn't be surprised that the description is confused as well. A much better name would be "semi-Calvinism".

In any case, semi-Calvinism happens when Christians believe that because God is omniscient and sovereign over everything, they don't need to evangelize the lost. "Hyper" is an inappropriate prefix because it implies that the doctrine has been overly embraced; "semi" is an appropriate prefix because anybody who embraces semi-Calvinism only partially understands the doctrines of God's omniscience and sovereignty.

First we'll clear up the confusion, and then we'll explain where it comes from.

I've been saying for years that a coherent Calvinist lives just like the most heretical semi-Pelagian*. However, this sounds like a terrible clashing of theory and practice, so I was very pleased on Sunday to come up with the following two points as a better explanation:

The doctrines of God's omniscience and sovereignty**, rightly understood, tell you nothing about how to make any practical decision.

This leaves us begging for an answer to the practical question, however: if the doctrines of God's omniscience and sovereignty utterly fail to inform our life choices, what else could possibly tell us how to live?

The Bible is sufficient for faith and practice; all practical decisions should be made in light of its teachings.

Now you see the connection to my previous explanation -- even Pelagius thought that Christ was a great moral teacher, so if coherent Calvinists and all stripes of Arminians and semi-Pelagians strive to live by biblical teachings, then it is clear that a coherent Calvinist lives just like the most heretical semi-Pelagian, as odd as that may sound.

But how can the above conclusion be correct? "If God is absolutely omniscient and sovereign," the semi-Calvinist says, "then He's already predestined some people to Heaven and the rest to Hell, and nothing I can do will change that...so I needn't bother to evangelize the lost." While our confused Christian has rightly concluded that God's omniscience and sovereignty imply final predestination, she has failed to recognize the implications of God's omniscience and sovereignty throughout all time, including the entire duration of His creation. So of course the semi-Calvinists are predestined to disregard the Great Commission, just as they are predestined to be doctrinally confused.

God is sovereign, but He works his will through his creation, so also through his saints. He commanded us to "go into all the world and preach the Gospel", and fulfilling this mandate clearly works his will on Earth. "Ah-ha!", the semi-Pelagian might now say. "But failing to fulfill this mandate also works God's will, because if God is sovereign then everything that happens must be his will!"

This sounds quite convincing, but it rests squarely on an equivocation of the concept of "God's will". In just the same way, a semi-Pelagian may argue, 2 Peter 3:9 clearly states that "...the Lord is...not willing that any should perish." As Sproul explains in Chosen By God*** there are three different senses of God's will discussed in the Bible.

sovereign efficacious will

preceptive will (commandments, etc.)

reference to God's disposition, or what pleases Him

God's sovereign efficacious will is by definition inviolate, so 2 Peter 3:9 clearly cannot be referring to this sense of God's will; it is in this sense alone that a semi-Calvinist "fulfills God's will" by refusing to evangelize the lost.

God's preceptive will is clearly violated continually (just look around), but if this is the meaning of "God's will" as it is discussed in 2 Peter 3:9, this passage would then be commanding everyone not to perish. So those who violate this understanding of 2 Peter 3:9 and perish anyway would need to stand under God's judgment and be punished by...more perishing. This is clearly not what 2 Peter 3:9 could mean. A semi-Calvinist violates this sense of God's will when she refuses to evangelize the lost.

We know that God is not pleased when people perish (He is also not pleased when semi-Calvinists refuse to evangelize the lost). The third sense of "God's will" seems to be the appropriate sense in which to understand 2 Peter 3:9****, and we find that along the way to this discovery we've rooted out the semi-Calvinist's equivocation as well.

The semi-Calvinist also misunderstands the relationship between sovereignty and omniscience. The semi-Calvinist is not omniscient; she is inescapably part of creation, living within its time and standing under God's sovereignty. Knowing that the future is predestined cannot possibly impact her decision-making given that our semi-Calvinist doesn't know how the future is predestined to be. Because we are ignorant of the future and part of the system of God's sovereignty, we can do nothing other than make the best decisions we can based on what we know of the past and present and in the light of scripture. Only a confused understanding of God's omniscience and sovereignty could lead us to believe otherwise.

* Protestants who aren't Calvinists frequently identify themselves as "Arminians", but given the way they talk about prayer and free will they are much more in line with the fifth-century heretic Pelagius (see also). Taking my cue from R.C. Sproul's Chosen By God, I will refer to non-Calvinists as "semi-Pelagians".
** The way I understand God's sovereignty is called "theistic determinism". This entire discussion actually holds for all forms of determinism, theistic, agnostic, and atheistic.
*** Chosen By God. R.C. Sproul, 1986. Thomas Nelson, Inc. p 195-197.
**** Sproul goes on to mention that the antecedent of "any" in 2 Peter 3:9 is likely the Lord's Elect, in which case (by definition) none of them will perish, "God's will" in the passage refers to His sovereign efficacious will, and the verse is a strong affirmation of Calvinism.

TSA: Totally Secure Air-travel

2006-08-11T11:35:00.000-07:00

Due to the recent discovery of efforts by terrorists to enmesh undetectable nuclear weapons in completely normal fabrics, the Transportation Security Administration, in cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security, has issued an order that from this point forward all clothing must be shed and left at airport security checkpoints. Persons caught with clothing inside secured areas will be arrested and incarcerated indefinitely at undisclosed locations where they will be charged with violation of secret laws and tried by secret tribunals (and anyone who mentions these secrets again will be similarly treated; we shall speak of them no more).

All carry-on luggage must henceforth be shipped separately. Most cities with airports already have shipping companies such as UPS and FedEx available, and USPS has agreed to offer a discount rate for those shipping standard-size carry-on bags.

Checked luggage must be properly labeled and left at home, and must not be transported by any means. Those caught transporting checked luggage for themselves or others should see the above discussion of unmentionable topics.

In an unexpected move intended to please privacy advocates, the TSA has agreed to supply taxpayer-funded, secure (bomb-free) blinders at security checkpoints. These blinders will prevent passengers from being able to see other's privates. In order to guarantee this right to privacy, the TSA mandates that all passengers must wear the blinders until they exit the secured areas of their destination airports, at which point they may don the clothing they shipped in their carry-on luggage, providing that the luggage has passed screening.

Heinlein Quotes

2006-07-28T15:44:00.000-07:00

"Hi there! I was just waiting for you and thought I would pass the time by trying on your pants."
-- Robert A. Heinlein, "Job: A Comedy of Justice", p. 19

"He has muscles where other men don't even have places."
-- Robert A. Heinlein, "Job: A Comedy of Justice", p. 25

Google 1, AP & Yahoo 0

2006-07-27T21:08:00.000-07:00

My local newspaper, the Nashua Telegraph, recently had an "AP Video" item on the front page of their website. To the credit of the newspaper, there was a very obvious note right there explaining that this wouldn't work without the proper version of Internet Explorer, which (as I write this) is still unavailable for Ubuntu, which is my operating system of choice. To the paper's greater credit, when I emailed to complain about this shortsightedness in the requirements, I received a prompt reply stating that the Telegraph is also very concerned about this limitation, and has gone a few rounds with the AP over the issue. The Telegraph is refusing to do more with "AP Video" than display it on the front page with a warning until "AP Video" supports other browsers (and presumeably other operating systems). +1 for the paper, -1 for the AP.

Just now, I happened to browse my way to yahoo.com (which I don't do very often) and there was a video advertised on their front page that caught my eye. I clicked on it to watch it and it started to play but OOPS! "Flash 8 is requird to view this video." Well, that's too bad, because I just checked and Flash 8 isn't available for Linux at all, let alone Ubuntu.

The beautiful thing about each of these pathetic failures is that I can rub Google right in their faces, instead of resorting to the tired old "but you should support Linux because...I want you to" sort of argument. Instead: "You see, I'm running a GNU/Linux operating system, so I don't have Internet Explorer at all, and I don't have Flash 8. But look! video.google.com works just fine for me; in fact, I've never had a problem with Google's site at all. Well, I guess you'll just have to let me know when you catch up to Google."

And they have no excuse for the poor set of assumptions they're making about operating systems, because Google has set the standard and the "AP Video" and video.yahoo.com are failing to reach that standard.

Depressing Cheerfulness

2006-06-10T18:24:00.000-07:00

I generally like Tim Burton's work just fine; even when it's not great it's still interesting. Even so, I haven't seen Corpse Bride yet. But since I also very much like Danny Elfman, I find myself listening to the soundtrack. Highly reminiscent of that other stop-motion animated film, the music is funky and enjoyable. I remember James Berardinelli criticizing the music of Nightmare for failing to have you humming as you left the theater, and this music has that same character, whether or not you think that's a fault. (I think not.) But the lyrics are full of interesting (IMO) ideas about what it might be like to be a dead person competing with a living person for another's affections, if such a situation were possible. There's even a fun Peter Lorre imitation, completely obvious from the moment his voice enters the track "Tears to Shed".

"Remains of the Day" is perhaps analogous (in lounge-style and light-hearted grotesquerie) to Nightmare's "Oogie Boogie's Song". The oft-repeated mantra in "Remains" is the following thought:

Die! Die! We all pass away,
but don't wear a frown
'cuz it's really OK.

You might try to hide,
and you might try to pray,
but we all end up
the remains of the day.

I think Burton's creative and I appreciate his genius, and even his fascination with darkness and twistedness; he's rather like a mildly pessimistic Dr. Seuss. But the main idea of the chorus of "Remains of the Day" is surprisingly heavy, and disturbingly nihilistic. I'm not convinced (or claiming) that Burton intends the words to be taken as discounting religious belief, though they do certainly imply that prayer is ineffective as a means of avoiding death -- that assertion can be taken a number of ways.

One way to take it is to realize that people who recognize impending death often pray in desperation (around the same time they might be hiding the truth from themselves), and that sort of thing certainly is ineffective. That's a fair interpretation, and probably (I suspect) the primarily intended one.

Aliens v. Predator

2006-06-07T17:43:00.000-07:00

BEWARE: SPOILERS (for Alien, Aliens, Predator, The Exorcist, and The Sound of Music)

The marines in the jungle are just starting to get the sense that something about their mission doesn't add up, and that, in fact, there appears to be something out there that will get them, probably sooner than they'd like. And lo, it turns out that there is a Special Effect running around in the jungle. It is inexplicably mobile and dextrous, and able to move without a sound except when it lets its guard down and stomps its Foley Boots from here to there. (And except for the tick-clicking Predator sound, which works well, IMO.)

I'm glad I've seen Predator, but Aliens is the better film, hands-down. I compare the two since they came out in 1986 (Aliens) and 1987 (Predator), and since they both feature aliens pitted against marines (calling for suitably militant scores) in unfamiliar territory who are killed, mostly one at a time, until only the protagonist whose name gets top billing is left to fight.

It is also the only film I've seen in which I know two future governors act (Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura).

I was compelled to note that near the 28-minute mark of Predator, vastly more story has been told (or vastly more plot exhausted, one could say) than The Exorcist manages to tell within the first 30 minutes. (The Exorcist spends this entire time in Iraq, with a story that I still cannot clearly connect with the rest of the film.) This is the case despite the fact that both are well-done Horror films (The Exorcist falls much more exclusively into this genre), and as my friend pointed out, Predator does manage, to its credit, to let 40 mintes elapse before we see the predator for the first time. That's well-done, since what you can't see at all is almost always scarier than what you can see. Unlike in Alien, we do get a very, very good look at the Predator before the end of the film; it's actually quite similar to Aliens, since the mode of battle at that point is mano y mano. But I'd rather watch Aliens again, I'm pretty sure.

Lately I've been reading Alvin Plantinga's Warranted Christian Belief, and I think he's made me inclined to take the Kant course being offered next fall at Tufts (where I am a student). Thus Kant is coming in slightly ahead (at this point) of a Natural Kinds seminar or Philosophy of Biology, which I still think could be very interesting.

I'm also reading Dumas' The Three Musketeers for the first time. A friend has compared it to 19th century Tom Clancy, and while I've never read a Tom Clancy book I expect my friend is right. I haven't decided yet whether I like The Three Musketeers better than The Count of Monte Cristo or not.

Speaking of the Count, V for Vendetta is finally being released on DVD on August first, and I'll be watching it again soon after. I realize it's not a great movie, and yet I'm curiously compelled by it and am looking forward to seeing it again.

Lastly, I'm also reading "The Truth in Relativism" by Bernard Williams, published in his Moral Luck. (I need to turn this effort into a paper in the near future, but I'm still working on understanding what Williams is saying.)

Note: In The Sound of Music, they get away at the end.

The Turing Cat Who Walks Through The Stand

2006-05-11T16:02:00.000-07:00

I just finished Stephen King's The Stand last week, and while I was engrossed along the way, I was disappointed by the end. I'll explain more, but first I must highlight the several explicit references to Polk County, Nebraska, where I was born and lived the first 18 years of my life. Indeed, one of the main characters has lived her whole life there, and almost everybody else spends the second third of the book traveling from wherever they are in the U.S. to Polk County. King even explicitly mentions "the banks of the Platte, 12 miles north of Osceola" (quoted from memory...), and unless I'm mistaken, Swede Home. That's amazing, because Swede Home is a "town" with...maybe two or three houses and a church. (It's conspicuously absent from the exact center of the Google map I linked above.) I lived in a house 1/2 mile away from Swede Home until I was 12, and then moved to another house ~3 miles away from Swede Home. Who'd a-thunk that location would ever be mentioned in a well-known work of fiction? Not me.

But then the end of the book comes along, and ruins it all. You'd think the book would have some respect for the sacrifices of its heroes, but no. The end is not entirely unreasonable, but I can't help but feel like it's arbitrary. It doesn't follow necessarily from who the characters are and what they do. It feels almost like King noticed the book was getting long, and he was bored, so he just ended it. Of course that didn't happen, but that doesn't change my feelings.

So I've just started Harry Harrison's and Marvin Minsky's The Turing Option, and here's what I said in IRC to the guy who loaned it to me:
----------------------------------
02:21 [moquist] It's an entertaining read (1/3 done now?), but I gotta say that it's tremendously heavy-handed and expository.
02:22 [moquist] [long paragraph about AI and brains and minds]
02:22 [moquist] Interlocutor: I've been the CEO of this company for 20 years, and I don't know a darn thing! Can you please tell me more about this "AI" stuff?
02:22 [moquist] [long paragraph about AI and brains and minds]
02:23 [moquist] [concise assertion of philosophical point about society, morality, or religion]
02:23 [moquist] [long paragraph about AI and brains and minds]
02:23 [moquist] Back to the interlocutor...and so on.
02:23 [moquist] It reminds me of the later Plato, really. Same dialogue formula.
02:23 [moquist] [long bit of philosophy]
02:23 [moquist] Interlocutor: You are so wise, Socrates!
02:24 [moquist] [long bit of philosophy]
02:24 [moquist] etc.
----------------------------------

I've been putting off Cornelia Funke's Inkspell, because I've enjoyed her other books so thoroughly and it's so fun to know this one is waiting for me.

Ah - almost forgot. I finished Robert Heinlein's The Cat Who Walks Through Walls the other day, and I later found most of my own observations already nicely articulated in Heinlein's Wikipedia page, in the paragraph beginning "The tendency toward authorial self-referentialism..." under "Later work, 1980-1987".

But I should be working now (on this), so I'll stop blathering.

iDismantle

2006-04-26T22:02:00.000-07:00

On Monday, my wife's iBook abruptly died. One second she was browsing with Firefox, the next she was watching inexplicable patterns morphing on her LCD. We took it to the Mac store and they diagnosed it: "99% sure it's the logic board". (I think that when Mac people say "logic board", they're trying to say "motherboard" but it comes out wrong, every time.) $400 for another new logic board - it was just replaced two years
ago. This is a G3 800, and not worth $400 more, we decided.

So we just picked up another G3 800 for $300 today, in better shape, from a friend. But since we needed the old data, I set about removing the hard drive from the old iBook so I could use my handy-dandy 2.5-3.5 IDE converter to read the data. Thankfully, I found a very precise and helpful guide (PDF) before I set about dismantling the old iBook. So, after removing the keyboard, the airport card, 32 screws of various sizes and types, the bottom of the case, some shielding, some tape, and some little greasy springs that help out the battery contacts, I managed to remove the hard drive. Now, the iBook looks like this.

I plugged in the adapter, set the drive gently in a test box on my network, ran 'mount -t hfsplus', and rsynced everything very nicely to my fileserver.

Then, I realized I could replace the 12GB drive in my own laptop - a PIII Compaq M300 running Ubuntu - with this neat-o 30GB drive from the iBook. Unable to find good instructions on taking the M300 apart, I dreaded the perils...but I took out three screws, popped off a small side panel, and extracted the hard drive. Now why couldn't the iBook have been that easy? Granted, it's awfully slick how the iBook has so few visible screws -- are there any at all? But seriously, folks, we sent it in last time and it came back with little gouges around the edge where they pried the case apart. It seems like they could save themselves some time and preserve the aesthetic beyond the first repair by designing in some well-placed screws.

My operating system has just finished rsyncing to my new 30GB drive, so I'd best go try the laptop out.

Pullman: Better than I thought?

2006-04-09T21:03:00.000-07:00

I just finished The Amber Spyglass and I have more good things to say about Pullman than I did last time. Coincidentally, I've also started reading The Broken Bridge, which I like just fine so far and may have more to say about later since the main character is named Ginny, just like a very respectable Rowling character we all know. Is my Rowling-Pullman character-naming theory shot through with this new revelation?!? I'm inclined to guess not, but I need to finish The Broken Bridge before I comment further.

Unfortunately for this post and for my progress in reading delightful fiction, I also have a paper due Tuesday and so must spend my time expositing about what Pierre Duhem might say about the type of theory that a "softer science" than physics, namely psysiology, ought to pursue. If you think that sounds interesting, that's because it is interesting. If you don't, then be glad I'm done writing here for now.

Open Letter about Open Source

2006-03-28T20:56:00.000-08:00

One of my greatest passions in life is Free Software. I like it a lot, and I don't think it makes any sense for educational institutions not to be using it. So I wrote up this Open Letter to Educational Institutions over on the Software Freedom Day wiki. Feel free to customize it and send it to your school.

Subtle Obviousness in Harry Potter

2006-03-28T12:07:00.000-08:00

Once every three or four months I think of something that might be worth blogging about, but I generally don't like editing text without using Vim and I didn't even want to think about different blogging toolsets and markup and so on and so forth. But now I've given in and here we go.

So lately I've been reading Phillip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy for the second time since 2002, and some points that John Granger made in The Hidden Key To Harry Potter are presenting themselves more forcefully. Pullman has a whole series about Sally Lockhart. He's got a character in The Golden Compass named somebody-or-other Trelawney, and one of the witch queens in The Subtle Knife is named, of all things, Ruta Skadi. My wife is skeptical, but I'm totally convinced that Granger was right, and Rowling is expressing an opinion of Pullman and/or his work by her characters Gilderoy Lockhart, Sybill Trelawney, and Rita Skeeter.

Just think about what those characters have in common.

Even better, let's think about Pullman's work, and we'll even limit ourselves to His Dark Materials. Pullman's a very vocal atheist, and he quotes Paradise Lost in the front of The Golden Compass just to get us into the right frame of mind. Pullman aims to correct Milton's mistake: paradise wasn't there to be lost, and if we stop looking for the mythical and instead glory in the dust that we are and shall be, then we can get over our preoccupation with sin and our slavery to the church and get on with the important things in life, like having sex to achieve our own paradise in the end. Or something like that; it's been a while since I finished The Amber Spyglass the first time. And along the way the horrors perpetrated by the church and its agents are fought at every point, we learn how materialism is a blessed succor to minds weary of the deceit of spirtualism, and God himself, the Authority, the false "Creator", is fortunate enough to be relieved of the burden of his sad, tired, and worthless existence.

The second title in His Dark Materials ("HDM") carries tremendous irony. If we're willing to grant that Pullman started with a "subtle knife" in book one, by book two he's brandishing a broadsword requiring both hands, and by book three he's wildly swinging a club and pausing every now and then to pound his chest with his fists. He's not subtle to start with, and it just gets worse.

I was talking with a fantasy-loving frind of mine the other day, and I said that I think HDM starts out very imaginatively and well-written, but that it degenerates to the point that his characters are thinly-veiled (thin-lipped?) mouthpieces for the author. My friend disagreed and said he thought HDM was an enjoyable read but neither imaginative or well-written -- even to start with. I disagree, but like I said, my friend reads a lot more fantasy than I do, so he may know better. (We're both at a loss as to the number of awards Pullman's won for HDM. Who can explain these things?)

In any case, Pullman's work is anything but subtle. And yet we have a contemporary of his, the much-celebrated J.K. Rowling, writing a fantasy series of her own and enjoying what everyone must admit is runaway success. How does her subtlety compare to Pullman's? The Googlefight has Pullman ahead 522k to 334k, but maybe by winning this one Pullman loses. "C'est moi! C'est moi!" Pullman's forced to admit, thus book two is "The Subtle Knife". If you're vying for "Most Subtle", you probably don't want to put "subtle" in the name of your book... If you agree with me about the significance of the character name pairs I mentioned above, you can see how thoroughly Rowling mocks Pullman without resorting to an ex-nun in her books saying right out loud that "Pullman's self-important and professionally incompetent."

And just tonight, about three hours ago, I finished watching The Goblet of Fire with that same friend. Since he hasn't read the books I was filling in some details about house elves and their much greater role in the book, and it hit me right over the head: house elves are like housewives. Let's see what Rowling's done here:
1. House elves perform household duties.
2. House elves must obey their masters.
3. House elves are not paid for their work.
4. Hermione is a very intelligent, independently-minded young woman.
5. Hermione knows what's best for house elves -- for them to be released from their slavery.
6. With the exception of Dobby, house elves don't want to be "freed".

Surely this is some sort of commentary on the social liberation of women. Hermione is painted as affectionately pathetic in her misunderstanding sympathy for house elves. Dobby is clearly a hero, doing what he knows is ultimately right even when it requires him to punish himself for lesser wrongs. And yet every other house elf we've met is by nature, we are told, impelled to serve and content, even thrilled, to do so. Based only on books 1-6, it appears to me that Rowling (a very intelligent and successful woman herself) is sympathetic to women who want to liberate other women and perfectly accepting of women who seek success outside the home. But -- and this is the controversial part -- she also seems to recognize that lots and lots of women might just be very happy staying at home. It does feel rather weird when the other elves are so ashamed of Dobby's freedom, but it feels equally and oppositely weird when Hermione is unable to accept the joy that elves find in service.

I've been wondering for a while if HP7 will end with the destruction of the magical world and the end of magic*, though I'm not sure what that would mean for all the magical creatures. In such a situation, it seems possible that a liberation of sorts may be coming in which the nature of house elves will change and a more direct opinion on the social status of women may emerge. But I doubt it, and I hope not. The marvelous complexity and, yes, subtlety of the house elves' situation is superior to anything that could be wrapped up as a pro- or anti- statement.

Maybe you don't think Rowing is subtle, and you think I've just said the obvious out loud. Maybe everybody has been reading "house elf" as "housewife" all along, and S.P.E.W. as "Society for the Protection of English Women". Maybe I just caught up with the rest of you. Well, if so, then I apologize for failing to Google very well, because I wasn't able to easily find anybody writing about this issue in Harry Potter, and yet now that it's occurred to me it seems blindingly obvious.

Maybe sometimes it's best to make your point directly and clearly, yet surely a master artist can do better by making a point profound through subtle artistry. If Pullman's wrong and God exists, and if God is the master artist, then it's obvious that we, his characters, nun and ex-nun alike, serve our creator as something more profound than thinly-veiled mouthpieces.

I doubt that if Lancelot had been made the partner of Eve we'd be in Eden still, just as I doubt that cheering on Sir Lancelot, as Pullman seems to want to do, is the right response to our banishment.

* I still wonder, but I rather doubt that we're headed in that direction.