For Peer Review

A One Month Moratorium

Cuindless — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 21:35:05 GMT

It's been almost two months since I blogged, and I've been really busy during that time. Right now, though, I'm in a fit of pique. Maybe it's one too many people talking to me about the "evils" of the current medical industry, the autism shamans, the woo patrol or the new show on Fox, but I am pissed. I am sick and tired of people painting the medical industry in the US as the bad guy, when these people save lives. The anti-vaccine movement and the alternative health bandwagon screaming and pointing fingers and people, some of whom I call friends, just makes me sick with rage. You know what this country needs? It needs a one month moratorium on all health services covered by the AMA. No, fuck that, it needs a moratorium until the woo crowd BEGS for medical care again. Sink this country back into the dark ages of medicine with a life expectancy of 45 and a 74% child morbidity rate. Give these pampered, entitled brats a taste of life in the 3rd world. Let's see your acupuncturist treat the gangrene setting into that broken leg, Jenny. But it will never happen. You know why? Because most doctors actually care. Sure, there are bound to be some who became doctors because daddy was a doctor or because there's good money in it, but the vast majority of people who make it through 4 years of college, 3 years of medical school, 1 year of internship and another 2 or 3 of residency if they want to be a specialist actually love what they do. Even if the AMA declared this moratorium, I know at least 3 doctors who would continue providing care on the black market because they just couldn't stand the idea of even one child coming down with a preventable disease, let alone an epidemic. It still makes me upset, though, to watch these friends of mine who care about humanity in ways that I couldn't even begin to being ridiculed and even blamed for the very problems they're trying so hard to protect us from. Fuck it... I'm done. Look at the monkeys: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkuX0nKiAlU

Another Tragic Loss to Gaming

Cuindless — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 22:57:47 GMT

On Tuesday just after 11 PM the gaming world lost another legend. It's only been 13 months since we lost one of the founders of roleplaying, Gary Gygax, so losing Dave Arneson, one of the old guard "grognards" that first made the transition from wargaming to roleplaying is really sad to me. He will be missed. RIP Admiral. Don't give up the ship!

Self-Diagnosis and the Autism Rights Movement

Cuindless — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 04:58:05 GMT

As the father of two autistic children, I've become concerned with a growing trend I perceive in America today: Self-diagnosis of autism. Since autism has entered the mainstream media, I've met a number of seemingly neurotypical people who tell me they have autism or, more commonly, Asperger's syndrome. When asked about the diagnosis, they tell me that they've never actually been diagnosed, they just looked up the symptoms on the internet and everything seemed to "fit". This upsets me a great deal because most of these people are really just socially awkward jerks. Since my sons were diagnosed, I've become heavily involved in the local autistic community, meeting children and adults of various ages with actual diagnoses of autism and Asperger's. I'm no doctor, but I've come to know the common characteristics very well. Seeing the condition co-opted by socially inept people who don't actually have to face the day to day challenges that many autistic children and adults have to face fills me with a certain amount of anger. Someone asked me point blank, "What's the harm?" The harm is that very few people actually understand this condition. I've done mountains of research and consider myself to be a fairly well informed layman, and even I don't really understand what's going on in my sons' minds. When people who aren't autistic present themselves as if they were, they contribute to this ignorance. Other neurotypicals will begin to think that autism and Asperger's syndrome are just buzzwords for social awkwardness, similar to how ADD and ADHD became synonymous with hyperactive, disobedient children in the 90's. These people might then turn around and show a lack of compassion and empathy to those individuals who actually struggle with this condition. They might be loathe to provide care and assistance to actual autistic people. They might not vote for increased benefits in their local area. What can be done to stop this? Apart from calling people on their BS and raising public awareness, how can I, as a neurotypical with a stake in the care of my loved ones, combat what I see as a growing detriment to their future?

Why Intelligent Design Shouldn't Be Taught in Science Class

Cuindless — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 21:31:52 GMT

I've been spending time lately watching documentaries on the evolution/intelligent design debate (amongst other subjects), and have come to a fascinating conclusion: There's no science at all to Intelligent Design. The scientific method starts with an inuitive observation about reality. From there, a hypothesis is generated that is subsequently tested by experiments specifically designed to disprove it. If the hypothesis is sound and stands up to empirical testing, it becomes a theory. If testing disproves the hypothesis, a new one is generated to explain the observation. ID stops with a hypothesis. The intuitive observation is that life, in all it's form and splendor, is simply too complex to have come about via natural selection. To explain this observation, ID "scientists" created the hypothesis of an Intelligent Designer who, for lack of a better term, we'll call "god". That's where they stop. Not a single Intelligent Design "scientist" has crafted an experiment to disprove their hypothesis. Instead, they spend the rest of their time sniping at the holes and mysteries present in evolutionary theory. In other words, they set up a "god inside the gaps" argument that actually stops scientific inquiry.

I Am An Atheist

Cuindless — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 05:47:37 GMT

Several months ago I was standing in a darkened room with incense burning, holding a dagger in one hand and a hawthorne stick with a quartz crystal on it in the other, muttering badly pronounced Ancient Greek when I came to a shocking realization: I don't really believe in any of this. Maybe this is a sudden thing, or I've been fooling myself all this time. One way or another, though, I suddenly realized that all I was feeling was like a man in goofy clothes in a dark room. Maybe this is the culmination of a lifelong passion for science or the result of that Critical Thinking class I took, but either way I just don't feel the same. I don't believe. Maybe I never really have believed. For years I've been able to argue both sides of the theism question, using rationality when necessary and passion when it wasn't. Sure, I felt a momentary surge of good feelings when the ritual was over, and in those moments around the fire drumming with my fellow EPMers I felt close to the Gods, but when all that faded I was just a cold, rational being able to explain away those feelings with even a cursory understanding of psychology, sociology and biology. It's a strange feeling. I've self-identified as Pagan for so long that I don't know if I can ever break from calling myself that. Most of my friends are Pagan. Many of my books are Pagan. Most of the social events and gatherings I go to are Pagan in nature. If I don't actually believe in the Gods and magic of Paganism, how can I rightfully engage in these activities? Now, before anyone thinks that I'm going to go off all intolerant at them and call them morons, I'm still me. I'm still Cuindless. I said I don't believe. I never said you shouldn't. I am a creature without faith, but that doesn't mean faith is inherently wrong. I've just never seen any compelling evidence that deities exist. To all my friends who believe: I don't think you're wrong in any way. Whether it's faith or a different perception or some evidence I've never seen that propels your belief, that's fine by me. Just don't expect me to understand it.

My Ballot Is In

Cuindless — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 20:47:42 GMT

I voted for Senator Obama. I did so for several reasons. First, I value intelligence and education. Both Senators Obama and Biden received Juris Doctorates. Senator Obama in particular graduated Magna Cum Laude and was president of the Harvard Law Review during his time there. In contrast, Senator McCain graduated 5th from the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy. Neither he nor Governor Palin attended graduate school. While I realize that education and intelligence aren't exact indicators of success, I have faith in them by general principle. Too many people deride intellect and education these days. I'm not completely sure why. Second, I value tolerance and social liberalism over fiscal conservativism. While I am a moderate like so many others (and have even considered myself a right-leaning moderate), I was thoroughly and completely dismayed by the general tone of racism, religious bigotry and heterocentrism adopted by the Republican party rank and file. While Senator McCain had always been a more centrist Republican, his selection of Governor Palin as a running mate indicates a desire to move back toward the far right of the Republican party base. I can tighten my belt if Senator Obama decides to raise my taxes. I can't change my religion if Senator McCain decides that the DoD is no place for a Pagan. Speaking of the selection of running mates leads me to point number three: Biden vs. Palin. The selection of Senator Biden as Senator Obama's running mate indicated to me that he is willing to work with people who disagree with him and select people with more knowledge and experience than he has for leadership positions. In contrast, Senator McCain's selection of Governor Palin as a running mate indicates the same old cronyism and pandering to the base that we've seen from a miopic Bush administration for the past 8 years. Lastly, I agree with Senator Obama's basic statement: "Its time for a change." I think this is absolutely true. Every once in a while, the old guard needs to be shaken up a bit, if only to get the other side in line. The Republicans have enjoyed a majority in the Legistlative, Executive and Judiciary branches of the government for long enough. With the dramatic realignment of the Congress and Executive branches, maybe the Grand Old Party will get their collective butts in gear and realize that progress is not necessarily a bad thing. I'm not a 100% Obama supporter. I would have liked to have seen Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Wayne Alan Root or Mike Gravel be "the change". Unfortunately, the Libertarian party voted for Bob Barr. I'm hoping that Senator Obama has the judgement necessary to lead our nation without relying on party lines. We'll see.

Leaning Left

Cuindless — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 19:56:41 GMT

I've been thinking a lot about politics lately and have made the strange discovery that I am leaning more to the left this election than I ever have before. I was a member of the Young Republicans when I graduated. I voted for President Bush in 2000. After meeting several new people in Virginia, I started voting third party but still considered myself a right-leaning Libertarian (I voted for Badnarik in 2004). Suddenly, though, I find myself considering voting for Senator Obama. Colin Powell's endorsement interview made a deep impression on me. I admire Colin Powell a lot. I wish I could have voted for him in 2000, but he decided not to run. He made a lot of good points. First, he noted that many people, including senior Republicans, have said, "You know Barack Obama's a Muslim, right?" The answer of course is, no he isn't. He's a Christian. But the further answer is, who cares? Is it wrong to be a Muslim in America? Is it wrong for a Muslim American to want to be President? It is a frightening look at the Republican party from someone within. Senator McCain's selection of Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate only further cements in my mind the direction he and the Republican party are going. Second, he noted that the next President of the United States will probably be putting two more Justices on the Supreme Court. With two more conservatives, they may have the authority to challenge Roe vs. Wade and make other decisions that might severely limit freedom and personal sovereignty in this country. Lastly, he said that from personal observation he feels that Senator Obama will have a steadier hand and a cooler mind than Senator McCain. He noted McCain's handling of the economic "crisis" that the US is facing. All totaled, he made some very good points about Senator Obama. My problems with Senator Obama are mostly fiscal in nature. I lived in the UK for 3 years, and from that experience I think universal health care is a bad idea. I think Social Security should remain solvent. I think we shouldn't be too hasty about pulling out of Iraq. I am opposed to gun control. I think his support of same-sex unions doesn't go far enough. All that being said, I recognize that Senator Obama is intelligent, thoughtful, well-educated and cautious. These are all things that I have faith in. I have faith in intellect. I have faith in education. I think, or at least I hope, that if he enters office he will take the same approach that Kennedy did and select cabinet members who are even more intelligent and well-educated. If he does get elected, I hope he relies on his good judgement and doesn't make decisions based on party rhetoric.

My Five Songs

Cuindless — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:21:30 GMT

This post is very personal. It also seems a little egotistical to post it. I should note that these songs aren't my favorite five songs of all time. These are great songs, but they aren't my favorites. They're not even my five favorite pop and/or rock songs. My favorites are another post entirely (and they might say things about me as well...). These five are the songs that I think best define me as a person. Some of them I don't even think are that good. I'll let you speculate which ones those are. The reason that I decided to post it in this public forum is not to say "look how cool I am", but rather to encourage others toward introspection and to learn more about my friends. Five Songs that Describe Me: The Mighty Quinn (Cuin) by Manfred Mann I am The Mighty Cuin. I fight for it with every fiber of my being. Every breath is a movement toward growth and self-actualization. The Mighty Quinn (Cuin) is the ultimate person. He's Nietszche's Uber-Mensch. He's Da Vinci's "Vetruvian Man". He is the ultimate human. Oddly enough, though, I don't consider myself the subject of the song, but its singer. When Cuin finally get here, all the creatures gonna run to him, everybody's gonna jump for joy and everybody's gonna want a dose. Now I just have to make sure he actually gets here. Besides; It has the line, "Ain't my cup of meat..." Cup of meat? What does that even mean? The Logical Song by Supertramp So often, skeptics and scientists are asked, "Why do you even wake up in the morning if all the magic is gone?" When we are young, life seems so wonderful; like it was some magical gift. As we get older, the method becomes apparent and the world starts to seem cold and mechanical. People react in one of three ways. We can cling to those old, superstitious beliefs. We can resign ourselves to there being no magic and simply trudge through life earning a salary. Lastly, we can seek the magic in each new discovery and find joy in each new method. Those last, precious few are the true scientists. She Blinded Me with Science by Thomas Dolby The opening stanza says it all: It's poetry in motion And when she turned her eyes to me As deep as any ocean As sweet as any harmony She blinded me with science And failed me in geometry He's singing about his first science teacher. I don't think I even have to say anything else! Still, there's more to say. In later verses, he talks about the woman visiting him with all these amazing ideas and technologies, then leaving and cleaning up by morning. It is the fundamental conundrum of the scientist that they perceive such amazing proofs and phenomena, only to be stymied when the data comes back... In the Garage by Weezer I'm a geek. That should be obvious by my love of Dungeons and Dragons, comic books, sci-fi and chess. I also like rock music and can play guitar. I sing when no ones around. Holy crap... this song is about me. Its also, apparently, about the lead singer of Weezer... who might very well be me in disguise. Disarm by Smashing Pumpkins As much as I would love every song on this list to be funny and cool, I'm as defined by my pain as anyone else. The first time I heard this song, I cried real, serious tears and for quite some time. Many people (mistakenly) think this song is about abortion, but Billy Corgan has repeatedly explained that the song is about his childhood and the painful relationships he had with his family. Runners Up: White and Nerdy by Weird Al. Pretty accurate, but just not "rockin'" enough. Lithium by Nirvana. Lithium is such a good song, and it describes significant periods of my teenage years. For some reason, it just feels pretentious to list it. Don't get me wrong, Nirvana is one of my favorite bands of all time, and this song is one of their best. Maybe it just hits too close to home. Say it Ain't So by Weezer. Its about the son of an alcoholic struggling with alcoholism. Its good. Its just not my defining characteristic... and if it is, I'm not ready to face that yet.

My Manifesto

Cuindless — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 04:16:31 GMT

I consider myself to be equal parts skeptic, stoic, utilitarian, categorical imperativist, agnostic, secular humanist and libertarian. I believe that there is a definable universe that is both knowable and quantifiable. Further, I think that the human mind has developed the best way of knowing and quantifying the universe so far. As such, I think that all phenomena within the purview of human existence are or will be, at some point, provable and understandable. I believe that some things will go well in my life and some things will not go so well. More often than not, my feelings of contentment and happiness are more a representation of my expectations than the actual events. If I expect the worst, I am pleasantly surprised when better things happen. If the worst *does* happen, I am prepared for it emotionally. I do not believe that the ends justify the means, but I do believe that whatever does the greatest amount of good to the greatest number of people is usually correct. For this reason, I think it is acceptable to kill a man whose death would prevent the deaths of even 2 others. Because of my skepticism, this must be proveable. That is were justice comes in. Punishment for crimes must be immediate, commensurate and understood. I am open to the possibility that there is a higher being, even a supreme being. I do not have faith in such a being. I make no claims to understand such a being. I have no personal knowledge of such a being. I simply accept that it might be true. I believe that the human experience can be enriched through the application of logic and self-improvement. I think all human beings should engage in this pursuit. This does not mean that you should live a passionless existence, it merely means that such passions should be tempered with logic. I lastly believe that human beings should be left to their own devices so long as those devices do not harm the will of others. A murderer should not be given the freedom to murder since murder infringes on others right to live. Homosexuals, on the other hand, should be perfectly allowed to practice their lifestyle as they wish because it has no effect or bearing on me. In fact, the act of love between two people is often beautiful, with definable good qualities. Morality exists not in absolute concepts but in their practical applications to reality. What differentiates a moral action from an amoral or immoral action is the effect it has on others. Murder is wrong because it harms others. Drug use is neutral because it harms the self as the user sees fit. Homosexual love is good because it often brings out the best qualities of humanity. I have the moral obligation, as a human, to stop murder, avoid drug use as I see fit and encourage love, homosexual or heterosexual, for its good qualities. This is the Cuindless manifesto. This is the Human manifesto.

Drinking and Chess

Cuindless — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 05:52:21 GMT

Do I play better after a few glasses of wine? Okay, I like to drink wine. AND, I like to play chess. When you enjoy both on a regular basis, sooner or later you're going to play chess drunk. A lot. I enjoy both so much, that its rare if, by the 5th game of the day, I haven't had at least a few glasses in me. What's interesting is that it seems like my game improves. I know what you're thinking, my opponent is getting drunk too, right? No... not really. See, I play on line mostly, which means I don't know if my opponent is getting drunk. Come to think of it, some times it's 10AM where my opponent is, so either he's drinking WAY too early, or he's just getting up. This got me asking the above question. Do I play better after a few glasses of wine? There is such a thing as state related memory: i.e. in an altered state, you remember certain things from that state that you don't remember in another state of consciousness. Alcohol triggers an altered state of consciousness. Did I learn how to play chess in an altered state? If so, is it possible that getting drunk would actually make me a better player? Where's Petra? I'm terrible at all this Psychology stuff. She would know. It seems to me that drinking would impair my intellect and decrease my ability to play. Why, then, do I *seem* to play better? Possible models: 1. I actually do play better while under the influence due partially to state related memory. 2. My inhibitions decrease while intoxicated, so I play more aggressively, which invariably leads to more successes. 3. I forget the failures and only remember the successes while intoxicated. 4. My expectations of play decrease as I drink, ergo I am happier with my performance. 5. Some combination of the above. Any thoughts?

The Myth of the Genius Killer

Cuindless — Fri, 30 May 2008 04:45:52 GMT

There is a pervasive myth in American culture that serial killers are some sort of genteel genius whose desire to murder stems from some strangely logical ideal. This myth is seemingly perpetrated by one (fictional) individual: Hannibal Lecter. In the books and films they inspired, Dr. Lecter systematically taunts, butchers and eats his victims out of sense of either civic duty or self-preservation. In reality, there is no Hannibal Lecter. There are basically two types of serial killers. The first is the disorganized and asocial offender. Often of lower intelligence and impulsive, the disorganized, asocial serial killer conducts blitz attacks on their victims and leaves the body there to be discovered. The second type of killer is the organized and social offender. Often of "higher" intelligence, these killers choose their victims carefully, stalk them and eventually butcher them in a precise fashion. The latter type of killer also goes through great pains to avoid being caught, often hiding the body or otherwise dealing with it. So which sort of serial killer is more prevalent? You guessed it: The former. According to the FBI database, the vast majority (over 88%) of serial killers have an IQ between 85 and 105. But certainly the existence of the latter type justifies the "Genius Killer" as an archetype at least, right? Wrong! Of the 818 serial killers that the FBI has profiled during it's investigations, not a single one has had an IQ over 160, the traditionally accepted cut-off point for genius. Not. One. In fact, the single most intelligent of the organized/social killers, Ted Bundy, had a published IQ of 138. Nearing gifted range, certainly, but no where near genius level. It should be noted, however, that the protocol for IQ testing serial killers didn't come about until after 1976. So what's the problem? Well, the problem is that the "Genius Killer" stereotype is harmful to geniuses, who should be leading the charge on all intellectual subjects. Instead, displays of great intellect elicit a combination of discomfort and worry from the common populace since "everyone knows" that geniuses are just a hairs breadth away from sociopathy. Truth be told, though, geniuses often display a *higher* moral standing. In a recent recreation of the Milgram Experiment, the few testers who refused to continue the experiment (which consisted of subjecting a fellow human to abject cruelty) all displayed above average intelligence. So what is the cause of this myth? In a word, "fear". Human beings have often displayed anxiety and fear when confronted with obviously superior specimens. As a defense mechanism, humans attempt to "tear down" their paragons by making them seem more "normal". It is no wonder, then, that those of great intellect are variously painted as near insanity (statistically false), physically weak (statistically false) or greatly socially awkward (statistically false within their peer group). The only question that remains is, what can be done to reverse this phenomenon?

Guns and America

Cuindless — Wed, 28 May 2008 18:08:31 GMT

I can understand why people want guns to go away. Historically speaking, guns have been a tool of oppression brought by white men from Europe to "less civilized lands" as a means to control the population. In India, America and Africa, the gun has been used to keep unruly natives in line while the oppressors took what they wanted. As the world moves inexorably towards tolerance and equality, the natural call for the end of guns has been given a voice by many countries. In the UK and other countries the disappearance of certain types of guns has led to a decrease in crime, though studies are mixed on why that is precisely and if those same measures would work in the US. Culturally, though, the US has had a different relationship with guns. While they were used in America as a tool of oppression, they were also used as a tool of freedom. In the late 18th century the colonists won freedom from an oppressor by using the tool of the oppressor against them. Since that time, guns have been a symbol of power in America. On the Venn diagram of the world's gun owning populace, America makes up the largest wedge. If handguns, or any other gun for that matter, were banned in the US two things would happen. First, only criminals would have them. Second, anyone who didn't surrender their handgun (and I know a number of people who wouldn't) would all become de facto criminals regardless of the law-abiding citizens they were before. And who would enforce the "no guns" law? Why police, of course! And how would they do so? With guns. So the image of armed bands of police officers coming to people's doors and confiscating their guns immediately leaps to the American mind, and to us it's an image straight out of 1984... or 1774. Gun control is a tricky issue. Many people have very heated opinions on it, and I can't say that any of those opinions are necessarily right. These are just two perspectives to keep in mind, no matter what side of the fence you fall on. If you want handguns banned forever, keep in mind the hundreds and thousands of American gun owners who think differently. If you're on the other side, please respect the fact that guns have been used to kill, hurt, oppress and enslave. A little empathy goes a long way.

The Information Dark Age

Cuindless — Tue, 27 May 2008 05:56:32 GMT

When is a good thing too much? I've been reading Andrew Keen's "Cult of the Amateur", and he makes a fairly convincing argument that the internet is killing our culture. From 133+ 5p3ak to wikipedia, there's a growing sense of disdain for the tried and true methods of education. The popular medical sitcom "Scrubs" had an episode where one patient googled her own symptoms using an IPhone (or something like it) and decided that she didn't need a doctor any more. I've heard similar statements made by some of my academic hating co-workers. The really sad thing is that there is some really good information on the internet. With all the world's knowledge at our finger tips, this could truly be a golden age of learning. People can share ideas across the globe at the touch of a button, and if you're interested in a specific subject you only need to google it to get a basic understanding. Living in England, I used Google Earth to find my new home in the US when it came time to move back. Every day a new piece of technology appears that seems straight out of a medieval wizard's dream. It's a wondrous age we live in. Unfortunately, all this information has caused a furious backlash. The internet is populated with information, but true to Sturgeon's Law, ninety percent of it is crap. With the click of a button I can find you 8 websites on how the Earth is the center of the solar system, 19 that claim evolutionary theory is false, 7 conspiracy theory websites that claim we didn't land on the moon, and at least one website that claims our president is actually a robot made of butter (I'm not kidding...). Bringing democracy to information means giving everyone a voice, even people who maybe shouldn't have one. I know that's a dangerous statement for a civil libertarian to make, but think about it for a second. Would you take cousin Wally the trucker's medical advice? How about the pizza guy's description of the technical details of nuclear weapons construction? Probably not. You'd much rather take the advice of someone with credentials. But in the anonymous world of the internet, that's exactly what the world is doing... and it leaves no room for the expert.

Slander and the Language of Oppression

Cuindless — Mon, 26 May 2008 18:43:45 GMT

WARNING: The following blog entry contains strong language that may seem hurtful and/or offensive. Reader discretion is advised. I've been doing a lot of thinking about oppression lately. One of the most common questions I hear from bigots is, "Why can black people call one another niggers, but white people can't?" Usually, I just dismiss this idiotic raving for what it is, but occasionally I feel the need to explain it. Words are tools. They can be used to build, and they can be used to destroy. As such, they are also weapons. The language of oppression centers around the fact that one party has oppressed another party for some span of time, and during that time certain words have come about to label the oppressed by the oppressor. These words can be as seemingly innocuous as "Geek" to as hurtful and harmful as the epithet I used previously. What happens, though, is interesting. The oppressed party will take that word and use it as a banner, changing the nature of the word to become a rallying cry for their cause. The oppressed salvage dignity, self-respect and a sense of community by using that word with one another as a badge of honor. The context of the word changes, then, but only when it's used within the community. When used by a member outside of the community, it retains its old meaning. Let's use some examples. In the late 18th century, the nascent United States was fighting a war for independence against a much more powerful oppressive force: Great Britain. The British labeled the American colonists "Yankees", deriving from the Dutch names Jan and Kees. The implication was that the United States was composed of half-breed Hollanders with not a single true Englishman among them. In time, though, members of the United States started using the word to define one another as a point of pride, thus the song "Yankee Doodle Dandee" was composed. Another good example is "Bitches". I've heard a lot of strong, independent women refer to one another with that term. How many of them have been called that by a man? Probably all of them. The context changes because it is members of their own community using it. As egalitarian and well-thought of as I am, I still couldn't use the term to describe those women, no matter what my intentions. I'm not a member of the oppressed community where that context has changed, so for me to use it is to use it in the original context. Redneck and geek are also good examples of the same phenomenon. I can call my friends geeks because I am also a geek. I cannot, with my Birkenstocks and Starbucks, call a farmer from rural Iowa a redneck without expecting an old fashioned beat down. The point is, the terminology that has become acceptable amongst the community of the oppressed is not acceptable to be used by the historical oppressors because, for both sides, the context has not changed. For what reason, other than hate, would a white man want to use the "N" word or the "B" word? In my mind: There isn't one.

So Much For Taking a Break

Cuindless — Fri, 23 May 2008 22:16:51 GMT

So... while taking a "break" from tribe, I've posted more than I was when I was "active". What's even more interesting is that the tenor of my posts has changed to being much more fun and happy. So maybe all I needed was the perception of a break to alter my emotional state. That, and a promotion. Oh yeah! I was promoted at work!

Taking a Break from Tribe

Cuindless — Thu, 22 May 2008 13:54:08 GMT

I'm not really sure what's happened to me lately, but I've definitely noticed a change in my behavior. I've been under a lot of stress at work and at home, and I've noticed that my posts on tribe have become a bit sharper and more edged. That's all without mentioning some of the self-indulgent crap I've been posting lately. Regardless, I'm going to take a break and get my head together. I don't want to offend more people then I've already offended.

An Analysis of Nasty Gram(mar)

Cuindless — Sat, 10 May 2008 21:49:38 GMT

The following is a nastygram sent to someone very dear to me that contains abhorrent grammar. Discretion is advised. "your a beeoch! I will certainly be in the IGNORE part of Bitches LIKE YOU! EWOOO! Must wipe nastiness from screen..' blah " Unfortunately I can make head nor tails of this tripe, so, like any good author, I will now proceed to dissemble the message into separate sentences in an attempt to analyze for meaning and context. With no further ado: "your a beeoch!" The first "sentence" is actually a fragment since there's no subject. Perhaps that first word, "your", is supposed to be both subject and verb, but if that's the case then it should be "you're". Secondly, beeoch isn't a word. Perhaps they were attempting to use the colloquial slang "beeotch". If so, they're using improper English incorrectly. Unfortunately, in this case, a double negative doesn't equate to a positive, it is merely a multiple failure. "I will certainly be in the IGNORE part of Bitches LIKE YOU! EWOOO!" Thankfully, the second sentence is actually a sentence and contains both a subject and a verb. Though "will certainly be" is passive tense, it's still acceptable English. Using all capital letters for "ignore", "like" and "you" is probably a simple expression of the poetic license of netiquette known as "shouting". The capitalization of "bitches" remains perplexing, though. The word "ewoo" appears, based on the exclamation point, to be an interjection, possibly meant to invoke a feeling of disgust similar to the slang term "eww". The writer's intent is not completely clear, however. "Must wipe nastiness from screen..' " Hmm... It appears to be another incomplete sentence fragment since the subject is, once again, missing. I am likewise unable to determine with the double period and apostrophe at the end of the "sentence" is supposed to mean. Was that, perhaps, an attempt at ellipses? If so, it was incorrectly done. Ellipses are meant for interjections, after all. "blah" No capitalization. No subject. No verb. No end punctuation. What is this, just a random word? Here is a possible corrected copy: You are a bitch. Based on your previous statements I assume you will be ignoring me because, as previously stated, you are a canine of the female persuasion. You fill me with disgust to the point that I can only say, "Eww!" I now feel that I must wipe my screen clean to rid it of your nastiness, though I recognize that is illogical and will not help. Your vitriol has made further discourse incomprehensible, thus I will finish with a nonsensical, and incorrectly punctuated, "blah". I would say that this is an improvement, but even with correct grammar the statement is lacking in substance.

Modern Inequalities and Men's Issues: Masculist Concerns

Cuindless — Wed, 07 May 2008 05:17:41 GMT

Feminism gets a lot of attention in the modern gender equality movement. The concerns of women and women's rights are normal at the forefront of any debate on gender politics or gender equality. Unfortunately, this means that the vast array of men's concerns go unnoticed or ignored. This brief essay should serve to illuminate some of these issues. The first is violence. Men are forced to register for conscription while women are not. This is a blatant double standard. Conscription should either be widened to include women or abolished completely. Less blatant but no less important is the general perception that violence against men by women is acceptable while the reverse is abhorrent. Rape of men by women has been depicted as humorous (Virgin Mobile advertisements feat. Wyclef Jean, 40 Days and 40 Nights, et cetera), while any attempt to depict rape of women by men as humorous would be shouted down as anti-feminist. Other movies portray hundreds, even thousands, of men being mercilessly killed, while depicting even one woman dying in such a fashion would be called "promoting violence against women". Parenting is another issue where men's rights are woefully lacking. Equality in child-custody cases is almost absent, with the vast majority of single mothers being awarded full custody over single fathers. In other cases pregnancies have been carried to term despite agreements ahead of time that they would not be, subjecting men to unwanted parental responsibilities and/or child support expectations (see Dubay v. Wells). The flipside of this is the fact that men in America have no rights to an unborn child and no say over whether their wife or girlfriend gets an abortion. In addition, many states in America don't allow single fathers to adopt children while single mothers have no such restrictions. Government legislation is also often blatantly misandronystic when it comes to gender equality. For examples, there are several pieces of legislation which directly address women's issues without addressing the corresponding need of men (Women, Infants, and Children Act; Violence Against Women Act). There are biases in the justice system against men as well, such as higher incarceration rates and longer sentences for men (compared to women) for the same crimes. Statutory rape laws enforced more vehemently in instances where the victim is female and/or the perpetrator is male (e.g. the cases of Mary Kay Letourneau and Vili Fualaau, Pamela Rogers, and Debra Lafave (Double Standard: The Bias Against Male Victims of Sexual Abuse). The "assumption of female innocence" is yet another example of the double standard that has lead to more male murderers being put to death per capita than female murderers. Until recently there was no accountability for the false accusation of rape either. The rape shield laws likewise make it next to impossible for an alleged rapist to face his accuser, which is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Men pay higher premiums for auto, health, life and disability insurance, though other forms of discrimination are prohibited and protected against by federal legislation. In fact, the entirety of society seems to be shifting away from men's concerns to deal with female specific issues. The increasing suicide rate of men in America (73% of suicides are white males) is almost completely ignored while rape crisis centers and abortion clinics receive government funding. Advertisement, awareness and federal funding for breast cancer research outnumbers prostate cancer funding et cetera by a disproportionate amount. The mortality rate for breast cancer is only 30% higher than prostate cancer, but it receives 4 times more funding. Men can be incarcerated for not paying child support while women often don't have to pay it at all. Whole government agencies exist specifically to deal with women's affairs, while no such agency exists to deal with men's affairs. Harder physical entrance criteria for men in many occupations, such as the army, police and fire service, which requires men to be physically stronger than women in these occupations. This leaves men responsible for a greater share of the physical work while receiving no more pay. Further Reading: The Legal Subjection of Men, 1908 attack on John Stuart Mill's 1869 The Subjection of Women. The Fraud of Feminism by Ernest Belfort Bax, 1914. The Myth of the Monstrous Male and Other Feminist Fallacies; John Gordon The Myth of Male Power: Why Men Are the Disposable Sex; Warren Farrell Not Guilty: The Case in Defense of Men; David Thomas Good Will Toward Men; Jack Kammer The New Men's Studies: A Selected and Annotated Interdisciplinary Bibliography (2nd Edition); Eugene R. August A Man's World: How Real Is Male Privilege - And How High Is Its Price?; Ellis Cose Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture; Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young Sex Differences, Modern Biology and the Unisex Fallacy, Yves Christen The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men; Christina Hoff Sommers If Men Have All the Power How Come Women Make the Rules?; Jack Kammer Domestic Violence: The 12 Things You Aren't Supposed to Know by Thomas B. James Ceasefire! : Why Women And Men Must Join Forces To Achieve True Equality; Cathy Young The Masculine Mystique; Andrew Kimbrell

Disrespecting Academics

Cuindless — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 06:22:59 GMT

I analyze data for a living. In the world of data analysis, there are two types of people. The first, which includes myself, are highly intelligent and educated with a sound grasp of logic. The second group are still highly intelligent but have never been to college. They've just been working in the field for so long that they aren't required to. Usually, these two groups get along just fine. After all, it's the data that's important. Sometimes, though, something happens that divides the lab into the two camps. Usually, it's when someone brings up either politics or religion. This time, though, it was the prospect of bringing another academic organization into the fold with ours that caused the rift. Despite the improved lab facilities, the extensive knowledge and training of the faculty and the obvious advantages of bringing them on board, some of my co-workers couldn't see passed the fact that these people were "academics". Using the word academic as if it were an insult staggered me for a moment. I was completely unaware that some people in America thought that being an academic was some sort of negative thing. Luckily, in my organization, it's the facts that pull weight and not the opinions, but it still makes me wonder how many organizations are missing out on some great expertise and intellect by dismissing "those academics".

The Eternal Struggle

Cuindless — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 05:28:41 GMT

I have been told that the life of a man is an eternal struggle for dominance with the other males around him. From Alpha to Omega, our role in life is set and the only way to rise above our station is to... well... rise above our station and become a better male. These sort of musings lead me to the place I am today. My eldest son seems to have attempted to establish his dominance. He came to me, arms outstretched in the way that only toddlers do when they want to be picked up. When I picked him up, he wrapped his arms around me, almost like choking, then put his chin to my forhead. If this were some other person's child, I might have thought it a strange coincidence. This, to me, though, was an obvious display of dominance. So, like any male, I reestablished my power by swinging him around in a playful manner. I'm strong enough to hurl my son around and maintain control over my own body. When I put him down, he ran off and found his "sippie cup". When he brought it to me, he seemed frustrated. As if to say, "Yes, I need you... but I don't have to like it." Ahh... the eternal struggle begins.

RIP Dungeon Master...

Cuindless — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 19:43:40 GMT

Yesterday the gaming world lost a legend, and one of my personal idols passed away. Ernest Gary Gygax was one of the co-creators of the Dungeons and Dragons game and remained deeply involved in the international gaming community until his death yesterday. I had the special privilege of gaming with Mr. Gygax at a convention in the early 90's. I walked away from that experience hoping that one day I would be half the storyteller and tactician that he was. "I would like the world to remember me as the guy who really enjoyed playing games and sharing his knowledge and his fun pastimes with everybody else." - E. Gary Gygax. 1938 - 2008. RIP

Now I know I'm Bored

Cuindless — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 16:45:08 GMT

WHO ARE YOU? You're on my friends list, and I want to know more about you! I don't care if we've never talked, or if we already know everything about each other. You're on my friends list, and I want to know you better. Short and sweet is fine, just be honest! COPY FROM HERE AND SEND DIRECTLY TO ME IN A MESSAGE, THEN REPOST THE EMPTY QUESTIONS AS A BULLETIN! 1) Can you cook? A: I'm doing more cooking lately, so my skill is improving. Most breakfast foods I can make, and I grill a mean steak. I'm no gourmet, but I can hold my own. 2) What was your dream growing up? A: To be a scientist. 3) What talent do you wish you had? A: Instantaneous Knowledge Acquirement. 4) If I bought you a drink, what would it be? A: Any full-bodied red wine or well-aged bourbon. 5) Favorite vegetable? A: This is difficult. Broccoli usually tops my list, but lately I've been enamored of celery. 6) What was the last book you read? A: The Search for Schrodinger's Cat by John Gribbin 7)What zodiac sign are you? A: Cancer 8) Any tattoos and/or piercings? A: No and/or no. 9) Worst habit? A: Finger tapping? 10) If you saw me walking down the street would you offer me a ride? A: On what, my shoulders? I don't drive, but sure! 11) What is your favorite sport? A: Kendo. 12) Negative or optimistic attitude? A: I would say I'm fairly optimistic. 13)What would you do if you were stuck in an elevator with me? A: I'd want to make out, but you're shy. 14) Worst thing to ever happen to you? A: That is very private. 15) Tell me one weird fact about you A: I think goats are hilarious. 16) Do you have any pets? A: No. 17) What if I showed up at your house unexpectedly? A: Help you with the groceries and note that you were home early. 18) What was your first impression of me? A: You were the most beautiful girl I'd ever seen. 19) Do you think clowns are cute or scary? A: No. 20)If you could change one thing about how you look, what would it be? A: I would straighten my nose. 21)Would you be my crime partner or my conscience? A: Partner. You don't need another conscience. 22) What color eyes do you have? A: Blue. 23) Ever been arrested? A: No. 24) Bottle or draft? A: Depends on the brand, actually. Some beers taste better from the bottle. 25) If you won $10,000 today, what would you do with it? A: Invest half, blow the other half on books. 26) Would you date me? A: Where to? 27) Whats your favorite place to hang out? A: With you. 28) Do you believe in ghosts? A: No, but I'm open to the possibility of their existence. 29) Favorite thing to do in your spare time? A: Play D&D. 30) Do you swear a lot? A: Not as much as some, but more than I'd like to. 31) Biggest pet peeve? A: Poor grammar. 32)In one word, how would you describe yourself? A: Intelligent. 33) Do you believe/appreciate romance? A: I don't believe in romance, I am aware of it as a fact. Similar to how scientists don't "believe" in gravity, I don't "believe" in love. I experience it. I appreciate it. 34)If you could spend 12 hours with me and ask/do whatever you liked, what would it be? A: First, you wouldn't drive anywhere. It would be a chauffeur all night. Fine dining by candlelight followed by a good movie or perhaps a show. Taking in a ballet, dance show, opera or Cirque would be very nice. After that, it's a lavish hotel room with a two person bath and jacuzzi.A little you-know-what before a good night sleep. I'll get the kids up in the morning... 35)Will you repost this so I can fill it out and do the same? A: Why not?

Scouting the Perimeter

Cuindless — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 04:08:48 GMT

I took my eldest son to the mall today because it has a nice play area. I was hoping that he would play with the other children, but I'm not really sure why. Instead, he walked the perimeter of the play area, occasionally getting excited about some piece of minutiae that I'm not certain anyone else would understand but him. For those who don't know, my son is autistic. This got me thinking about my own childhood. I've often wondered if I have un-diagnosed autism. Many of the classic autistic traits seem normal to me. I remember most keenly when I was a young boy walking the perimeter of the fenced off play area at my elementary school, lost in my own thought. I remember asking questions of teachers that I was later told were "impolite" or "not appropriate". "Does not play well with others," appeared on my report card more times than I care to count. I won't even go into the number of times I was called in for parent/teacher conferences. Of course, this train of thought inevitably made it's next stop at my current work situation. Over many years I have forcibly learned the laws of social interaction, even though they continue to make no sense. I started work at my current office about 1.5 years ago (June of 2006). I was full of hope and promise... I always am. The people seemed so intelligent, and they were willing to engage with me on all my pet ideas. Not just science... that's our job... but politics, religion and philosophy as well. As the election season warmed up we started discussing candidates, political ideologies, the differences between stated agenda and actual agenda. Not to mention my most delightful obsession: Semantics. In time, though, it became all too clear that this was just one more link in a chain of defeated optimism. Soon, no one would discuss the subjects I found dear any longer. "I don't talk about politics at work," became de rigeur. Some were blunt about it... "I don't want to hear your opinion," they'd say. Others were more subtle... "I'm not sure I can keep up with you." One by one, though, they stopped talking to me. I'm not sure why. Part of me thinks that it's because my opinions are different than theirs. I work in an almost uniformly conservative office. Comparitively, even though I'm just middle of the road, I must seem like a liberal. Gods forbid I think that the words "separation of church and state" actually mean something... but I digress. Part of me, probably the arrogant part, thinks that it's because I'm willing to do the research and exercise the necessary independent thought to form a real, self-actualized conclusion. Am I too brainy for an office of scientists? Then there's the dark and secret part of me that wonders... am I still not good enough?

Why Do I Laugh?

Cuindless — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 14:32:40 GMT

A co-worker told a joke today and I laughed at it, even though I didn't think it was funny. Everyone else was laughing, but to me the joke was filled with logical flaws and incorrect statements. I got the joke... it just wasn't funny. But I laughed anyway. A few moments later, one of my other co-workers who seems generally interested in getting to know the real me noticed that the laugh was fake. "Why did you laugh?" He asked me. "I laughed because I didn't want to ruin everyone else's good time," I replied. "You didn't think the joke was funny?" "No. I thought the joke was misinformed about the realities of the current political situation in the middle east. I also thought the joke rested on at least 3 logical fallacies which make the observation irrelevant." He stared at me for a long time after that before finally admitting I was right... my observations would have ruined everyone else's enjoyment of the joke. It was better to just laugh. I wonder what would happen if I just stopped laughing.