Master of the Matrix

Geek Star Child

Thu, 11 May 2006 17:56:10 GMT

A few days ago, I finished the semester at York. I was also accepted as a full-time student, which I have not been since I left Texas and dropped the Computer Science Engineering major. Tuesday night, I drove four hours and arrived in Johnstown, where I am taking a vacation and unwinding.

The first thing my friend did was take me to the local comic store. Great selection, jack-ass owners. Still, I blew fourty-five dollars on the 2nd Ed. ADnD Player's Handbook (I had only the first edition ADnD) and the ADnD Greyhawk Adventures book.

It's strange, though. I've been reading through Greyhawk and familiarizing myself with the setting again, and finishing up The Gods Themselves by Asimov. I've begun to wear my robe again, and shun sunlight.

I feel like I am reverting to a proto-geek state, so that I might re-evolve into something better.

I got bored and went to Gamestop, got a used copy of X-Wing v. TIE Fighter...and my God, it's full of stars...

War on Windows

Mon, 01 May 2006 20:27:56 GMT

I am fed up with it. Again. Windows.

The wizards, the pop-up boxes, the lack of logs, the impotent add-on command line prompt formerly known as MS_DOS. The lack of logs, the incomplete and incoherent error messages that make trouble shooting impossible. The incompatibility with it's own hard-ware and soft-ware, the lack of control...

Windows dies today. Three distributions of Linux are being downloaded as we speak, and I will install them until I find the right one. Knoppix will help me get through the hard time, and I will search until I find the best one. In a misguided attempt to save itself, Windows has tried to stop me from backing up my data. It will lose the war. It will die. But this will only be the beginning.

I have a Master Plan.

If I need to, I'll join the Army or the Marines. They give you a signing bonus, you know. I'll use that bonus, I'll go and buy a top of the line Mac. Mac's have compatibility, they're friendly. And they're UNIX based. Command line prompts, control, error and server logs, it's all beautiful. I'll go out, and I'll buy a Mac with the signing bonus, and I'll join the armed forces.

I might die, certainly. Other there in the desert I might get shot. I might go AWOL and get killed for that, too. But either way, I won't have to use Windows ever again. I'll be a hero, a martyr against Windows. The first victim will have emerged against them and their evil giant. War will be declared. And it'll all have started with me.

May-be I'd go AWOL and flee to Sweden, where I have citizenship. I don't speak Swedish, and most of them don't speak English very well. They'd try and chat me up, being the friendly little people that they are, and I'd happily respond, "I don't speak French." And they would walk away, confused and vaguely offended.

I'd become an Windows Exorcist in Sweden. I'd install Linux on their computers when they weren't looking, and set the language packages to Swedish. They'd try to thank me, but I wouldn't understand them. But I'd still see it in their eyes.

I'd become the leader of the Jihad against Microsoft Windows, and my martyrdom or my leading the way would guarantee me a seat in Heaven at the right hand of Tux.

Heaven's beautiful, you know. Clean command-prompt, with forty-two comprehensive userdocs waiting there for me. Streams made of pure code would roll down the streams, and I could tinker with the Kernel that ran Heaven anytime I wanted to.

My followers back on Earth would finally win the Jihad against Microsoft, having named themselves the Avengers of Tux. They would celebrate in a worldwide open-source orgy, source code being freely exchanged without the need for prophylactic firewalls or EULAs beyond GNU.

The prophecy has been delivered. The Jihad starts tonight.

Google Hacker

Mon, 01 May 2006 18:14:29 GMT

You have to love it when Google burns someone.

H@x0R G00g13.

Tue, 04 Apr 2006 16:30:01 GMT

Before I sit down to write something, when it first comes to me, the words and the idea consume me. I become obsessed with them. They grow and fill my mind until I can think of nothing else, each word becoming so large that I can barely contain it or comprehend it until the pen touches the paper. Then there is a false calm and stillness, the pressure seems to leave as the words leave me and enter the world.

My pen leaves the paper, and that sense of calm is shattered. I look over the words, I re-read them and I hate them. My hatred spreads until I am consumed by it, and all I want to do is destroy the words, and any sign to the world that they ever existed.

And sometimes I do. At times, I love the words and cannot bring myself to destroy them, yet hate them I cannot stand to look at them. At these times, I secret them away, and they disappear.

On my good days, however, after destroying them, I breath life into them again. The pressure to destroy and create satisfied, I am able to give being to the words again, and they flow steadily and form beautifully. On my good days.

Causes of Violence

Tue, 21 Mar 2006 17:03:22 GMT

I promised a copy of the essay for Peace and Conflict on the Causes of Violence and the solutions to it. Cut for length, here it is. Enjoy, and feel free to leave comments.

    Violence and warfare are not only avoidable, they are unnatural. In human society they have developed over the last ten thousand years in response to cultural changes, developing slowly because of ideological changes in human society and structure, and biochemical changes that arose from these changes in human activity. The very unnatural aspects of warfare shows that it is not inevitable from a stand point of humanity and the world, but only inevitable from the standpoint of humanity as it exists now. Peace can be achieved through a re-thinking of human structure and society, through a re-building of the inclinations of humanity.

Causes of Violence and Warfare

    Violence is not a natural part of the world. In nature, violence only exists when a direct conflict arises, and then only for a brief and specific time period: when hunter stalks prey or is defending that prey against scavengers, when two members of a herd are competing for dominance. It seems that only in the cases of hunter stalking prey does the violence regularly and purposefully end in the death of one party.
    Thomas Aquinas’ hierarchy on natural inclinations, on which much of natural law theory is based, shows us that procreation and nurture is an extension of the basic survival instinct, via the survival of the species, and that beyond this the only thing that humans have, the only thing that separates humanity from the animal kingdom is it’s reason. This begs the question: How does reason lead humanity to violence and warfare? Can this result be an extension of the survival and nurture instincts?
    The answer is no, it is not. When arriving at this conclusion, it is important to remember the things that separate human violence and warfare from that found in the animal kingdom. Animals will hunt and kill only so far as their needs exist for that day: a tiger will kill a gazelle to feed itself and its young, but it will not go out and deny other gazelle’s to other tigers so that it might be able to hunt them the next day. In warfare, humans will go out of their way to deny supplies to their enemies, whether by cutting of supply trains or denying them grounds for hunting or agriculture so that they can use them at a later date. While animals have hunting grounds that stretch a certain distance, they are loosely enforced, if at all. In human society, a violation of a border is a crime and will usually be responded with violence, no matter the cause or intention of the violation.
    Humanity has often taken this step of denying their enemies further. Humans have not only denied resources to their enemies by refusing them use of land and enforcing strict borders on both nature and other humans, they have often sought out those who are not enemies but may one day become a competitor. Though it is now far less common, history is littered with examples of soldiers killing young children and babies, or taking them for re-education, to deny their enemy a future strength which one day stand up to their own.
    This method of warfare is very logical, and was developed using a type of logic that is completely unavailable to the animal kingdom in that it depends on a concept unique to human beings: the concept of the future. Sharks are either hungry or they are not. They are either hunting or they are not. They will give no thought to the future or if they will be hungry later on and need food then. The human brain, however, will realize that it is full now but will be hungry again later. Its competitors have been scared off or outrun for today, but they will return tomorrow. It is this concept of the future that led directly to the agricultural revolution approximately ten thousand years ago, when distinct borders where first beginning to make their appearance in human society.
    These tactics of human warfare and violence where all developed using reason and logic: If an enemy has no food, they will starve and die. If they have no young, their future generations will not exist. These are attempts, using cognitive faculties limited only to humans, to control the future of potential enemies, and not only the present circumstances that they are found in. At this point, we must make an essential distinction: The methods employed are extensions of reason and logic, aimed at the goal of better fighting, controlling and subduing the enemy, however the cause is not.
    Human violence escalated to these levels over the years and for many reasons, however one thing allowed this to happen, and opened the gate to human warfare as it is known today: the sense of self.
    Humanity, through its use of reason and logic, has deduced one thing over the years: I Am. This fundamental theorem of humanity is almost always expressed in this way, from Descartes “I think, therefore I Am,” to the more fundamental Judeo-Christian “I am He that is I Am.” Animals fully lack this capability of distinctly distinguishing the self from the other: they will become fascinated with images of themselves, and ignore creatures they might otherwise fight with if they pose no threat, are not hunting, and no conflict relating to mating has arisen.
    In human society, the phrase is always “I Am,” and almost never “We Are.” When the phrase “We Are” is used, it is usually followed up by “They Are Not,” keeping a strong and distinct separation between “us” and “them.” The human logic is expressed in terms of one group as opposed to another or a group or individual, and rarely in terms of a collective. The animal societies will either operate as a collective or refuse to make a distinction.
    It is interesting to note that animals, when placed in extremely confined or isolated environments are far more likely to turn violent that if they are given a free range. By hindsight this is obvious, but it gives us several insights into the causes of violence, and confirms that closed in areas with clearly defined borders, be it a cage or a small range for animals to move about in will cause violence, as will a long separation from its natural environment or other animals of its kind. Similarly, a room painted with dark colors, making it evident to see the walls, exactly where they lie and how solid and limiting they are, is much more likely to cause claustrophobia in an individual than a room painted with lighter, more soothing colors such as white or a very pale blue which can give the illusion of free and open space.
    It is also necessary to point out that many human societies which have advocated pacifism have also made a distinction that is otherwise absent in human culture - “We All Are.” This is demonstrated in given in Christian communities which advocate brotherhood and unity, as well as more existential belief structures, such as Hinduism. While both have at times been violent, their belief structures are more pacifistic than others and advocate pacifism far more clearly than Nazi Germany, which had overwhelming overtones of supremacy and separationist attitudes, and was one of the most violent cultures and governments in living memory.
    More examples of violence arising from the “Them vs. Us” attitude include the Sunnis and Shiites, the Tutsi and Hutus, and Bosnians and Serbs. Each of these examples included a very strong presence of separation, of one group being fundamentally different from the other.
    The separation complex that human culture seems to suffer from causes violence not only because of its advocacy of separation, one group being more important or right than the other, but also because the separation serves to dehumanize the other group. Humans being more important than animals, it is somewhat logical that humanity can slaughter animals to feed itself or clear out land for development. Dehumanizing another group, moving them into the category of animals rather than humans, widens the gap and builds on the separation of groups - the enemy is now barely human.
All of this evidence serves to lead us to the conclusion: violence is not biological, but merely psychological and sociological. This means that peace is possible and that it can be achieved, though it will require a rebuilding of the way humanity thinks of itself as individuals and groups.

Achieving Peace

    Peace can ultimately be achieved through many different means. The most basic and fundamental of which is the loss of thinking habits that lead to violence, especially those listed above. The abolition of borders and eventual deconstruction of a separationist model of thinking, the lack of the ‘I’ as opposed to the ‘You’, would do much to bring us in the direction of peace, and certainly bring Francois Fenelon’s statement that “All wars are civil wars, because all men are brothers” closer to being a recognized reality.
    We will assume that a structure of peace is going to involve a form of leadership, as even anarchy eventually develops people who have distinguished themselves as leaders through their merits and actions, whether they are leaders in the form of demagogues and preachers or an established and elected official. In the case of a people without any form of leadership, we shall simply assume that tenets which apply to the leader must also apply to the people at large, who have assumed a type of self-leadership and self-government.
    A leader or people that will create an environment of lasting peace must recognize several things, the first being a moral stance that violence in any form is simply wrong, and that the only acceptable forms of killing are those found in nature - such as killing an animal for an immediate food source, and using every bit of it that it can so that waste is reduced as much as possible. This will stop people from depleting the environment and resources, causing themselves and others to suffer and create a kind of strain which could result in violence.
    The second tenet is an unyielding compassion for other people, other animals, and the environment. This ultimately serves to create an environment in which people are not only looking out for their own interests, but the interests of others, creating an environment of cooperation instead of competition, removing one of the primary direct causes of violence.
    The third idea is one of a broader attention to time. A threat that exists today may not exist tomorrow or ten years from now, and if humanity and the world can continue to exist with that threat until it passes, than there is no need for violent or extreme measures to be taken against it. Threats come and go, natural destruction happens, and the world recovers. It is this way with nature, and a balance is ultimately achieved, despite ever changing variables in human society and the world.
    A broader sense of time will allow humanity to continue to predict the future, and use reason to adapt itself and the rest of the world to it. It will also allow humanity to allow for natural changes in itself and the world, and for natural recovery. Doing this causes humanity to use its reason in conjunction with natural inclinations and the natural world, instead of simply over-riding and replacing them.
Humanity must begin to take steps to adapt itself to the rest of the world, instead of attempting to make the world adapt to humanity. This allows natural tendencies to take their course, and makes humanity take use of every resource at his disposal before creating new ones which are more likely to create a kind of lasting harm.
    When Christ said to be “in the world but not of the world,” He meant that humanity should be above the small struggles of the world, and that Christians had a higher calling that they should pay attention to, using that calling to stop them from being pulled into a state of sin. He most likely did not mean that we were not a part of the world, and were above the natural laws of it, or that its concerns were not our own. Thomas Aquinas would most likely agree with this, saying that rationality is to be used in response to the natural order of the world, and not to replace it.
    Peace, through means of adapting humanity to its own natural inclinations and the inclinations of the world, is quite achievable. What prevents us from doing so is the idea structure we have built around ourselves, about our role in the world. In order to achieve peace we must remove these ideas from our society and replace them with ones that are more in sync with our own nature and the nature of the rest of the world.

Mon, 20 Mar 2006 14:32:49 GMT

This past week has been one of the stranger ones. Wednesday night/Thursday morning I drove my parents to the airport for their trip to Panama. I got back home, walked the dogs, and sat down to rest for a few minutes before doing some banking and going to class. Five hours later, I wake up to about five worried voice mails and e-mails, having completely missed my class and barely making it to the post office in time.

I spent the next bit of time typing up my essay on Just War theory and the Causes of Violence/Creation of Peace. I think it turned out wonderfully by the way, and might post it here later in case anyone wants to read it.

Friday I had almost no muscle control from the moment I woke up. Walking anywhere I had to have my hand on a railing or against the wall, else I would stumble and collapse on the ground. No idea why as of yet, though I recovered later that night.

Saturday, in addition to Alan, my old room-mate coming down to visit, I saw V for Vendetta for the second time. Later that night I got violently sick and was throwing up everywhere. The medicine I took knocked me out until about 4:30 the next morning. Waking up, I was convinced it was four in the afternoon and I still had time to pick up John and hang out with my friends. Apparently I vomitted so violently I travelled back in time.

It was also a very productive week. I've been doing a good bit of writing, although very little on the subjects that I want to write about. The new RPG system still isn't ready, for various reasons. In addition to this, Everquest has double experience this weekend, giving me and my friends more excuse to be unproductive.

A few minutes left before class starts, suppose I'll use it have a chat with my Uncle Johnny.

Also, welcome new reader practicallyfame! Glad to have you aboard.

Angry Young Man

Mon, 13 Mar 2006 20:22:23 GMT

My father asked me why I'm always so angry, why I generally hate people that I know and meet, and why I have condemned the majority of the world without meeting them. Here is a basic transcript of the discussion, supplemented by citations and with dates added.

"I hate most people because they are liars and hypocrites who are in denial about themselves and the world. I hate them because they live in a highly selective reality, one which they refuse to acknowledge even exists. There is nothing wrong with a selective reality, in day to day life I live in one myself - without it the world becomes too much to bear while doing the laundry or eating dinner or talking to your friends. The flaw, the terrible mistake, is in refusing to acknowledge that this false reality exists, in refusing to even step out of it for a moment.

"The people of the United States in particular, since they are who I largely deal with, are guilty of these things. We talk about the crimes of other countries like they only happen there. We went to war because we believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, because on several occasions Iraq had refused to allow UN inspectors access to certain buildings. The United States, in the years of build-up to the war with Iraq, has done the same thing. It has denied UN inspectors, on at least two separate occasions, access to areas inside the United States because they were 'national security centers.' Since then, in more recent memory, we have denied UN Inspectors access to Guantanamo Bay.

"The cry goes out 'But they ignored other UN declarations!' The UN has voted to End the US Embargo on Cuba by a wide majority. They have done this five times, and five times we have not listened.

"We complain because the Iraq government had enough weapons of mass destruction to destroy the world several times over. The United States has enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world several hundreds of times over, and most likely leave it unlivable for complex organisms for a thousand years, not because of radiation, but because the destruction will be so complete.

"People ignore this fact, all of these facts, and remain blissfully behind a veil of 'Invincible Ignorance'.

"Ask people who the last US Citizen to win the Nobel Peace prize was, and get a befuddled response. The answer is Jody Williams for her campaign against the use of land mines. Ask them, however, who the won the 2004 edition of American Idol, you will universally be told that it was Fantasia Barrino.

"You must see these things, look at them, acknowledge them! Make them a part of your life, even if you push them aside at times so you can function. But how can you not go home at night, and wail and grind and gnash your teeth in anger and frustration? Denial and ignorance makes you complicit, you are not innocent. There are no innocents. Not any more. We are all involved, each of us. We are all liable.

"I am told that we live in a time of unprecedented peace and that war is on the decline. We are, however, in an extremely violent age. The United States is in a war, and discussing another. We are occupying two countries. In the Congo, a thousand people die daily. Peace? Stability? Show me.

"We want to spread freedom. That is why we are in Iraq, right now, isn't it? That is why we have given them a brand new government, with free elections and all the glorious aspects of a democracy. (We, by the way, live in a Republic, though you will rarely hear this acknowledged.) However, as President Bush said, free elections cannot be held under foreign military occupation.

"Our enemies in the Middle East often surround themselves with civilians, hoping that we will not attack them and kill innocents. We often do anyway. How can we claim to be noble, to be fighting the good fight, when we do not even hold ourselves up to the standards that our reviled enemies hold us to? 'But they attack innocents!' as the generals say. That is true. The bad guys attack the innocents."

"Alright, but assuming all of that is true-"

"It is."

"Allowing that all of that is true, there are still governments and countries out there that are far worse than the United States."

"I hear that a lot. All the time, in fact. It may well be the most common response to criticism against the United States government. Compare us to the worst, and we are among the greatest. Let's do the opposite. Compare ourselves to the best. To the ideal. To Utopia. How do we stand up, then? As liars and hypocrites, who have not even climbed out of the muck before we turn on others and attack them for their failings. We save lives by killing soldiers and innocents. We create security by blowing up buildings and stirring up turmoil. We create stability by removing governments and putting in our own.

"The United States, since 1950, has supported every right-wing dictatorship in the world, in one way or another. We have trained them, supplied them, and encouraged them. Years later, we have on occasion, attacked them and replaced them.

"In our home country, the constructionists have it right. We have no right to privacy. I believe we should have one, I believe that it is necessary for a free and secure country. I also believe that it is a very different from the right against search and seizure. These rights must be democratically put into our Constitution. If they were, the debate would not exist. If the right to privacy concretely existed, there would be no illegal wiretaps.

"If Roe v. Wade had not happened, and instead the right had been passed into law several years later, the debate against abortion would not exist today. People might still resent it and attempt to over-turn it, but the argument that they got it wrong when they put the case through would not exist - and they would be right. Passing laws or adding rights through courts always has a back lash. In the case of Gay Marriage, the federal government has allowed states to refuse to recognize legitimate gay marriages.

"If we were to wait ten years so that the younger generation would enter the voting populace, a generation which has vastly different ideas on the subject of gay marriage than current voters do, the scene would be very different. But for the government to continue to function in a stable way, we must allow for the democratic process to work. Otherwise - the Supreme Court and the President both will soon have too much power.

"People remain ignorant of all of this. They remain blissfully ignorant that these things are happening, that rights are being given and taken away illegally, that we are holding a double standard to ourselves and our enemies, that we are lying to ourselves and our citizens about what is happening and what we are doing. They know that something is happening, but they do not know what. And they do not care to know.

"These illusions need to be shattered. Reality needs to be seen, needs to be embraced, and needs to be recognized for what it is. Everyone of us must see it, think about it, and discuss it. Inaction, silence, and indecision - these things are all actions by themselves, and make us all complicit.

"There are no more innocents, and you have no idea how angry that makes me."

Awful Moments

Fri, 10 Mar 2006 00:51:14 GMT

Today I experienced one of those moments where, upon reading something written by a friend, you sink back into a depression, and know this person will bring you nothing but pain. And despite knowing this, you're tempted to pick up the phone and straighten the whole thing out. Because that phone call would fix everything in both of your lives. But you know that's a lie. You know it is one of those comfortable illusions we shroud ourselves in.

But now its barbs are stuck in you, and you can't shake it. You know the best thing to do is rip away the illusion, and have it done with. You know that when these notions first came to you, they were liberating. But now they have lured you into a trap, and seeing it for what it is you still walk into it, like a moth to a flame.

Despite seeing it for the pain it will cause you, you would still welcome it to avoid the pain that solitude would bring.

Cutter

Tue, 07 Mar 2006 14:15:20 GMT

Greg stood in front of his bathroom sink and mirror, running hot water and soap over his fore-arms. The last thing he wanted, after all, was to get an infection.

There was a lot of pain in his life, at least that is the way it felt to him. He had been told that cutting yourself can help take away from the pain, distract from it, diminish it. May-be just inflicting pain on himself would give him mastery over the pain other people gave him. He didn't wish to turn to drugs, knowing that could form a habit that would affect the rest of his life. Here there was just a little bleeding and it would be over.

Bleeding, right. He left the hot water running and got out some neosporen, gauze and an ace bandage. He wanted to be ready.

Greg picked up the small razor blade he had taken from his job and pressed it against the skin three quarters of the way down his left arm. Looking stoically into the mirror, he dragged the blade across in one quick motion. Strangely, there was no pain. Looking down at his hand and the razor, he saw that neither had moved.

Staring at both intensely he willed it to move, to slide across and cut his skin. Neither budged.

Staring back at his face in the mirror the words of so many people who had given him pain can flooding back up, along with many words and voices he had never heard, but was sure was real; if they had never said it they had certainly thought it. Before long his own voice joined the others, mocking himself.

The razor's edge pressed down against his skin and angled itself slightly into the fleshy resistance as it tore across his skin in a sharp moment of pain followed by a dull throb.

The voices now silent he looked down at his arm, and the first thing that occurred to him was that it made a terrific mess. The running hot water was now stained with a silky red bubbled as it mixed with soap, diluted as it mixed with water, and drained away, only to be renewed by more blood coming from his arm.

The second thing that occurred to him, as he reached for his bath towel that hung next to the sink, was that he was suddenly dizzy. Pressing the towel against his arm to stop the bleeding, the dull throb took on a strangely sharp sensation that grew and faded as he applied pressure.

Pressing the towel to his arm with his chest, he used his free hand to reach for the gauze, dropped the towel and applied the gauze, using his chin, teeth and free hand to slowly wrap the gauze around his arm.

Once the cut was securely treated and the flow of blood had all but stopped he looked around. Blood on the counter, his shirt and skin, the floor and the towel, a nice red blotch was even growing on the gauze and bandaging. An anesthetic having been applied to his life, he turned off the lights and water, he left the mess as it lay, walked to his room, and sitting in his recliner turned on the news.

End of the World

Tue, 07 Mar 2006 02:14:13 GMT

It is confirmed: They are remaking the Omen. I have seen the trailers without knowing that it was the Omen, but now it is confirmed - one of the greatest horror movies of all time is being re-made, albeit without Gregory Peck.

The advertising for the new movie is effective enough, without even knowing that it was the Omen I got excited about it, and the prospect of a re-make of the Omen taunted me until I was able to verify it on Yahoo and IMDB. It doesn't come close to standing up to the original campaign, however, which had ominous signs that read only "One hundred days to the end of the world," "93 days until the end of the world," with no mention of the movie or what it was. Curiosity was stirred up, people were slightly afraid. They didn't know what was going on and they were more than curious.

The end of the world is the best news I've had all month.

Ultraviolet

Mon, 06 Mar 2006 17:46:12 GMT

Three friends and I went to the movies yesterday as part of Operation Boredom. We wound up discussing drug use at one point, John and Dusty making references to themselves as stoners. How could they exclude me from that? I've indulged in at least as many substances as they have, though far less frequently. They replied with indignation "You smoke pot. We're stoners." Somewhere in the background I heard someone say "Tell 'em Steve Dave!"

The movie we wound up seeing was Ultraviolet. I wanted a movie that would make me laugh, leaving just Ultraviolet and Pink Panther. They wanted to see 16 Blocks, a basic cop drama, and one that follows a plot I've already seen. Besides, any time Bruce Willis plays a cop, his name better be John McClane and there'd better be terrorists.

I convinced them to see Ultraviolet, using the promise of a hot chick being in the movie. (They forgot that it was PG-13 so the promise of breasts was gone. I just wanted to laugh, I have pornography if I really want to look at breasts that badly.) The biggest of us, Sean, insisted we walk out and get our money back after Violet was break-dance-dodging bullets on the rooftop full of people that "weren't vampires."

To be frank, it was a terrible movie. But as far as terrible movies go, it was pretty good. No worse than Hulk, and funnier than Elektra.

Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth

Sat, 04 Mar 2006 17:43:09 GMT

In the Cthulhu video game, like the Cthulhu mythos in general, most things will drive you insane. In fact, everything from slime to screams to dead bodies to a deep one will cost you sanity, to varying effects.

After the escape from Innsmouth, while running through the sewers and losing sanity at a steady pace, I come across an Elder Sign. One of the few safe things in the game. As well as being a save point, it provides a moment to catch your breath and re-gain sanity. Kneeling in front of it, I look at my feet to regain sanity faster.

I notice a small brown...thing next to my feet. "What's this?" I turn and pivot slowly, looking up to follow it...it's the leg of a dead man. And the body and torso and head. Oh...and he has no skin.

Miniature cut-scene and I am freaking out. I stand up and look at the Elder Sign dead-on. I can see nothing else. Cut-scene, something is crawling through the sewers coming for me. I can no longer hold onto the controller it is vibrating so forcefully.

Apparently, "safe" is an extremely relative word in this game.

Possessed or Rocking Out?

Wed, 22 Feb 2006 19:09:12 GMT

Normally, when I'm sick, I am still coherent. Sometimes, though, stupid shit just manages to creep into my life and make me look like an idiot.

I got into a heated argument with someone at the college today about the Just War tradition. He had just said stupid about recognizing Augustine and recognizing right intentions as a means of preventing both unjust and unnecessary wars. Being an intellectual, I flipped him off in the middle of his argument.

He stammered and stopped, looked confused, and walked away.

I looked at my hand and noticed that instead of flipping him off, I had somehow made the sign of the beast with my hand.

If nothing else, I don't think anyone has ever countered Augustine's theories with "LONG LIVE ROCK, ASSHOLE!"

Tue, 21 Feb 2006 13:47:54 GMT

Love died in 1996. You may find its remains, complete with dental records, in the tomb of John Abbott.

Scary Science

Wed, 08 Feb 2006 18:13:21 GMT

As somewhat of an elitist, I was shocked to discover something about myself today while reading Koestler's Roots of Coincidence.

I know just enough about science, mathematics, and the laws of nature to really, really scare me.

Action Flick

Mon, 06 Feb 2006 22:17:52 GMT

The action movie is officially back. Joining the ranks of Rambo IV and Rocky VI, they are making a Die Hard IV.

I don't want to hear any talk of aging actors, either. I just don't care. They can pull it off, it's a movie, and it's time that the hijacking terrorists learned a lesson. If we ever need to, we can always pull Rambo out of retirement and send him over to Iraq. We can send John McClane to the airport and take care of hijackers.

And on a serious note about the aging actors? That's the point of Rocky Balboa.

These movies will be great because I say they will be, and even if they happen to be worse than Hostel, they won't let me down.

She's A Lesbian

Mon, 06 Feb 2006 19:37:05 GMT

Greg picked up Ashley from her house, and driving her to the theatre. It being the first time she was in his car, she admired the collection of music he kept in his car, naming the various bands, and pointing out the leap from Modest Mouse and Firewater to the blatantly different MC Chris.

"Oh, it's not mine," Greg assured her. "It's Emily's." Worried that she might perceive some competition for his affection, Greg assured her the path to his heart was clear and open for her. "She's a lesbian," he informed her as they stopped at a red light.

The Rebel Smoker

Mon, 06 Feb 2006 18:29:43 GMT

Ashes to Ashes

In the scene of Frank Miller's Sin City that Quentin Tarantino directed, the dead police officer is talking to Dwight, who is driving the car to the tar pits, even as he lights up a cigarette.

"Everyone's a smoker when they're down," is the repeated line from that scene.

We return to the habit of smoking not only when we are down because the nicotine calms us, and not only because it is a familiar habit, and we always feel safest within the confines of our familiar habits. We return to it because it is killing us, and we know it.

We are taking our fate into our own hands when we smoke, both by killing ourselves and denying it to the world, or taking the harm out of anything the world can do to us. If we are killing ourselves, what horrors can the world possibly retain for us?

We deny the public by smoking. We are doing something that they say we ought not to do, something that is reviled by many people and is increasingly outlawed in public places. Smoking replaces Cartman's mantra of "I do what I want."

The cigarette is quickly becoming the sign of the outlaw, the rebel. From figures such as Johnny Cash, to our own personal experiences of being persecuted for smoking, yet refusing to quit. The world has no holds on us, it cannot kill us and it cannot make us stop killing ourselves.

In this one thing, this one symbol, we find peace from the outside world, a place that, try as it might, it cannot touch us.

There is an addendum to be added to an old line, one we know since childhood even if we do not know its origins.

Ashes to ashes;
Dust to dust;
The world can no longer touch us.

Mon, 06 Feb 2006 17:34:56 GMT

After class, Greg stumbled back to his car, breathing heavy and feeling the effects of the pills that he had taken. Slumping into the seat of his car, he gazed into the ether, letting his mind wander to far off thoughts.

Neither his mind or body were in the grips of hallucinagens, but instead were merely accelerated along with his metabolism, through a combination of caffeine and other natural herbs. His body, however, no longer functioning normally, sent his brain away, escaping to find a release and place of normality.

Before long, Greg found himself longing for proximity, not of another body or person, but proximity of another soul. This proximity, he realized, does not know the distances of the earth, and cannot be seperated by time, place, or the normal infedelities that can seperate.

He wondered if this proximity he longed for was love, the kind that cannot be tampered with or seperated by other people, its reality too concrete and set beyond the bodies of those involved. He wondered if this love was something found in soul-mates, people who recognize in another a comfort or facet of themselves that is lacking. He wondered if this love was God.

Greg gazed into the ether, and in the traffic of other people, cars, and nature he saw angels of love, vessals of God and in these things he saw past the boundaries of eternity.

His nose twitched, and a sneeze dispelled it, along with his reverie. When his eyes were raised again, the ether was gone and all that remained were a few trees and people walking along their way.

Greg grabbed his bag, closed the door of his car, and stumbled onto his next class.

Intentions

Mon, 06 Feb 2006 00:58:05 GMT

What would you do, if you could go back and infect the past, broad strokes of it, with your intentions?

What would you do? What would you change? Anything?

Eternity

Mon, 06 Feb 2006 00:38:57 GMT

One of the most damning thoughts of humanity is the question of eternity. To some, it is a great comfort to know that even should they cease to exist, there will always be something, and therefore their actions have at the least the potential to make a difference, and in some way they can live on long after their own lives have escaped into oblivion.

To others, there is comfort in the thought that they will find a kind of personal eternity in an after-life or re-incarnation, and thus they will always exist along with the universe. Thus, even if their actions have no weight on the lives of others, they will remain with them for eternity, making a great personal difference to them.

Others find comfort in the thought of a limited life span, for both themselves and the universe. No matter how badly things turn out, the weight of their actions will eventually be swept away, and life must be lived only for the moment without thought to the future, which might not exist the next day. This often leads to hedonism and (neo)-nihilism, though some simply escape the thoughts.

Others are tortured by these thoughts. If the world and universe lives on without them, but they have made no impact upon it, should they have even lived at all? Their lives become so small in their own eyes, that they were merely an aberration, not worthy of notice, if they ever existed at all.

To some of them, the idea of an eventual nothing incites panic, and the desire to try to prevent it, or make a difference while their is still a difference to make. Some become happy with the result of this, an almost kind of productive desperation. Some become tortured by their ineffectiveness.

What if the world should cease to be, and you with it? Would you hope that it would be made again, with nothing of the old to even observe? Would you pray and chant to cease it from happening? Would you embrace the oblivion, and feel liberated by it? That now is all there is and can ever be, would this liberate you, giving your life so much importance that it fills each day with joy and importance, or would you crumble under the weight of knowing that the end is always the same?

Kant the Utilitarian

Fri, 03 Feb 2006 19:30:06 GMT

One of the many draw-backs to being new in a Philosophy department is that I have not yet established a sense of credibility with the faculty or other students. You can add to this my young age, and I am often called naive as well.

One thing that many people do not realize is that I generally do not speak out on a topic strongly unless I have done a fair amount of research into it first. I am not always an expert, but I know enough to defend my well-formulated, if occasionally amateurish, opinions.

One of the opinions that I presented today, first in class and later at a luncheon with the professors from the Humanities dept. was that Kant was a utilitarian.

Please, hold your laughter for the comments section after you've read the rest of this.

A point I had made to these people two days earlier was that almost all major philosophical ethicists were, at the end of the day, utilitarian. The logic goes something like this:

Utilitarianism is based on the idea that you should do the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people, while doing the least amount of harm for the greatest number of people. A generally good idea, and one that is widely accepted.

My main problem with utilitarianism is that it eventually boils down to utopianism, and many people seem to ignore this, believing that it is impractical at best, impossible at worst. Keep in mind, I am a utopian.

The reason why most ethicists are utilitarian is that while they may have more specific plans and guidelines for reaching what they feel is the ethical or moral conclusions, it is always, in their mind, what is the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

Now, onto Kant.

One of Kant's main ideas was that you should make no law or rule unless you can apply it universally. He came to this idea not through the usual utilitarian pipe-lines, and would strongly disagree with John Stuart Mill on a great number of things, but the idea has a certain ring of utilitarianism to it.

Kant is most certainly not a pure utilitarian, by any stretch of the imagination. But his ideas most certainly carry that spirit of utilitarian ideal, if not in their beginning then in their end.

Kant would have retracted his ideas if he felt that the idea of laws that can only be applied universally would have ended in a great loss to humanity, then I believe that he would have modified his beliefs.

What strongly separated Kant from the utilitarians was that he believed that it is impossible to know the consequences of your actions in any given case, which is why his imperatives focused on restricting actions as a means of guiding them. Utilitarians, in contrast, believe that you can know the consequences of your actions, based off of, among other things, past experience.

Kant believed that since this was not always possible, you should not make an attempt to do so, as it might result in harm. Kant preferred very strongly to deal in the knowable and quantifiable, that if you knew an action might result in harm, it should never be allowed.

To be a bit more general, Kant dealt in general or universal rules, while utilitarians felt that you could apply your beliefs to a specific situation with accuracy.

Once again, I must state that I do not think Kant was a pure utilitarian. He did, however, end in much the same place, if differing only in how he got there.

Share your thoughts.

Feminist Theory

Thu, 02 Feb 2006 12:59:11 GMT

Nothing makes me feel more loved than an angry feminist with a point to make.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for equal rights, and generally enjoy feminist theory. I think it is an interesting field, and one that desperately needs to be explored. However, I have grown up in an environment of feminazis.

Pardon that last remark, but I truly mean it when I say "feminazi." I do not mean the average feminist, nor even a large number of them. But I do refer to what is perhaps the most vocal and offensive group, the group that does not merely want to find equal rights, but at times appears to have a vendetta against all members of the opposite gender.

They have taken the idea of "turnabout is fair-play" to a new level, and generally hurt their cause.

The sole exception in my experience has been Robin Morgan, the author of Demon Lover. Reading her book, which is as much about feminist theory as terrorism, I found myself almost hating men.

Why was she able to get away with this? How was she able to turn me against my own gender, with a vengence?

She never once blamed men. Throughout her book, she cited references, historical precedents, events that had taken place. She quoted statistics, including that almost 50% of college aged men admitted that they would rape someone if they knew they could get away with it. But these were merely facts. She never blamed men.

She blamed society.

As much as she made men bear the weight of the issue, she put as much brunt on the shoulders of women, at the same time, with the same stroke of the pen that she accused men. Gender was not her target, but humanity and the society's that we had built.

Robin Morgan was able to paint a picture of men who did atrocious things, and women who allowed it to happen, albiet with the occasional uprising. She did it in such a general and unassuming way that I was forced to admit that she was right. Men were pigs, and women had put up with it.

Several times she presented that idea plainly. Women put up with it. They put up with it. They stood for it. They took it. They put up with it. They had helped to build the society in which women were generally dominated and abused.

This was not the end of her logic, however. The problem was not gender based. It was not that women were abused and men were chauvinists. This was just a sympton of a sick society, of a larger problem that we had allowed to creep into our daily lives, insinuating itself so deeply that we, both men and women, could no longer see it for the longest time.

Like a champion feminist, Robin Morgan made me feel guilty. Not as a male, but as a human, and as a member of society.

Everquest Has Ruined Me

Fri, 27 Jan 2006 14:29:21 GMT

You will probably only understand this if you play, or have played, Everquest. If you have a friend that does, ask them. They'll think I'm a spaz at first, but then they'll remember that they've probably done the same thing, or something worse.
Recently, I started playing Everquest again. And I've been very glad I have, until recently.

In my Peace and Conflict class, there is a girl named Christine, and it became known that she does "track." My first response was, "Wait...you're a ranger?"

Blank stares from everyone in the room. I quickly figured it out.

I can salvage this, I thought. She's a "ranger" and she runs track and field. "Can you cast Spirit of the Wolf on me?"

Yeah, girls won't look at me anymore.

Warmth Poisoning

Thu, 26 Jan 2006 19:31:53 GMT

It is bitterly cold outside, but I do not worry because I have a comfortable sweatshirt on that reduces that bitterness to a mere rejuvenating brisk.

When I go inside, however, where it is heated, my sweatshirt becomes a cocoon. I am suddenly enveloped in warmth, with a hint of fuzziness to it from the inside of my sweatshirt that reminds me of my most comfortable blankets.

I sit back in a comfortable chair while waiting for my next class to start, pull out a Lovecraft book to keep me occupied for the next two hours and it kicks in. Warmth poisoning.

Before I know it, I am sleepy and lethargic. I find myself stretching, reclining in the chair and stretching out. I yawn, and my eyes droop. Focusing on the book becomes an effort instead of an enjoyment. I am not tired, but in my cocoon of warmth and happiness I am sleepy. I am in bed, and it is time to sleep...

I drink a bottle of chilled Southern Style Sweet Tea to fight off the warmth poisoning. The cold of the drink and the sugar will shake me out of my comfortable lethargy. But only for a moment. The cold in my stomach becomes a counterpoint to the warm and fuzzy. It grows stronger. It feeds on the momentary cold, and now I am no longer thirsty. Comfort grows.

Warmth poisoning has taken my legs. They are asleep, and do not respond to any of the normal treatments. I feel that deadly warmth creep into my arms, as they grow heavy as lead. My eye lids close, hoping to find inspiration in the darkness, relief from this happy sleepiness.

I know I must fight it, but I no longer wish to. I am content in my cocoon.

I succumb to warmth poisoning.