Uncouth PerspectivesNot on the rug, man.

How I hate thee. Let me count the ways.

Well, before I do that, let me take a moment to explain. I think it has been a while.

I am not the type of person who gets the typical holiday blues (well, typical for those who get it). Honestly, I couldn’t quite tell you what the “typical” holiday blues are, but I imagine they have something to do with a lot of alcohol, shouting obscenities late at night, a black eye, and probably some jail time. My assumption is that a lot of people are really just unhappy and the holidays just give them that extra nudge over the precipice.

For me, the “holidays” represent a lot of things that I do not really like about people and society. I mean, really, are you telling me that we have to take a moment each year and say “Hey, maybe you should be nice?” Joy to the world and all that sham. I guess it’s much easier to be amenable to sitting next to the fire and not fighting when it is freezing outside. The point is that there are many supposed ideals which are highlighted at this time that I believe if people took truly to heart would be things that they believed in, well, all the time. I do not think there is necessarily anything wrong with taking a moment to highlight certain things to get people thinking about them, but I really feel a lot of the marketed holidays are just shams.

Maybe it’s the consumerism associated with them. The gift giving just makes me sick. It is not that I am against giving gifts. I love giving gifts. The issue for me is being told / expected to give gifts. I can no longer count the number of times that throughout the year, I have given someone a gift because I genuinely wanted to (“Hey, you did something to remind me what a great friend you are and I wanted to say thanks”, “Hey, I found [X] which I though you would really like and here it is!”, etc.) but failed to do so at an alloted time and had an eye of ire turned on me. Not cool.

I was talking with a friend about this who noted that some people feel uncomfortable with getting gifts at unexpected times–it is easier to give them at expected times because people understand how to deal with it. I guess. The problem, in my mind, is that this highlights a bigger problem with our society at large. One of the things also discussed in our conversation is that people also feel the need to reciprocate, especially for unexpected gifts. I do not know if I agree with that, but if it is the case, I think with time individual people can learn to deal with individual gifts. Especially if you make it clear that there is not an expectation of return. But, in my mind, you can generally point to something and say “Hey, THAT’s why I am giving you the gift. Don’t give me anything back. DEAL.” If they truly feel like they have to give you something back then, well, be thankful as well.

Those who have followed my ramblings over the years know that I am not a fan of either/or, black/white type of thinking. I believe that one of the great things about life is the shades of grey which makes up the bulk of the human experience. It seems to be a natural process for the human mind to attempt to categorize things to make them better understandable–I will not attempt to deny that–but I think this can be overdone. My normal psychological punching bag on this topic is stereotypes. Honestly, do not get me started on stereotypes.

Yet, another area where I find general fault with the slice of humanity I interact with (whether in person, in writing, or in observation) is the ideas of optimism and pessimism. I like to think of myself as a realist–I try my best to think of things as not the best or worst case scenarios. I, like anyone, cannot be perfect in this (but, perfection is just another black/white extreme, in my opinion). However, I am amazingly confronted by people who will label an action or a thought of mine as “optimistic” or “pessimistic” because it does not fit with a particular outcome or the personal view of the other person.

For example, if someone has a better expectation for the outcome of a situation and I take a moment to think about alternative outcomes, I have been told that I should not be pessimistic. Often, I get really taken back because I do not feel like I am being pessimistic, I am just trying to make sure I have a realistic expectation. When I sit down to think more about, I can generally think of ways that I could be truly pessimistic. This happens the other way too (“Oh, you’re just an optimist”). If I were to believe what people say in these situations, I would have to assume I am either manic-depressive or absolutely insane. I do not believe I am either of those things, so I assume there are other answers.

Let’s take a closer look at the ideas of optimism and pessimism. As technical terms, these words have some very specific meanings which in the usage in common vernacular seems to have oversimplified. In the study of religion, a religion or group which is identified as pessimistic does not believe that life is kind of crappy and people are pretty mean. It means that the religion identifies the world as a truly evil place, where the hearts of men are black by nature, and only by the intervention of a divine being–perhaps even the physical destruction of the world and people–can redemption can be had. You can assume something as similarly opposite for optimism.

Psychologically, this term also has a technical meaning–a pessimist is a person who truly believes in the worst. When one meets a true pessimist, one knows. These people are truly draining and truly unable to deal with the world–and truly rare. But I guess it is easier to say that someone who is depressed or generally surly is a “pessimist.”

What I am trying to figure out is if these are appropriate in relation to specific situations? Can someone be pessimistic about, say, their relationship but be optimistic, say, about their job? It seems like an easy thing to do right? Someone does not see something in the brightest of lights and so you say “Hey, don’t be such an pessimist!” Here is my problem, though. I think at some level, pessimism (or optimism) does have a meaning to people and it can influence how one interprets actions or situations. I think there is a difference between being “negative” and being a “pessimist.”

Moreover, I think there is a difference between those and beings realistic. “This might not work” (realism) is different than “this won’t work” (negative) is different than “this can never work” (pessimism). I worry that when “this might not work” is heard as “this can never work” because the listener equates anything which can be interpreted as negative with pessimism.

I have been very lax in my study of religion of late. It turns out that when you have assignments and constant pressure that comes with grad school, it’s much easier for it to be hobby. I’m going to file that under ironic and move on. My focus when I was actively working on my Master’s Degree was apocalyptic cults. This is a subject I am very interested in and the recent news of a Russian doomsday cult has really sparked my interest again. Hopefully I can fan that into a real flame of interest.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/11/16/doomsday.cult/index.html

What I find most interesting about this incident is that the leader is no longer with the group. He’s been arrestd and undergoing “psychiatric evaluation.” He told the group to hole up in their self built cave and they are doing it. One of the reasons I find this interest has to do what what a “cult” is and how it is formed. Or, rather, how hard it is to define those things. Like many things with religion, defining what makes something a cult is generally a subjective affair. Most often, a descriptive definition is used. I.e. a cult is something that has x, y, and z characteristics. For example, one might say that a cult does not have mainstream acceptance. However, there are people who call Mormonism a cult, yet it clearly has mass appeal. Even better, others, such as myself, would not agree that mainstream acceptance is a characteristic at all.

However, one that is widely adopted in this method of defining a cult is charismatic leadership. The Branch Dividians had David Koresh, Christianity had Paul, and the Insane Clown Posse have Violent J. One theory about containing/controlling cult behavior (if you would choose to do so) is that if you take out the leader, you take out the cult. I do not believe things are that black and white, but the theory is probably a good rule of thumb.

So, then, what kind of control did Kuznetsov have that his followers continue their practices and follow his commandments even after he is gone? They apparently communicating with him via letters but are mistrustful that he may be under the control of the authorities. It makes me think that a new leader has emerged with the remaining members that allows them to hold strong to their beliefs. If this is true, it poses an interesting twist to the idea of a charismatic leader’s role within a cult. It also shows one of the things at the root of cult behavior: a cult is sociological based “thing” which is guided by principles of the relationships between members more than the philosophical doctrine they supposedly cling to.

…just be good?

Even though I’ve studied it quite a bit, I have never understood why people argue that morals cannot be exclusive from a god / religion / whatever. The same-old “atheists have no morals” rhetoric.

Perhaps it is because those who express these feelings cannot control themselves?

I have to admit that the idea of people who cannot control themselves or urges being a part of something that gives enough structure to control those urges has great appeal to me… because hopefully those urges will be controlled. But I really feel that it needs to be something: a) substantative and b) not as bad or worse than the “urge.”

Also, one of the biggest problems is that the people who DO successful commit to something which makes their lives better or “beats the urge,” then often they try to push this on other people and/or when faces with an argument against the belief, they react poorly or violently. This is because the belief is more important in it’s ability to defeat the urge than in and of itself.

Take, for example, religion as the belief in this role. I’ve had great conversations with people who do not share the same religious beliefs as myself. Take, as another example, my doctor. My doctor is a very devout Christian and we have had very good discussions about religion. I don’t trust my life any less to him (…i hope) and we can have a very rational, friendly dialogue. But this is not always the case.

It is my theory that one of the greatest things in the way of pluralistic dialogue is the fact that many individuals belief is not based on the belief, in and of itself, but other factors, such as the belief acting as an agent against an urge or that “this is what the family believes so it’s what I believe.” The biggest problem with this is that when faced with challenges to the belief, even in casual dialogue, it’s hard for an individual to face disparate arguments.

It’s important to understand this. There are some people who you can be frank and open with, some you need to be more careful in how things are worded, and some who conversation may simply not be possible

I am going to file this under “What the hell?”

http://www.kctv5.com/news/14034556/detail.html

A small bookstore in Kansas City burned thousands of books. The primary reason for this seems to be that they simply have too many books and people will not take them. However, the owner has been quoted as saying the wants to talk about the declining in reading.

“We hope to spark a conversation about the importance of books in the
face of a marked shrinking in reading trends, and staggering waste
streams of actual books,” said Prospero’s Books owner, Tom Wayne.

I have to admit that I am torn on the idea of declining readership. I will not argue that people are reading less and that this is being supplanted by other forms of media (video, music, TV, etc). What I am not convinced of is that the internet and technology is part of that. If you want to talk about how the children don’t know a good story because they only have enough attention to watch an ad on TV, I’m with ya. Do not even get me started on the quality of a lot of the media out there. But looking all the forms of media (if you were include books in this category), I just think there are more forms of literary competition for books (take for example, a complete shot in the dark, blogs and blog readership).

I’m a old-fashioned reader in these enlightened days. I like to take a good book and a warm drink and snuggle up until I fall asleep. Hell, I have a reading chair. I cannot soak my stories in over the dull refresh rate of a monitor (much to the anger of my wife when she’s trying to get me to read a story she’s written). But I am not going to be so dense as to suggest that it’s not possible or worthwhile to get quality online or in digital form. I know many people who do their reading online and, well, more power to them.

Another important fact is that, in whatever form you are talking about, there is a lot.. a LOT.. of crap. And there are a lot of crap books. Whether we’re talking about the latest serial romance novel (Does my bias on things ever show through?) or the latest “how to feed your employees cheese and make money!” book. So just because I’m not reading your crap book does not mean I’m not reading.

I just have a hard time believing that we are in the dark days of literacy. I find it more likely that things are general the same as they’ve been. The intellectual elite read. Those who are interested read. The “masses,” in whatever their form, find easy and simple ways to be entertained, which may or may not involve reading. Some people just do not want to read.

I’m not going to say which class I fall into, but suffice to say I’ve a story about an assassin and his pet dragon calling my name.

Technorati Tags: books internet reading

Very interesting case in the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals…don’t be surprised is this one go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

From the decision:

“In considering the factors for a preliminary injunction, the district court reasoned that e-mails held by an ISP were roughly analogous to sealed letters, in which the sender maintains an expectation of privacy. This privacy interest requires that law enforcement officials warrant, based on a showing of probable cause, as a prerequisite to a search of the e-mails.”

From an article:

A federal appeals court on Monday issued a landmark decision (.pdf) that holds that e-mail has similar constitutional privacy protections as telephone communications, meaning that federal investigators who search and seize emails without obtaining probable cause warrants will now have to do so.

“This decision is of inestimable importance in a world where most of us have webmail accounts,” said Kevin Bankston, a staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

The ruling by the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Ohio upheld a lower court ruling that placed a temporary injunction on e-mail searches in a fraud investigation against Steven Warshak, who runs a supplements company best known for a male enhancement product called Enzyte. Warshak hawks Enzyte using “Smiling Bob” ads that have gained some notoriety.

[More]

Since I began writing on the topic of atheism, the landscape of who is involved in writing about or evangelizing atheism has changed dramatically. Today, there are “heroes” of atheism. Richard Dawkins. Christopher Hitchens. And many, many more. The ability to form virtual communities has obviously bolstered the atheism “community”–a group of people who are not likely to find people close-by through simply talking to another person on the street. There are no “atheist” churches, synagogues, etc. There are those of you who might claim there are and they are called “universities,” but this is just ignorant or hyperbole; universities are places to learn and thus you’ll find: a) a whole variety of views, be they atheist, theist, republican, democrat, etc. and b) people interested in learning.

However, with the rise of these heroes and apparently representatives of atheism, the issue of “what is” atheism is even more stark and apparent. Many Christians in America seem downright confused about what atheism is or is not and deservedly so, I ‘d have to say. Why? Because “atheism” describes a person who holds a single, particular view and does not describe the type of values a person holds. Some theologians would disagree with me here, but this is the point I have been making for years–you cannot judge an atheist by his/her stance on God but rather by his/her value (ethical) system.

So, as I read through atheist postings, I get so upset when I read atheists proclaiming “atheism means this or that.” Some (atheists) say atheists are modest, or ethical, or nice, or the like. And, as an atheist, I say this is absurd. Because, as I’ve said, being atheist has no bearing on these sorts of things. It may be a harder argument to make, but I believe it hurts our ability be relevant in conversations about morality if we say atheist = moral. Because if you can make the argument atheist = moral, you can make the argument atheist = immoral. Whereas, my argument is that atheist does not equal immoral NECESSARILY. This is an important distinction.

The are other dangers in this line of thinking as well. If one steps forward and makes blanket statements about, say, how atheists are moral people who just to be left alone and not force their views on anyone, this can be retorted with something smart-ass like “well, what about the Communists?” And, in the context of the original statement, the retort is appropriate. I’m an atheist. Stalin was an atheist. I and Stalin do not share the same values. Not only do I not want to make poor arguments, but I definitely don’t want to be lumped in with someone like Stalin.

The Anaheim Ducks beat the Ottawa Senators 4-1 to win the greatest prize in sports… the Stanley Cup!

We are in the so-called era of the “new NHL.” The new rules are in place to make the game faster, more exciting, and to see more goals scored. And it has worked (whether or not that will get the sport more viewers is another story). But even more interesting is that Brian Burke, Randy Carlyle, and the others decided to play the new rules from another angle. They developed a game that used strong physical and gritty play to shut down a team designed to be exemplary of the new rules–fast, lean, and highly technically skilled.

I do not think that this strategy will always work, but it will be worth watching the two types of play compete for success. The Ducks have obvious echoes of the Devils and I can’t wait to see what others team try this strategy out for success.

GO DUCKS!

Two girls were arrested in McHenry County, Illinois last week for distributing flyers at their school that depicted a male classmate kissing another classmate and had the words “God Hates Fags” on the flyers. One of the girls at her arraignment was denied bail for her actions, and the other was effectively placed on house arrest.

read more | digg story

Anaheim prevailed 4-2 in the best-of-seven NHL Western Conference final. The Ducks will meet the Ottawa Senators in the Cup final, with Game 1 set for May 28 (CBC, 7:30 p.m. ET).

read more | digg story