On Presidents and the Rapture

Is it morally correct for a person who believes that the end of the world is at hand, who believes in the apocalypse, who believes in armageddon, who believes in the rapture, and more importantly, believes they will be called up to Heaven during the rapture, to run for President?

Think about that. Makes you really want to cruise through the chain of command and assess the first unwashed heathen that person chose.  Here is the official list of the chain of Presidential succession:

1. Vice President
3. Speaker of the House
4. President Pro Tempore of the Senate
5. Secretary of State
6. Secretary of the Treasury
7. Secretary of Defense
8. Attorney General
9. Secretary of the Interior
10. Secretary of Agriculture
11. Secretary of Commerce
12. Secretary of Labor
13. Secretary of Health and Human Services
14. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
15. Secretary of Transportation
16. Secretary of Energy
17. Secretary of Education
18. Secretary of Veterans Affairs
19. Secretary of Homeland Security

I am predicting someone on the evangelical far right is going to lock up buddies of salvation all the way to "Secretary of Health and Human Services". After that, there are too many "good things done by government", and I am sure all the folks there your typical righty would be happy to see perish leading the faithless in a battle against the forces of darkness during Armageddon.

Isn't that just the height of responsibility? What if, two seconds after "So help me God." the newly elected is sucked to heaven, leaving the rest of us to cope with a thousand years of hellfire and warfare?

The website that flipped my brain

I personally believe that most people never really change their minds about how the world works. This became an apparent phenomenon in communication and rhetorical theory when supposed "silver bullet" theories of persuasion were demonstrated ineffective when they bounced off the walls of people's disposition and existing beliefs.

Which is why it is always surprising to find something that changes your mind on a topic completely in ways you never expected. It is also surprising when changing your mind forces you to admit things you did not want to admit about what you used to believe. Sometimes these admissions make you feel guilty.

The following website did this to me a few years ago: http://ballastexistenz.autistics.org. I was led to this website by the following video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnylM1hI2jc

Okay, so here is the mind flip. Previous to watching this video, and then following to the website, my belief system was as follows:

• people who are so impaired that they uncontrollably moan and hand flap (or other behaviors we would consider odd) are so impaired that their intellect is also impaired
• likewise, people who are so impaired that even though they can hear and can vocalize but they still cannot talk are also intellectually impaired
• the level of intellectual impairment is strong enough that they really don't have the level of self-awareness to appreciate what is happening around them
• as sad as their existence seems, it is not as if they are really missing anything - as if life is kind of a blur to them - almost a sub-intelligent madness of sorts

So, I see this video (you have to watch it to see what I mean), and then I follow to the website. In just a few minutes, the entire belief construct had to come tumbling down. This isn't something that comes crashing down without pain - because you have to admit that you are participating in a belief construct that has led to cruel isolation, institutionalization, ridicule, patronization, etc. for a group of people that are just as intellectually capable of perceiving the world around them as anybody.

The crash came from reading the writings of the website author. She is the individual in the video - she cannot speak. She flaps her hands uncontrollably. She emits a humming "language" that is a sensory interaction between herself and the elements in her environment (the water from the faucet, etc.). Every single bit of behavior in the video appears odd, strange. Most people (myself included) would have looked at her and just thought she was an invalid - incapable of formulating real thought.

But contrast that, then, to her writing on the website. As she explains in some of her posts, the writing comes with extreme effort. It is taxing for her to do it. But she forces herself to because she is an activist. The quality of the material, of the arguments and the writing is incredibly high - and not high in a "oh, how cute... the cripple is saying something" way you might get on some sort of Oprah show. This is high quality as in "Geezus, I wish the folks at Newsweek wrote this well once in a while". This is hard hitting, unapologetic, unsentimental hyper-opinionated stuff with lots of edge and incredibly well constructed arguments.

So, my reaction. Frankly - horror. The best analogy I could think of was premature burial, maybe waking up in surgery. I suddenly thought to myself - "Oh my god, what must it be like to be tossed away in institutions, or to be treated as badly as these people have been, and to be fully aware and awake and able to fully feel all the pain and emotions?" I imagined what it would be like if I were suddenly stripped of all ability to communicate, and then had some weird movement quirks tossed on top, but otherwise still the same... and then to be handed over to a bunch of people who didn't know there was a "me" inside. I suddenly realized that for hundreds - thousands - of years, this is what we had been doing to autistic people.

I excused myself from the guilt. I blamed it on ignorance, product of my times and all that. Fact is, though, I still feel bad. I also have to wonder if I ever would have bothered to watch the video if my own son were not autistic, or if my oldest daughter had not had so many developmental issues growing up. There is a part of me that wants to call me a hypocrite for letting my mind be changed... "You wouldn't if it wasn't impacting you directly." - that's what the little voice says.

But I guess the only important question is, what do you do with the information?

For me, it has meant a lot to how I interact with my son, Ethan. My gut reaction is to assume that if he isn't behaving the same way I expect that he isn't "getting it" - frankly, my gut reaction is to give him about as much credit as I might give a dog. I have to fight this gut reaction, though, and force myself to act as if he "gets it" just as much as all the other kids. It is so difficult, because all the cues for getting it (looking in the eye, acknowledging with the correct verbal response, etc. - its hard to describe the gap) are missing and are replaced with every indication that the kid is just somewhere else. But still, I pretend I am not seeing it and talk to him like I would talk to a kid that isn't acting autistic.

What I find is that he actually does get it. As far as I can tell, he gets things on a level consistent with other kids his age - he just has all these autistic issues that get in the way. I can say something to him like "Ethan, go find the remote control" and he will go around the house looking for the remote control. If I ask him "Ethan, where is the remote control", however, I will get a nonsense response like "Ethan not remote control"... if I get a response at all.

He even makes jokes. Almost all our conversations are scripted. For example, he might ask "Daddy, do you want to eat an apple?", and then "Daddy, do you want to eat waffle?" and then back to apple, and then waffle. He does this because he has the script for it memorized - these are not extemporaneously composed sentences. But then, in the middle of it, he looks at me and said "Daddy, do you want to eat Chewbacca?", and he gets this big snarky grin on his face and starts laughing his ass off.

So, now, pretend I had never suppressed my gut instinct. Suppose I never commited to communicating with him like he knows what I am saying. Suppose that his therapists never believed that he was capable of this level of understanding.

When he was younger, he made zero eye contact. He wouldn't turn his head if you called his name. If he wanted something, he would grab your hand, and put it on the thing he wanted - he saw you, and your hand, as a tool - not as a human being. We had to put weeks and weeks of training in to teach him to say "Daddy, I want ". It was incredibly difficult.

The fact is, he would far more easily just sit and play by himself and never interact with another human at all. In lots of ways, it really was easier to treat him like a dog. It would have been so much easier to leave him that way, and just assume that is all there really was with him. That is what society has been doing with autistic people all along. At some point, though, they get too big and too old to just let sit around - their desires and needs get more sophisticated - and they become physically strong enough that their actions can hurt themselves or the people around them. At that point, this person who nobody has learned how to talk to, and that has not been taught how to talk to other people, is put away somewhere. Maybe they are left on the street, maybe they are locked in the basement, maybe they are put in an institution. Society rejects them.

But I realize now that Ethan just needs help. How much help is hard to forsee, but he is a fully intelligent, thinking, feeling individual that is capable of realizing what is going on around him. The possibility exists that the amount of help he needs may someday exceed our capacities as parents (there are gut-wrenching horror stories out there) - but knowing that being autistic, even when the symptoms are very overt and seemingly disabling, does not equate to some sort of below-conscious state has been an important tool in my belt as a parent.

That is the most important way the website and video affected me. Not many things do that to me.

There are other ways I was affected - more mildly. I was impressed, for example, that a person could be so eloquent when they had spent so much of their life unable to talk to other people. Most people I know have a very difficult time writing anything coherently. I was impressed, even more so, by the viewpoints and arguments in the blog postings, all of which were so novel and new to me. It is rare that you get to hear a totally new idea tossed about, and BallastExistenz has plenty of them.

How I would prefer this health plan thing was done

I have said to lots of people that I support a public health care option of some sort. I am not too particular about its shape, so long as there is an insurance net that protects people who cannot afford health insurance. I also favor overall health care reform that gets costs under control and prevents the case where people's lives can be utterly destroyed by one massive medical bill.

But that doesn't mean I like how things are going in the current health care proposal - and my discontent is aimed at Democrats, Republicans and Mr. Obama. Here is my breakdown of things that I wish we would change.

1. Lose the antagonism
I agree with Obama's statement that the time for bickering is over. I wish that people would stop playing party wars and just work on the problem at hand.
I was quite upset, then, when in the middle of the speech Obama pulled out the "we said/you said" guns. He ripped at the Republicans for trying to privatize Medicare. He ripped at congress people, senators and a governor for promoting the death panel argument. He ripped at the previous administration for its spending practices.
And in the same speech he tries to position himself as the father figure coming in to tell the troops to behave. You lose a lot credibility on that stance when you immediately afterward: 1> pick a side, 2> start throwing the same tomatos.
I assume it is Obama's inner litigator getting the better of him. I get it - I do the same thing. When someone throws a line of bullcrap at you, bury them. In some venues it is almost a moral obligation to demonstrate that you don't take that sort of crap. In some venues.
The venue where it does not work is the one where you need the other guy to help solve the problem. If you just finished telling them they are liars, connivers, plotters and schemers (even if it is true) and then jump in and hurl jabs back, then you are going to lose them. It doesn't matter how reasonable your points are because you didn't lose on rationality. You lost by pure alienation and insult.
The President should have legitimately risen above the fray. Yes, he should have acknowledged the opposition, the attacks - but only so much as to give context to explain the counter argument. He should have ignored the insults like a bear ignoring bees. He should have focused more on laying out the mechanics of the plan, the options on the table and the means to solve the impasse so that the people in the room would be able to get to work. He should have left nobody any room to cry "foul" for him taking a partisan stance. I wish that had happened.

2. Lose the timeline urgency
I do not buy the argument that we need a full-packaged solution in place now. Human kind has lived for millenia with dreadful healthcare. Our healthcare has only reached humane proportions in the last century at best. The species knows how to continue its existence with misery, suffering and pain. I want a solution, but I would rather work on it slowly and get it right than rush it in. I believe rushing it in and getting it wrong will have worse impact than if we had not done it at all.
I am very cynical about the reason for the urgency. I believe the real reason for the urgency is because nobody wants "I voted yes on public health care" on the minds of the voters come next election. I suspect Obama knows this, and knows he won't get nearly as much participation from Democrat candidates if this goes on longer. They want this over and done with so they can put something else in recent memory to talk to their voters about. If this thing is all they have they are doomed at the polls and they know it.
This really makes me upset, because I believe we are going to lose the possibility of getting anything because of the rush. I want this to slow down. I want us to take longer thinking about how it should be done. I want us to... well... read the next section

3. Break the monolith into miniliths
Fixing health care actually has support from both sides. Disagreement is on exactly what to do and exactly what needs fixing. Maybe I think the wrong way for Congress, but that to me sounds like the type of thing you break into multiple bills which you vote on separately. Just a layman look, I would propose a couple: 1> health care insurance policy reform bill: this would cover all the "no pre-existing condition clause, no maximum lifetime cap... etc" stuff, 2> health care cost control reform bill: okay, I have no ideas on this, but the current bill seems to be rolling a bunch of stuff into it that proposes to reduce costs - so let's put those together, 3> public health care coverage bill: this is the one everyone is pissing in the wind about, so let's isolate it and have the vote on it so that it doesn't do collateral damage to other stuff people actually want...
Something like that. I am sure there are smarter ways.
I hear a lot of "If you don't keep clause , this all comes crashing down! You have to do !!!" I don't do economics, but I have been doing software testing for almost twenty years now, and I always cry "bullshit" on that. I hear it every time - some person become passionately enamored with a feature, and once they hear it is going to be cut declare the entire product unshippable without it. They have amazingly sound arguments... so compelling. Well, I have seen many features cut on a product line that makes billions of dollars a year... and I have seen many "critical" features kept (at high cost with added bugginess) that didn't matter two ounces to the customer. I suspect strongly the same thing goes with different aspects of any legislation - health care proposal included.
What I have learned from shipping software, though, is that you have to ship SOMETHING. Shipping late is bad, but not as bad as never shipping, and not nearly as bad as shipping something so dreadful and improperly built that you cannot sell or support it. It is better to cut in order to save the product. Yes, cutting is a risk - but let's remember what we are trying to accomplish here and not get so tied to our individual fixations.
And that is my proposal on the health care bill. One giant monolith, it is likely to die. Cut into pieces, the individual chunks may make it through. You also take the heat and controversy off the whole item - which means that you are far more likely to get comprose and less partisan bickering once people see parts of the problem they can actually work with.

Maybe I am naive, but I actually believe that if antagonism is dropped, the urgency removed, the timeline relaxed and the problem broken up into more workable chunks we would see both sides actually working on this issue in healthy debate. I wish Obama had seized the opportunity to work this way.

I've got your death panel right here...

We shouldn't have publicly funded health care.

Why?

Because, if we do, the government will need to manage the costs paid out to recipients. This will motivate them to adopt policies that will restrict care which could save people's lives. For example, they could have end of life counseling sessions where they recommend inexpensive pain treatments rather than more expensive life-sustaining treatment.

So, because of this possibility, we should not offer publicly funded health care?

Right.

What happens to people that need health care, then?

They get it covered by private insurance companies.

What if they cannot afford private insurance?

They will get it from their employer.

What if their employer doesn't offer it?

They will have to buy it themselves.

No... we already asserted they couldn't afford private insurance.

Oh, well they will pay for medical costs out of pocket, then.

The main purpose of insurance is to cover medical costs you cannot afford out of pocket, or at even at all. Yes, some plans offer more than that, but the primary service is to address the affordability problem by spreading the cost around. So, we are talking about expenses, which by definition, this person cannot pay for out of pocket - and in many cases could not pay for without completely losing everything in terms of their home, house, etc. Also, many medical situations make a person unable to work, further decreasing their ability to pay. How will they pay for the medical care then?

Um... well... you see because the taxpayers aren't paying for a public option...

You cannot use that because it hasn't happened yet, and we are talking about a realistic hypothetical example that happens now. If the taxpayer burden for public health care has not been imposed yet you cannot suddenly give all that money to our person needing care at this moment.

Well, I mean, isn't that their fault for not getting a better job?

Let's ignore the culpability of this individual for the moment. We'll get back to it.

Do you promise, because I really wanted to...

I know you did. I promise. But let's ask the question, what is going to happen to them?

I guess they just don't get the medical care they need.

Correct. Then what happens?

Well, I guess it depends on what they have.

Okay, so if you had Leukemia, what would probably happen if you didn't get treatment.

You would die.

Okay. So, a likely result is death, correct?

Yes.

All right, and this death happened because why?

The Leukemia.

Well, yes, you are correct, but why wasn't the Leukemia treated?

Really, isn't that their fault for not getting a better job?

Hold on. We aren't talking about culpability of the individual yet. I know you want to talk about that, but I promised we would get back to it. So, why didn't the Leukemia get treated?

Because the person didn't have the money.

Okay, and why didn't they have the money?

Well, their job... you see... and...

Okay, I know what you want to say. We will get to that. But, when they didn't have enough money on their own, did the government give them the money?

No.

Right. And would it be correct to say that the government didn't give them the money because, as policy, the government doesn't have a public health plan?

Yes.

So, in effect, this was a decision. This decision was that people are on their own to provide for their own medical insurance. If they cannot, the government will not help. Is it fair to say that this decision was driven by cost reasons?

Yes! Yes! Oh... yeah, now you get it!! You see, taxpayers people cannot be expected to pay for the health care of others who cannot afford it!!

Right. So cost reasons.

Oh, I am so glad we agree on that point! Now you are getting it!

I am glad too. Now, what was wrong with death panels? Why wouldn't they offer treatment to peopled needing health care?

It was because they would be motivated to control costs... um...

Yes?

Well...

You said "Motivated to control costs...", in other words because of cost reasons, correct?

Hey, um...

So, in effect, the decision not to provide publicly funded health care is really providing the same functional purpose as a death panel. It is making decisions, as a matter of policy, and independent of the decisions that a doctor and a patient make together in the best interests of the patient, what medicine to provide and what not to provide. All of these decisions are motivated purely by cost interests. So, by matter of definition, we have a death panel in place right now. Please remind me, is a death panel a good thing, or a bad thing?

Hey, wait - but this person... it's their fault! They should have worked harder, studied harder, got a better job, saved more money instead of spending it all on beer and donuts and getting a big fat ass and making me, a responsible taxpayer, cover their expenses.

Ah. You talk as if you know this person very well. Do you?

Well, no, but come on, look at most people, see how they behave! They don't deserve it! They're all a bunch of whiners.

Oh, statistics! You want to work with statistics!

Yes! I mean, it isn't morally right to have a bunch of lazy bums sap money from people who work hard.

Okay, so we should use statistics to determine who deserves health care.

Yes, let's be scientific.

Guess who else uses statistics to decide who deserves health care.

Rush Limbaugh?

I don't know. But I know who else. A death panel.

Hubba... wha?

A death panel looks at demographics, behavior, cost of success of procedure and other factors and decides who gets treatment and who does not. You seem pretty ready to whip out statistics right now. How do you feel about a death panel telling you that you are a good person or a bad person, or that you deserve to die because the medical condition you have is something you brought on yourself.

I would be really upset... but...

So, if we have defacto implemented a death panel by not providing public health care, and if the proponents are justifying this decision, as you just did, by suggesting that people cannot afford medical coverage because of something they brought on themselves and therefore do not deserve it, well, it seems that the death panel is indeed doing that very thing. How does this make you feel.

You're a Liberal!

I am confused. Is that an actual response to the question?

Communist! You are a socialist pinko.

No, I don't think that was an actual answer. I think that was a personal attack. Our conversation is still incomplete without your answer...

You're a Nazi! You want to suck the pocket books of the people dry!!!!

Now you are confused. The Nazi movement was anti-Communist, so accusing me of being both doesn't really make sense.

His birth certificate is a fake!!!!

Okay, now you are just getting weird.

I don't think this is about health care...

The anger seems way out of proportion.

To every person I have had an argument with that has calmly present balanced, and well supported reasons and facts against the health care bill... this is not directed at you. But if you showed up at an Obama speech with an automatic rifle, or if you are in league with the birthers, or if you cannot talk about health care without passing out in fear from anxiety over death panels... you are it.

If this was really about where to put the tax dollars, then I would expect the debate to be far more reasoned. People may demonstrate some passion, and some excitement, but the anger seems far beyond just discussing budget allocations.

The debate seems to be about something far deeper. This debate is, I believe, showing something about our inner personality as a nation that we don't even consciously realize ourselves.

I believe that what is happening is that this debate is actually destabilizing things people very closely associate with their personal identity. I believe that people create a set of rules about how the world ought to be and look, and tie that in to their identity. To challenge the veracity of those rules is to invite an irrational debate, because they rules are not defended as a matter of a series of points and counter points to be considered, but instead are defended as a personal matter, because giving up on those rules means giving up on yourself - you have to become a different person to accept the challenge, and human beings do not like to give up on their definition of self.

I don't believe, however, that we clearly understand the rules we entangle with identity. I believe the rules are expressed at a subconscious level and that we post-hoc rationalize them with more palatable explanations.

Case in point - a couple of the individuals in my church that I attended as a child were racist. They would have never considered themselves racist, but just the fact that they tried to teach the kids in our Sunday school class that interracial couples should not marry was pretty solid proof to me. Their justification - "There are enough challenges keeping a marriage together and raising children without adding the extra burden that mixing the races will introduce" My suspicion of their inner reason that they wouldn't admit to was likely "Mixing white and black people is wrong because the one group is better than the other". Of course I don't know that, but come on. I am asserting, though, that for these specific people, they proposed a really weak argument against interracial marriage because they needed to supply something that sounded rational to explain a highly irrational position that their personal identity had been attached to a long time ago. It was part of their world order that white and black were different classes of species and they could not stand to see their world tossed out and redefined.

Back to health care... I completely respect the suggestion that a publicly provided health care option might not fix the problem. I completely respect the suggestion that there are better ways to use the money. I disagree, and in my disagreement admit that this is too complex for anybody to really be certain about - but still respect the opposing opinion when it is clear that the person is really just offering the counter proposal.

But there appears to be something else here. Shouting out town hall meetings? Death panel suggestions? Making up falsehoods about what the proposal suggests? No, there is more baggage here, and it is being driven by a highly irrational need to preserve personal identity.

I have my suspicions. I actually don't believe racism is the dominant motivation (although when I see more violent expression... like guns, Nazi references, etc. I start to suspect a deeper hatred because of race). My bigger suspicion is in an innate American hatred for poor people.

American tradition, American work ethic, as good as it is, is based largely on Calvinist doctrine. One of the aspects of Calvanism is the basic assertion that rich people are rich because they are good and industrious (hence God rewarded them) and poor people are poor because they are bad and lazy (hence God punishes). This definitely has some positive impact on society - it creates a culture that respects hard work, self-sufficiency, cleverness, etc. But it also releases people, and society at large, from an obligation to do anything about people that need help. It removes, completely, the possibility that people are victims of circumstances. It re-inforces the "this is mine, and you cannot have it!" not as selfishness, but as a virtue to be exalted and rewarded. This philosophy is wired deeply into the American ethic such that it defines a piece of personal identity for many people in America.

To admit that this view is wrong would mean admitting that you really ought not to get every last stitch of value from your hard work. It means that having more is not as good as giving more. It means admitting that you are no better than someone who is unable to pay for their home, their food, their health care. If you grew up believing to the contrary, then changing this means literally replacing your entire self-image with another. The walls will come up.

I believe there are other forces at work. Humans generally have a need to identify themselves as part of a group. Makes sense. Gorillas do it to, and we have continued it all the way through our evolution. Most of our existence was spent in village culture. It is only a small sliver of human existence where we have to exist in a non-village lifestyle, and it is no surprise that some part of ourselves has not really adapted to it.

I believe the same part of the brain that makes us need family, clan, village, etc. also makes us seek out other groupings of identity. Church. Club. Social peers. Work. Political party. Mobs. Protest rallies. Street gangs.

Once a person strongly ties themself to a group, it gets wired into personal identity. At that point, our protection of that association supercedes rationality. We almost don't care why, anymore, we are associated with a particular group - we just preserve that association.

This leads to actions in bulk. Democrats opposed Bush (1 & 2) for being Republican. Republicans opposed Clinton, and Obama for being Democrat. Most members of society even really understand the issues the different parties stand for, cannot articulate the goals or agenda of a given politician. People are really voting for the club. Why do they do that? They do it because the club they belong to is part of them.

It is the people who are very strongly tied to their party that will go nuts. Death panels freaks. Birthers. Swift boaters. People who assert the Pentagon wasn't struck by a plane.

There are other deeply rooted ethics. There is an American ethic of suppressed pride replaced with outer humility. Sounding "high and mighty" is frowned on in older, traditional American ethics. In the Puritan ethic, people were respected more for keeping their mouth shut than for speaking out. "It is better to be silent and thought a fool than to open one's mouth and prove the point." I love that quote, and probably should pay more attention to its advice, but in this case it leads a prejudice.

The prejudice is basically to distrust anybody who sounds smart. Use big words? You are an elitist. Use subtle arguments? You are shifty. You have an ivy league education with outstanding grades and a stellar reputation as a scholar? You are too big for your britches. Have a "C" in college, booze it up, speak with a limited vocabulary and make references that indicate you really don't understand anything about other nations and cultures - you are a "regular guy". People trust you.

This prejudice likewise ties in with identity. For one thing, it excuses the regular person for not being that very smart person. It provides justification for their envy and allows them to ignore their own feelings of insecurity. So what if they didn't get good grades, go to college? The guys that did - they cannot be trusted. They are unethical. There is something suspicious about them. This type of support and defense against personal insecurity is all wired in with who a person believes they are. The wiring is subconscious, because to be consciously aware of it would necessitate admitting that the person is really just covering up a sense of self doubt.

And, again, this sort of thing is defended with weak, strange, non-sequitir positions because the person cannot connect with their real reason. So many people say they don't trust Obama because he comes off as smug, too smart, elitist. What is wrong with elitist? We are talking running the most powerful country in the world! Heck yes, we need an elite leadership - so long as that elitism is based on intelligence, which is precisely the type of elitism that people seem to be complaining about. The fact is the only thing wrong with elitism is that it forces people to recognize that they are not that elite person, and that they feel inadequate about it.

I am offering my specific suspicions here - and I may be way off on the details. However, I am absolutely convinced that the notion of supporting inner subconscious motives that are intertwined with personal identity are really what is going on. All my examples have been about the current right wing attack on the health care proposal - but I believe that we have seen lots the same thing in the left movement as well. I believe the WTO riots (not necessarily the protests... the labor folks, for example, I think had a sensible statement to make) were really because there were people who had an inner need to throw rocks at the establishment because that was how they had identified themselves. This is a human phenomenon that hits us on all sides.

So, what to do? Will the problem ever go away? Can one propose controversial change without a public freakshow on the other side.

I am very skeptical and cynical about this. I had a discussion with someone once about gay rights. I suggested that the opposition was not going to come around with discussion. I suggested that what really needed to happen was for the opposition to get old and die. I personally believe that this is the heart of social change. New generations come about and their personal identity is molded based on the times that surround them. You don't get change by changing people's minds. You get change because the population supporting the previous opinion diminishes in size and is replaced by a population that supports the change. Young people are the only true hope of social change. Those in the generation ahead of them will always fight an uphill battle with their predecessors and peers. It is the young people, watching that battle, that eventually embrace the change and make it happen.

This means that the battle must always be waged. One must likely still strive for the dialogs as if minds would be changed, but this is for sake of showing the example to minds still forming. Racial acceptance, acceptance of gay lifestyle - to previous generations this was not just odd, it was morally wrong. To the young that are growing up today, most of them cannot even comprehend racial inequality (as opposed to my peers when I was young - I still remember the kids on my block telling me you had to hide whenever a car full of black people drove by - they used the N word, of course), and a growing number of them now and in the future will not understand inequality against gay people. This is in spite of a population of adults now who still do not see it this way.

Mass phenomenon in popular media

Marshall McLuhan coined the term "global village" in response to the rise of widespread mass media. I have always taken that to mean that when media was slow (word of mouth, could only travel as fast as someone on foot or horse) our area of interesting information extended about as far as the ground local villages covered. If something happened to someone 100 miles away, you probably never heard about it.

Or cared. Because it was not relevant to you. Or important.

Consider numbers and proportions and statistics for just a second. A village has at most a couple hundred people. Often less. If something happens to 1% of those people, you will know about it. If something happens to .01% of those people, you probably will never hear about it. Further, that number is so small, that the significance of it happening at all is fairly unimportant. Logically, you probably shouldn't even care.

But now, our "village" is defined by the boundaries of a much larger communication range. We can cover the entire planet, but let's forget about that and think of just the United States. If something happens in Plunketvilleport, Maine (yes, I made that up - but doesn't it just sound like all the little puny towns on the east coast?) then we can hear about it within minutes on the west coast. Consider the visibility of small statistical probabilities now. We are talking about things that can occur to .000001% of the people, because the possible population we are talking about is the size of the entire United States.

"But wait," one might say "if it is that small a proportion of the population, why would it make it on the popular media?"

Because the media lives for spectacle. It makes more money, and the more unusual and the more bizarre something is, the more it rubs against people's sense of right and wrong or curiosity, the more the media desperately wants to pick it up.

Add to this another important factor. Consider the TYPES of people who work in popular media creation. These are people interested in popular media. It is just like computer software - the people that make it are into computers, and think EVERYBODY should be into computers as much as they are. Likewise, the people who film, write and report the stories think everybody should be fascinated with the same things they are. And what are they fascinated with? Well, just take a look. They are fascinated with Octomom, Jon and Kate, Britney, Michael Jackson, Paris Hilton, Oprah, Angelina Jolie, Madonna.

The end result of this is that the bulk of popular media fills up with an increasingly larger quantity of trivial material. These are events and occurences that 1> occur with very low levels of statistical significance, 2> are so far and distant from the people consuming the media to have any real impact on them, 3> are selected from a set of fetish topics chosen by the people who happen to be into those fetishes.

We are inundated with material that is unimportant and does not matter. Really - ask yourself the following:

• Is it important to me, and society in general, what Octomom does? If she makes any decision, will it actually affect me or society?
• Is it important to me, and society in general, whether Jon and Kate split up, or work it out and get their act together?
• If Oprah ever manages to get total control over her weight will society be the better for it? Will I be the better for it? What if Oprah continues to have weight issues, will that actually affect my personal health and well-being?
• Will my life change if it turns out Michael Jackson was murdered?
• Will my life change if Madonna adopts another baby from Africa? Will my life change if Angelina Jolie's lips grow wings and fly to Mars?

The questions above are rhetorical - the answer to all of them is "No". Increasingly, though, the media is portraying these events not as novel trivialities for sake of amusement, but as if they are somehow important. Somehow, Octomom's behavior raises issues that we need answers for. This is all just posturing by the media in an attempt to get more eyeballs - invent a bit of controversy and you get people watching.

I write all this knowing it will not change anytime soon. This like this happen when humans have built-in desires and proclivities that someone figures out how to exploit. It's like sugar, we have a built-in drive to consume it that developed during the 99% of human existence when food was incredibly scarce and hard to acquire. Now that sugar is easy to get, it's nearly killing us and as a population we cannot seem to stop consuming it. There is something about human behavior that clues into these things that did not develop when information could spread as quickly as it does now. In order for this sort of thing to change it must introduce an evolutionary disadvantage to those with the proclivity versus those without it. That disadvantage must impact successful propagation and continuation of the species. So, if worrying about Octomom's behavior means you never leave your house and therefore mate, well then maybe those who don't care will be the ones who lead us into the future. Or maybe fixating on Jon & Kate will cause a culture to ignore an invasion from a media adverse third world country that storms in and kills us all. I don't see those outcomes as very likely. I keep thinking of the movie "Idiocracy" that asserted the stupid people just have more kids and edge out the smart people, so in a couple thousand years we are inevitably headed toward a world of TV-addicted morons (dumb movie, but some of the humor in it is pretty funny).

What would Jesus do? taxes and freedom

There is a popular phrase among Christians today. "What would Jesus do?" While the phrase has some ludicrous implications that don't extend to the expectations placed upon Christians (such as establishing yourself at the right hand of God and declaring yourself to be the authority by which all humankind is saved, for example - although there so do seem to be a lot of Christians who act is if they were given that charter), it is often a good guiding compass for regular moral behavior. Say, when you want to spraypaint "jerk" on your neighbor's garage door because they play loud music at midnight, you think "What would Jesus do?" and put the can of red enamel back on the shelf.

So, the question: Should we fight to the death (other people's death and ours, both on the table) to ensure our own freedoms? - and the rhetorical response, "What would Jesus do?"

I love rhetorical responses, because you are implying the answer is obvious without actually giving the answer. In truth the answer is ambiguous, but the person offering the rhetorical response really only has one point in mind, and if you don't know what it is then you apparently aren't smart or informed enough to know, which immediately puts you on the losing side of the debate without even offering a position, because from here on out we can remind you that we demonstrated early on that your capacities for intelling argument are in question anyway, so anything you say from here on out is really just - well cute, but not worth considering.

Anyway, I don't know what Jesus would do. I can only guess. But my guess is that Jesus, when faced with his own lack of freedom, would not have killed anybody to secure it. We are talking about a man who in his own trial for acts of sedition against the state of Rome offered no defense. We are talking about a man who was the member of an oppressed population under Roman occupation, during a time when virtually every religious movement was about the return of a Messiah to throw off the Roman hold and re-establish the nation of Israel. This is what Jesus' apostles all thought was going to happen. You can imagine that Peter, when he grabbed the sword from the Roman gaurd and cut off the ear of one of the soldiers was thinking "This is it! This is the moment it starts!" And Jesus is the man who at that moment offered no resistance and healed the ear of the man Peter struck.

Now, today, when we talk about freedom in America, we are usually talking about far more trivial issues than occupation by a foreign empirical force. "Freedom" is frequently described in terms of "freedom to use my money without paying taxes..." So, when faced with the oppressive occupation of his native people by the Roman empire, Jesus didn't take up one sword, lead any riots or throw one stone. He did not instruct his people to do likewise. If under those conditions he did virtually nothing about freedom, then what would he say about the things that people get fired up about now?

Would Jesus get all fired up about higher taxes? Would Jesus get mad about a publicly offered health care plan?
Again, I don't know. I can only guess. I don't believe Jesus would care one bit about taxes either way. When asked whether or not people should pay taxes to Ceasar, his response was "give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's, give unto God what is God's" Now, there is a lot of baggage associated with this statement, and you can read it many ways. Previous to this response, he had asked whose image was on the coin (hint: Ceasar's...) - so someone being really literal (don't get me started on literalism...) would say "Oh, so it is because Ceasar's face is on it... and since George Washington is dead we don't have to give our dollar to him anymore..." - but that obviously misses the point. Others might indicate that Ceasar had declared himself a god, and the people were asking Jesus if paying taxes was like a tithe, and that Jesus was only indicating that it was not. My personal take on this - Jesus was telling people "Just pay your taxes. Your concerns need to be of matters of a spiritual nature, and taxes are not among them." I believe Jesus would have paid his taxes without getting all worked up over it.

Regarding publicly funded health care, I am assuming he would be in favor of it. There was a popular religious belief at the time that people's misfortunes were based on misdeeds of their ancestors. Jesus' apostles even asked him concerning this once during one of his healings. This is not much different than popular American Christian post-Calvinist beliefs that rich people are well enough because they deserve it (higher virtue and such) and that poor people bring their problems on themselves and thus deserve their disadvantages. Jesus' response to his apostles was that the man being healed was that way to give evidence of the glory of God (I paraphrase). Remember that Jesus spent a lot of time hanging out with people that were considered the bottom of society - people of a criminal element. Think about that. That completely nullifies any idea of blame, or guilt, or why the person needs help. They just need help, and their plight is there to demonstrate that they can be helped. In modern Christianity, the glory of God, among other ways, is meant to be demonstrated through charity and love. So, regarding a publicly funded program, I think Jesus would say "Why are you fighting it? You should have faith and be glad that you live in a country where the government wants to use its money to help people instead of just building bigger palaces for its kings and heavier yokes for its slaves." But I am filling in the blanks here.

The stance I am trying to get to is that American values (I know, there is a mixed bag there) are not the same as Christianity. So many Christians in American try to smash the two together. Freedom to assemble. Democracy. How much/how little to tax people. Freedom of speech. Socialized versus privatized social services. None of these, as well as many other common American values, are really pertinent to Christianity. You could have a 100% communist society, sharing all labors, no private land ownership, all earned income going back to the government, and be a completely Christian nation (read the Bible, the first Christian churches were communes). You could have a total monarchy, with all land and possessions owned by the king, the labors of the royal subjects supporting the aristocracy, and still be a completely Christian nation. You could have a total libertarian anarchy (let's ignore the "anarchy degrades into might makes right quickly, which by definition is no longer anarchy " argument for a second) with everybody doing only what they want and perceive as right and be completely Christian. You could live as a slave in an atheist society, and still live a completely Christian life.

If we believe in God, then we have to look at history and acknowledge that God permitted every form of government so far to exist, often for millenia. Democracy has had the minority of time in human history. Whatever the "right" form of government is, God hasn't imparted on us exactly what it is, so it sure isn't our place to dictate its terms in context of Christianity (the closest God ever comes to this is in the Old Testament when God advises against appointing King Saul because he wanted the Isrealites to be a nation led by priests - but it is difficult to tell if that is meant for all people, or just the nation of Israel, and one also has to remember that the Old Testament written record was kept by the priests... so the point may be a bit skewed by the record keepers).

My belief - God doesn't care what government we live under. I believe God expects us to live the right and proper life no matter what context we are in. Getting fired up about taxes, how much to support poor people, whether or not to fund public education - none of this should be tied into religious discussions, and is not worth fighting over. Going to war and killing people to establish democracy elsewhere and fight other forms of government - I believe Jesus would call such acts dispicable and horrible.

Read aloud, the unnecessary stands out

I am reading my book to my daughters. They seem to enjoy it, particularly the parts where I poke fun at seemingly invulnerable adult characters. Seeing a gruff adult turn all sappy, or a scary villain trip all over himself is funny to them. They like hearing the story and beg for more. I enjoy reading it to them.

As part of the writing process, reading it aloud to them really helps out. The grammatical errors become glaringly obvious as my mouth trips over trying to say the sentences out loud. Even more glaring, though, are the writing indulgences which prove completely unnecessary to the book. In order to keep myself going, I force a free form "write whatever hits your head" approach. If I get an idea, I write it down on paper the way the words form in my head. If I think something is funny, amusing or interesting I just go for it right away before I lose it. Sometimes I will even skip several chapters ahead just to get something written out as it hits my skull, although usually I capture the idea in notes (as an aside, my inner geek shows through, as I use SGML style markup to do it... like this).

The problem with this approach is that many ideas are distractions which might have seemed fun to me, but that really don't play a part in the movement of the storyline. For the kind of story I am writing, sticking to the action is critical to keep the audience's interest. I have read whole chapters that on reflection should be removed entirely with just the bare stitching need to fix the hole they leave behind. Some chapters I want to keep, but maybe move to later in the story, as they deal with character development that become important points of the plot.

I'm not saying anything new or novel here. I have read several times in articles by other writers that reading the story out loud really helps in the proof reading. It is just interesting to reflect on it now as I am doing it.

Hey, advertising is free!

Really, all you need is the time to make a video. Then just post it on YouTube. Here are two of my own that I did for the book:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOjah2HWsGE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkMSEaBvLuM

Obviously this isn't all. The desire is for the video to go viral. I have to admit to my own ineptitude at manipulating the interests and desires of the general populace. I really have no idea how to get something like this to go all over the place. I tend to lean a great deal on hoping the content itself will carry it, but as I have seen with other attempts at promoting my book, that really is not enough.

Other people seem interested in this phenomenon as well. Advertising companies are doing a great deal to get their ads on YouTube and the web in general. One of my friends, Dave Kindard, seems to be invest a deal of research into the viral tipping point, particular with his recent use of Twitter as a distribution medium. Maybe I need to start reading up.

I recently read an article by another author about Amazon detail page visits. He never published the article, but he sent me a copy because the idea for the technical hack making it possible came from me. I had suggested to him a means by which an author published on Amazon could track how many times their book's detail page had been hit, something Amazon doesn't tell you (the technique no longer works - Amazon's behaviors changed around May this year). He ran an experiment and found not only could he count his hits, he could tell how the person visiting the page had got there (Amazon keeps such information on the URL query string), which allowed him to catalog the effectiveness of different means of promoting books. The conclusion: personal websites, Amazon guides, Listmania lists and author blogs are ineffective. The most effective means are Amazon's "bought together" feature and placement in search results.

Its all part of the "what drives people to something" soup that is the Internet. I personally found that paid web-based advertising was completely useless for promoting my book. I set the account on a small budget (this is a hobby to me, not a business) - and got lots of clicks (I chose pay for click as the model). Not ONE of those clicks registered as a visit to my website. Again, to reiterate - not ONE SINGLE CLICK that I PAID FOR resulted in a web site hit. I believe I was likely a victim of clickbot fraud. This is when automated programs simulate clicks on advertisements to exhaust the advertisers budget, after which point that ad no longer runs. This leaves the ads the clickbot deployer paid for a greater amount of the remaining ad displays. The problem is so big that MS actually sued the daylights off a business in Canada doing precisely that.

You know what DID drive people to my website? Chest pain. Well, searches on chest pain. When I first created my website, I wrote an experimental blog post about having a heart attack. The article talked about how after a heart attack all the day to day little muscular pangs you get in the chest area scare the daylights out of you. I forgot about the article for about six months until after I had published my book and put a page about it on my website and ran some ads on Facebook and Google. I was looking at the site visit reports, and surprisingly I had traffic, but many months before I ever published the book. I followed through the referrer URL, and they came mostly from Google searches. Google? Why would people be searching my site on Google? I checked the tag terms, and they were for "pain in chest". Apparently calling Google comes before calling 911. Go figure.

But the point that is interesting is that in both cases, effective placement in search results seems to be an important aspect of website promotion.

Yet, I am not sure if that is works for viral media. I always get that delivered to me by someone in email, or on sharing sites like Facebook and Digg. I am wondering about the dynamics of social movement described by Malcolm Gladwell in The Tipping Point. There, Gladwell describes the necessity of three personality types to start a social phenomenon - the early adopters (the ones on the fringe who differ from the mainstream), the observers (these are people who understand the early adopters and see a fad coming) and the connectors (these are people who have a massive network of other people they either know and communicate with, or who hang on them for advice). I am wondering if viral media rely on the same sort of thing.

Correlations of stupidity explained with stunning charts

Why the other side is always stupid

It is just the law of numbers at work. In a standard distribution, average intelligence is at the top center of the hump. However, we really don’t count you as smart until you are substantially farther up the curve than average. Stupid, however, well, if you live anywhere below the top of the hump, then you get to own that dumbass badge.

This is why the “other side” of any argument always looks like it is highly correlated with idiots. That is because everything, no matter what side, is highly correlated with idiots. No matter your viewpoint, the standard distributions will apply, and by definition, at least half of those people will be below average intelligence, hence stupid.

Reading for early critics

I picked an easy audience: my kids. I've squeezed in two nights of reading so far. A total of four chapters. They seem to like it. I told them that the book was just all over the place and needed some serious editing before it was ready to be read aloud, but they didn't care.

I find myself correcting grammar, skipped and incorrect words as I read. Still, it doesn't roll off the tongue too badly, which seems to be a pretty good test of how it is going. At 8.5 x 11, double spaced 10 pt. font the book is about 150 pages long. It's about 340 pages long when reformatted for a typical kids paperback size. I want to get the book down to about 200 pages long, which might mean some re-ordering of the chapters and points of action, as well as some serious trimming.

At the moment, the second book ends right smack in the middle of the action where the third book starts. I have not been able to bring myself to begin the third book just yet. I am letting some of the ideas sort themselves out in my mind.

I just hit page 301... I celebrate with a table of contents, and title spoiler...

Okay, I just crossed the 300 page mark. I have hit the moment before the final, last scene of the book. So, to celebrate, I have decided to drop a few spoilers. Three, in fact:

1. The book ends with a cliffhanger
The second book does not wrap up and resolve itself. It dives right into the action of the third book. I dare not describe the action in the ending - because I really do believe it will be totally unexpected. I believe it works with the story, and make sense when viewed with the rest of it, but nothing leading up to this ending will give you any clue to how it is going to end.

2. Okay... here comes the title for book #2
Are you ready? I mean, are you actually ready? This is a legitimate spoiler. I have been wrestling with this one for a while, and it has taken a long time for this title to emotionally soak in, but I finally feel committed to it. So... the title of the book is: "Millicent Marbleroller and the Bear Monster Army"

3. And here is the table of contents... at least, so far...
The problem is that this book is too long as it is. It is all the way to page 300 by the time the last chapter starts, and that is just to leave it at a halfway point cliffhanger for the third book. I am anticipating doing tons of edits on this book to cut it back fifty to seventy pages or so. I might move some of the action and dialogue out of this book and to the third... but until I do, the chapter names and page numbers are as follows:

Prologue 3
Alone With the Music 5
More Music and Many More Bells 15
The Package 26
The Delivery 36
Jolly Good Toys 53
Work Begins 70
Bears in the Night 79
Investigations and Messages 87
Trouble Brewing 99
Interview with the Admiral 117
Back at Work 124
Into The Walls 132
Nobbins Story 153
The Orchestra In The Cellar 171
The Room In The Ceiling With No Doors 179
Back in the Kitchen 209
Civic Courtroom 15B 221
The Admiral’s Case 227
The Decision 237
Shadows In The Moonlight 246
The Other Way In 252
The Admiral’s Victory Gloat 262
The Clock Ticks 274
The Whistle That Saved The Day 282
The Roar of Engines 290
Standoff With the Admiral 299

2009 Memorial Day Weekend Activities for Roseberry Family

Saturday
Eggs, vinegar, plaster and rocks. Two science projects.
Plaster and rocks was all about making a craterscape. This was for Hanna's astronomy class. We poured some plaster into a container, and just before it was setup, we dropped rocks and sand into it. I think we let the plaster set up just a little bit too much, but we still got some rocks.
Aimee's science experiment inspired more of a visceral reaction. The experiment was to see if soaking eggs in different kinds of vinegar would have a different effect on the breaking point of those eggs when dropped from various heights. The eggs had been soaking for many days (were supposed to go at three days, but that was last weekend and I was too tired for science). The three types of vinegar were red wine vinegar, apple cider vinegar and white vinegar. Aimee held the yardstick, Tanya took notes, and I did the dropping. The shortest dropping height was four inches (white vinegar) and the highest was 12 inchest (red wine vinegar). The site of the experiment smelled of eggs and vinegar - go figure.
Before all of this we went to Bainbridge Island. Really this was nothing more than the ferry trip, a little lunch, and then back. It was more about being on a boat on a sunny day than it was about doing something. In retrospect, though, we really need to learn more about Bainbridge Island so that next time we have a better itinerary.
Really need to do the San Juan Islands...

Sunday

I forcibly wake up the family and get them in the car by 9:00 am. This is an astounding feat in our house, made even more amazing by the fact that there was no screaming, yelling or bloodshed involved.

We then headed north on I-5 until we got to the Bow-Edison, Chuckanut Drive exit. I took them west until we got to Larrabee State Park. Low tide was at 11:15, with a -3.2. We spent about and hour and a half looking at the tide pools.



Monday
On Monday morning, we don't do very much at all. The kids sleep in. I wake up around 7:30, but don't do very much until Tanya wakes up. The two of us eat oatmeal until we decide to rouse the girls around 9:30.

Hanna and Aimee have planned to see Night at the Museum 2 with a friend from Hanna's school. Tanya is going with them. I cause a bit of disruption right before the trip by resetting the passwords on all the user accounts for the kids... that got me in big trouble with the kid who was in trouble in the first place, which is why I reset the password to begin with.

I give the angry child a few minutes to chill out, explain calmly to her the rationale behind the disciplinary action and convince her to cheer up before going to the move.

While the girls are at the movie, I take Ethan out on a bicycle ride. This is only his second time on the bike. I take him to the biking trail that runs along bear creek behind Redmond Town Center (really, starts behind World Imports). I think we probably went a half mile, total. I checked my watch at the end. We were on the trail for at least an hour and a half. I had to follow him with the same speed you follow old people when you are helping them down the hallway with their walker. He kept doing that thing where he pedals so slowly that the pedal won't move once it comes just short of top dead center - that point where you have to transition from a rising foot movement to forward, but sometimes you do a push down movement that immobilizes the bike. Add to this that he hates being nudged or pushed... even when it means getting him out of the middle of the trail so the other light speed bikers have room to ride around him.

Back at home, I am helping Aimee with charts for her report on the egg dropping.

Facebook detox-ing

I am in the middle of a Facebook detox experiment. About two weeks ago I stopped checking my facebook page. I stopped posting status. I stopped taking silly little quizzes.

I was addicted to it. I was neurotically checking the page several times a day to see if there were any updates, messages, comments or whatever. Even worse, two weeks after my cold turkey cleansing, I still want to check. I come to the computer and feel a compulsion to type in the URL... and when I don't, the experience feels so empty. Its like there is nothing to do on the computer. It felt as if I can't have my Facebook fix, then what the blazes is technology for in the first place?

Isn't that the stupid thing ever? I mean, here is a machine capable of so many things, and yet some wacked out obsessive addictive behavior of mine has reduced it to lobbing back and forth blibbets of information 1000 characters at a time.

I don't know if this is a stable experiment. Facebook has become a kind of communication central - supplanting emails and phone calls. People rely on its noteboard-like experience to casually drop off bits of information for their circle of friends, family and acquaintance. It it is a proxy for email - obscuring one's actual email address (kind of a nice feature, really)... but that basically necessitates visiting the site to reply (unless, of course, we all go back to email again).

I have filled more of my time with gardening, painting and writing. I managed to get out two full chapters on my sequel to Millicent Marbleroller tonight. I also started another book two days ago - this one a how-to, as supposedly those are easier to sell. Maybe that's the answer to the outcome of going dry on Facebook? Happy, fulfilling, Luddite pasttimes?

Painting of General Horatio Crackerhead

I finally finished my painting of General Horatio Crackerhead. As stated in previous posts, he looks a lot like Teddy Roosevelt, with Chester A. Arthur's sideburns and mustache. I went with oil paint for this one. Working in oil requires more patience, as it takes forever to dry. However, much like acrylic you can fix anything. Further, it stays wet longer, which makes blending new layers of color together far easier. I also like the way the colors pop out a bit more.

As a side note on the sequel, I feel like I am indulging a horrifically overused cliche', but I just wrote a scene with a ticking clock. The whole scene felt so flat and devoid of any tension without that tick-tock countdown going. At least there is no "red wire? green wire?" dilemma... at least, not yet.

Character inspiration from 19th century photographs

I have been trying to come up with drawings of the characters from Millicent Marbleroller. General Crackerhead and Nobbins have been the most difficult, although Mumbleskull has likewise been hard.

I decided that giving Teddy Roosevelt a mustache like Chester A. Arthur makes a pretty decent General.

Wagner - stern face, large face. I was wondering about Nobbins..

Schoepenhauer - if he looked a little happier and not as constipated I would say he is a good Mumbleskull. Needs coke-bottle glasses.

Some guy named Wattles Wallace - inventor of some sort. I was looking for thin faced men to help with the drawings for Admiral Crackerhead.
Pope Leon - another thinner faced man for the Admiral.
Thomas Huxley, an ardent supporter of the theory of evolution, who coined the term "agnostic" to refer to atheism because apparently at the time atheism was carrying a lot of socialist baggage. I thought his stern visage would make a good model for Nobbins.

Difficulties picking a title for the Millicent Marbleroller sequel

This has been a problem for me because the story itself doesn't change venue. The sequel to the book picks up the very next day, and most of the action happens in and around the same location and with the same characters. It is really just an extension of the conflicts that occurred in the first book.

I know I want to follow the same structural pattern for the title... "Millicent Marbleroller and..." - but the "and the WHAT?" is the part that throws me. The way the story is going, I could easily say "Millicent Marbleroller and More of the House of the Toymaker", but that just sounds stupid.

But now that I am into the story I have an idea for a title. I just am not so sure I want to use it. It would follow the same title structure pattern, but it introduces a concept for the book that I did not see coming until I was in the middle of it. The original idea was just a minor plot device, but it was something that was so funny to me that I have kept re-using it and growing it and making it bigger, and bigger and more important to the story. I have thought to use this thing (trying to avoid spoiling it just yet...) as the object in the title... "Millicent Marbleroller and the ". It actually SOUND really good - it is a really wacky title, and I think guaranteed to make people go "What the heck is this about?", so I am really tempted.

However, this particular development took me by surprise when it came about, and I want to share that surprise with the readers. I don't want them to see it coming, but rather have it grow for them in the same way it grew for me as I wrote about it. I am finding this to be a very difficult decision.

Saying "No" on Facebook feels rude... is it?

I just realized something about facebook comments. It was triggered by a rather typical status update/comment situation. A friend of mine set his status to "Should (person) buy the new Camaro?".

I wasn't going to say anything because, frankly, I have no opinion about what that person should do regarding car purchases. I myself don't have much interest in cars as anything other than a utility, and don't really know if the new Camaro is all that interesting or not. But then, I wondered what it would be like to say "No". I then suddenly realized that saying "No" felt inappropriate and wrong. My inner etiquette alarm went off.

So, naturally, I said "no".

Immediately after, two other people posted comments telling this person to buy the Camaro. Nobody chastised me on my negative response - but certainly they were all positive.

Which left me wondering - is it EVER appropriate to say "No" on facebook in response to this sort of question? I don't believe it is. I believe the actual interchange is not really about soliticiting a response geared toward assisting in the decision making. I believe the real purpose of the interchange is positive affirmation - morale boosting, cheering up, etc. The real thing the person was saying was "I want to enjoy something, and this is what it is. I am pretending to ask for opinions, but I am not really asking for you to say anything but 'yes' - thus affirming that I deserve to enjoy myself with an indulgence."

I don't believe we use Facebook status for real decision feedback - we use it for quick, chit chat style small talk. Decision making is for other venues - e.g. discussion forums, mailing lists. But status updates is where you seek quick cheering up, affirmation of your values, etc.

Sometimes, it seems like "No" is the right response, but I would suggest that in this case the question is actually applied sarcastically to be framed as a negative, but really seeking to affirm the opposite. For example "Sally is going to give up on her dreams of becoming a dancer and just join the blasted army!"... which is guaranteed to get "Nooo! Don't do it!" responses, but only because everyone knows Sally isn't serious, she is just frustrated, and wants everyone to know how difficult pursuing her dreams really is and is fishing for a bit of encouragement disguised as railing against a military career choice.

Like always, I state my case here with nothing more than ad hoc observations. I haven't the guts to test the principal to its limits (e.g. by replying "No" whenever someone obviously isn't REALLY looking for an opinion) for fear of losing the few enough friends I have accumulated. I leave such bravery to more spirited souls... say those studying psychology at Berkeley or something.

San Francisco Behavior Pattern? "Helpful" Shout Outs

I saw this happen twice today. We were on the public transit in San Francisco. The first time we were on the N streetcar, in the underground, and were just short of the Embarcadero station. The car had stopped, but the doors had not opened. While we were there, my wife asks me, and one of the people standing by the door, if we were at the stop and if the doors were going to open. The woman turned around and shrugged her shoulders.
Just then, there is this woman's voice nearby that says "We aren't at the stop yet."
I turn to see who spoke. Nobody is looking in any direction. Nobody is looking toward myself or my wife. Everybody is looking down at their newspapers, magazines, cell phones, etc.

Later, we were on the F line (different street car, picks up at the Embaracadero station) and someone starts to try to get off at the back door. He shouts to the driver "Back door!". A few seconds later, someone randomly says "Step on the step" (the doors open automatically when someone steps on the step). Again, nobody is looking at the guy. The guy doesn't turn to acknowledge anybody. Everyone is looking at their own business, books, phones, feet, whatever.

I have never observed this before. Every time I have seen anybody say something to anybody else there is always some sort of acknowledgement of the conversation. A nod. Eye contact. But this was almost like people talking to themselves, which was really weird, because they were technically offering help and instruction, but without directly looking at the person. It was hard to tell if this was "Hey, let me help you.." conversation, or if this was, "Oh geeze, you idiot, can you just get on with it...?" conversation - I try to avoid interpreting behavior, especially when it is so usuual to me.

So, is this a San Francisco thing? A big city thing? I don't know if ANYBODY reads these blog postings, but if anybody from the SF area, or from somewhere this behavior is common reads this, let me know.

Facebook status postings: maybe there are only five?

There is something about Facebook social networking dynamics that seems to motivate a patten of similarity in postings, be it status updates, comments, or notes. The status updates, in particular, seem to feel like they come from the same categories regardless who the person is. This seems to be phenomenon one may observe at other social venues (e.g. how people act at church versus at a party at work versus at a party in downtown versus if they are interviewed on television versus when they are with family, etc. etc.), so it is not altogether unexpected. What is more interesting to me is how much the mode of the social context affects the flavor. Here is a non-authoritative, non-exhaustive ad hoc attempt by me to categorize some of the Facebook status categories I have seen:

"Homey feelings"
This status update is to publicly share with others the fact that deep down inside we prefer the "quiet, low key benefits of life at home" in contrast to the goal-oriented, high energy, pop-buzz lifestyle we experience at work, observe on television or that exists in some other mode or venue. Some examples of this type of posting might be "Jolene is hunkering down on a cold-rainy day. MMM!! Hot chocolate" or "Stephen is looking forward to a quiet morning with the kids".

"I am just too busy"
This status update is to publicly share that you too participate in "too busy to exist" life, and that you have just about had enough. You want everyone to know just how tired you are because, gosh-darnit, you are being stretched way too thin. The context of "busy" is allowed to extend to anything, be it life at home "Gretel is exhausted from helping Jeret with his algebra. Help!", to life at work "Christof is pulling another all-nighter writing Weenus reports!" to the social calendar "Zando feels stretched too little butter over too much bread after dancing naked for three days at burning man."

"I am above it all"
Pick a societal phenomenon and publicly declare that you are too good for it. Irony is a big payoff here, so if the societal phenomenon is directed at social networking then all the better. The irony deepens even more if you are incredibly guilty of whatever you are publicly declaring yourself too good for. Great examples, "Marcus is done with cel phones! Wait until you get out of the car and talk face to face you dolt!", "Mira doesn't want to know your status."

"I am so freakin' connected"
Drop names. Drop references. Go places and tell people where you went and who you saw. The purpose here to demonstrate for everybody that are more connected, hip and socially cool that most around you. This particular status works really well when disguised as a "I am just too busy" status. Hip examples, "Merlot thinks the Society for Creative Anachronisms just isn't what it used to be..." and "Lizzie is just back from the VIP presentation of 'Live With the Osborne Family' and is too tired after all those caviar and vodka shooters."

"I am enigmatic, strange, and smarter than you"
The purpose of this status update is to have people simultaneously say "Wow, this person is SO smart!" and ask "What the heck are they talking about?" Drop names, drop references, but unlike "I am so freakin' connected", which necessitates people understand your references, make sure that the names and references are so non-sequitir and lacking so much context that everyone will feel like an idiot for not being able to follow you. Frequently, meaningless semantic phrases can substitute for obscure references. Examples, "Gregory isn't going to do what they are telling him..." or "Felicity was but isn't unless she does."

Finished my alien decoder puzzle game

The link to the game is below:
http://wayneroseberry.com/Apps/alientileslider.html

You slide tiles with symbols around inside an alien keypad. The symbols are alien letters that correspond to English characters. The keypad is hooked to a decoder that says if you have managed to form a word with the symbols.

Below the keypad is a series of English words written with the alien symbols. Based on the word combinations matched above you have to figure out what the matching words would be below. Not all of the symbols shown below are guaranteed to be on the keypad, so sometimes you have to use some logic beyond the obvious to figure out what the words are.

I've been distracting myself with game programming

Somehow I got it in my head that I wanted to do javascript programming. I also had a game idea that was stuck in my skull and I needed to see it done.

The game is based on sliding tile puzzles, except that instead of the tiles containing parts of a picture, they contain letters. You get points if you form words out of the tiles. The longer the word, the fewer the clicks. The words go left to right and up to down. You are constrained by number of clicks.

I wrote the first game in C# as a Windows application to get the algorithm down. This is just because I am more familiar with Windows programming than web programming. The game was really ugly because actually making an attractive UI in Windows takes a lot of work. Once I got the basic logic down I stopped.

The javascript version of the game is some seriously sloppy coding. This is through pure lack of knowlege about javascript. I would want to do something a certain way, but not know how to do it (what syntax, command, object) so I would do it the stupid way. I also immediately introduced browser bugs (won't work in FireFox), which really annoys me. The problem I have is that getting it right is a matter of arcana. My opinion is that if the underlying technology (i.e. HTML, Java, etc.) were GOOD there would be no such thing as browser incompatibility. But no, its a loosey goosey form of programming that requires developers to memorize all sorts of detailed facts to get everything right. Fooey. Yes, I know... read, read, read.

Anyway, the javascript version is far more attractive than my original. This is because layout, and graphics are easier to tweak on a web page, so I was able to make a UI that looks more like a physical puzzle. Fun!

I then got an idea for doing the same thing, but making the tiles non-alphabetic like some sort of substitution cipher. The problem, then, would be to figure out what the letters were by accidentally forming words and then using logic to determine exactly which tile made the word. So, I modified the game - I took away the click limitation, changed the puzzle to look like some sort of alien hardware and changed the letter tiles to look like some sort of bizarre alphabet (I took one of the fonts that is all diacriticals and rotated the letters... they started looking latin and wound up looking totally alien).

The games are located here: http://www.wayneroseberry.com/apps

Almost have a review... and more sales

I almost have a review from the blogosphere - this finally got crawled hit the search index on live.com: http://poseysessions.blogspot.com/2009/01/mailbox-monday_26.html. There is no actual post of a review of the book yet (these people are busy...) but she at least liked the cover illustration (I worked hard on that thing, so I am glad she liked it).

Also, two more sales via the display in Borders down at Westfield mall (SouthCenter to any real western Washington natives). Yippee!!

First real sale...

Not that sales of my book to people I know don't count, but they don't count. I mean, if I know you and you bought the book, that's not exactly the same thing as somebody who has never heard of me seeing the book in a store and buying a copy.

My sister-in-law is a manager at the Borders in Tukwila, WA. She got them to carry Millicent Marbleroller on consignment, and she put up a table display with a poster and everything. You just cannot beat the family connection. Anyway, I just got an email back from her that a copy actually sold. Wow... sold to someone I didn't know. Sold to someone who wasn't under pressure to be nice to me.

I haven't gone out and bought a boat yet with the profits (fwiw: the profits on that sale might buy me a burger at McDonalds), but the experience is sure fun.

Cardboard Tubes, Samurai and the Differences Between Men and Women

Today, at work, one of the guys had a shirt with the phrase "Cardboard Tube Samurai" on it. Apparently it is a web comic. I tried an experiment - I ask all the people nearby what the phrase "Cardboard Tube Samurai" brings to their mind. All the women looked at me like "what?"... some guessed... "So, a samurai made out of cardboard?" All the guys said the same thing "That is when you take a cardboard tube and use it like a samurai sword" - some would say it, some would pantomime it, but every one of them had an immediate visceral reaction to the phrase. Not only that, but everyone when asked affirmed something I suspected - they had all DONE it. Not only could they immediately imagine the same thing, they all had personal experiences they could relate to it.

Is this cultural? Are we socialized into this, or is it biological? Is the physical wiring of the male mind different from female in a way that immediately causes the male to recognize that the primary purpose of a cardboard tube unadorned with wrapping paper is to be a sword?

I wish Joseph Campbell and Carl Jung were alive today. I believe they would have an answer. I am afriad to ask what Freud would have said.

Got a reply from a reviewer, and more on sequel

Reviewers
I heard back from two reviewers. One who said their focus was more on young adult literature and not so much middle grade, but from that I got a referral from a reviewer that is interested in reading the book. I sent a copy in mail on Saturday. I was told that maybe they could manage a review by late February.

Am I nervous? A little bit. I am getting nothing but positive feedback from friends and family, but of course, that is friends and family. They are normally nice to me anyway... and given what I know about what it is like to live with me that puts their feedback in a very suspicious light. Still, no risk, no glory. Besides, with the POD self-publish thing, revisions are pretty cheap, as opposed to having to do a complete reprint of a run you did 100k books of.

Of the other reviewers I sent email to, none of them have replied back. My assumption is that blogging and book reviewing is not their day job. No worries, the list of reviewers is long. I am patient. Besides, I sort of want to see what the first reviewer says first anyway.

The Sequel
I seem to have no problem right now with writer's block. If I am having any problem, it is writing too much story. The book is about 160 pages right now and the main conflict with the primary protagonist has only barely started. Meanwhile, I am doing all these other side stories, plot devices, gag bits, back stories and character development parts. Each piece individually feels good, but I am worried the whole is getting lost in the shufle. Still, I am writing so smoothly and freely that I think I will be better off letting my mind just go with it until I finish and then go mad with the revisions.