Free Speech

I don't think Americans realize how good they have it. 99% of the time if they want to say it, an American can say it.

Our 1st Amendment cases are much of the time extreme compared to other countries:
In America if you burn your draft card on the steps of courthouse during a time of war, you might go to jail for a bit. In China, in a time of peace, you might get shot or run over by a tank.
In America nothing is sancrosanct when a comedian performs an act. In United Arab Emirates, the comedian has to provide a transcript of the act so that someone can edit it out.
In America we watch and laugh at a show that presents our President as a complete idiot (let's sidestep the obvious). And most recently, in Thailand they block an entire website for relatively weak mockery of a ruler.

I know many people are currently unhappy with a lot of American government policy, and hopefully that will change. But, it is helpful to remember sometimes how truly different the freedoms we take absolutely for granted are not even tasted by other people of the world.

Genesis 51

1-The LORD saw this and he was pleased.
2-Unto the brothers of Joseph He thus spake. "Your days have been difficult, yet your people have persisted."
3-"You seem to have the hang of this, more or less. I've got some other projects I've been working on so I'll be going now."
4-And the brothers lamented, "O Father! What are we do to without you?"
And in return the LORD replied, "Don't sweat it, fellas. You'll be fine. It's a big world with lots of people. You just do what you think is best with it."
5-But they feared responsibility the LORD thus endowed and so they pleaded, "Stay with us, O Father! O King and creator of all! We will build great temples to Thee and pay homage and sacrifice!"
6-The LORD found their offers endearing and did pity them. "Indeed I have created all by my will, and as king of creation I only give one command:
7-That ye be, and make use of the creation I hath wrought."
8-The command of the LORD did stir the meek men's hearts. But their minds were unresponsive to sorting it out just what they were to do about it. And so they cried again unto the LORD.
9-"We will honor your command, O Father, O Lord, and it will be law!" And the brothers murmured to themselves for a bit before asking, "Could you maybe, though, be a little more specific?"
10-Now the LORD was becoming a bit irritated. The LORD double checked the LORD's notes to make sure that he had, in fact, instilled in his creation of human kind the ingredient of free will.
11-And lo! It was so! Right there, check-marked, day 6, sure enough...
12-"I have made you in My image," endeavored the LORD, "So really... you can figure this out for yourselves. It's quite simple, as I previously stated in verse 7. I must be going now, take care!"
13-And then the LORD left the Earth, though he continued to observe His creation since it did please him ever still. But the brothers of Joseph remained vexed and frightened.
14-"What are we to do!" they cried to eachother as they gnashed their teeth and tore at their hair. "We must have the intervention of the LORD to know what is right, or else others who do not believe as we may run amok!"
15-And the brothers agreed and they took council and decided on just what they were pretty sure the laws of the LORD might well have been had he taken the time to spell every detail out.
16-And hither forth in the rest of the books of this text is an account of the fruits of their labors.

Side Effects May Include (pt 1)

So what is consciousness? Self-awareness? Sapience? We sure as hell don’t have the scientific definition down for this/these things. Were’ not even in the neighborhood because we can’t even come up with a practical (practice) definition. One that just gets the gist of what it is that we’re trying to figure out.

“Self Awareness” might be about the best term to explore. After all it was the particularly cited fulcrum on which human history was turned by SkyNet on Aug 29th 1997.

Is self-awareness what separates us from animals, vegetables, and minerals? I’ve recently come across a couple hypotheses on this quintessential conundrum that really struck me as profoundly plausible.

The first comes from Steven Johnson in his short, enlightening, natural exploration Emergence.

One portion contemplates our pattern recognition and inductive abilities with regards to estimating the behavior of our fellow human creatures. We use our ability to read and interpret body language and facial expressions, the verbal language itself, and our own personal knowledge of the world to determine what other people are thinking, what they’re going to do about it, and what they will expect US to do about it. This is an amazingly helpful survival ability! And I’ve personally never experienced it being discussed much at all. It facilitates us engaging in productive behavior since it gives us more information about the situation and it especially facilitates both collaborative and competitive behavior with our fellows. Of course… Together Everyone Achieves More! We’re not the only animals that do this. Dogs and wolves do this famously and to great effect, apes and dolphins as well of course.

It’s not he blind, dumb (but effective) cooperation of an ant colony or a flock of starlings. It’s higher order and cognitive and arguably it’s what we’re best at. After all, we’ve taken it beyond simply family or pack dynamics and built whole cities and nations in a deliberate act of special collaboration.

We did it deliberately but did we necessarily do it consciously? Were we ourselves aware of what we were doing? Well we didn’t see all ends when we started but it’d say the answer’s still a definite “yes”. So why don’t dogs and apes have cities? The dogs might have the opposable thumb excuse but the apes don’t. So, oh yes, let’s do remember that there is still a difference between man and animal. We are self-aware. Is this come divine quantum leave of consciousness between the species? At first gland of course it seems so. But yet inspection of our powerful pattern recognition abilities and our great capability to create a working model of each other creature we meet in our own minds, it becomes easy (as Mr. Johnson, suggests) to view our own self-aware consciousness as a logical evolution of this highly developed skill.

I... Live... AGAIN!

So yeah, the Evil Dead trilogy is pretty awesome. Main reason? The man, the myth, the legend... Bruce Campbell. "King of the B-Movie" he calls himself. Hail to the king. See, I just saw Bubba Ho-Tep and Mr. Campbell turns in a masterful performance as Elvis Presley, atrophying in a Texas retirement home decades after his faked death, struggling against an evil undead creature, and also with his own long life of waste and regret.

See... taking things too seriously is usually a cop-out. Sometimes when we're placed face to face with a profound truth that should shake us to the very core of our being, we'll realize that we can't deny it and that it deserves to not be denied. So we stop. We take a moment (perhaps a moment of silence). We freeze up and get tunnel vision and take a very serious look at this thing that commands every iota of our puny human humility. It's hard, it's touching, it's solemn, and it's over soon.

Well now I'm thinking that that's not really doing these sublime awe-inspiring truths much justice. All too often we treat the really important stuff like a charging Tyrannosaurus Rex: hold still enough and it can't see you, can't get you, can't sink it's claws into you and rend you absolutely apart. Of course it's natural to be afraid of death and by extension be afraid by the realization of death. We'd rather give the idea a nice formal acknowledgment of appeasement and then send it on its way.

That may or may not be a better route than ignoring it outright- just pretending it doesn't exist; I don't know. But, I'm thinking there's an altogether better route than either of those. Make buddies with the T-Rex.

When we solemnly bow our heads in the face of real mortal issues and their psyche-shattering consequences (have I wasted my life? have I missed countless opportunities for meaning and happiness?) we're still keeping them at a distance. We're acknowledging them but we're not becoming intimate with them. We're keeping them distant like our intimidating superior in the workplace when we should really be treating them like our friend. Sure your boss can enforce rules on you, but your friend can change who you are as a person. Your boss rides your ass; your friend touches your heart.

What are your best times with your friends? When you're having fun, right? So why not have some fun with your friend, mortality (or any other really-big-issues). Because then you know it'll really GET to you. It'll really become a part of you and your consciousness. Of course that's terrifying because you don't know what it'll do to you. You suspect that despair is the only possible outcome but the truth is... you don't know, just like you don't know if that girl pouring your coffee at Denny's is a mean psycho bitch or the person who could bring to you lifelong contentment.

Well luckily we have folks like Bruce to remind us that the silly stuff isn't worthless and the serious can't be dismissed. In life they come together all the time, riding the same signal, just varying in amplitude from time to time. So embrace them both because life's better when you have friends.

Crazy Talk

I don't have much in the way of hard-fast BELIEFS. I'm more Engineer than Philosopher. We don't have beliefs we've just got PROBLEMS and GOALS. But in order to work the problem to reach our goals we've got to steal MODELS and ASSUMPTIONS from the scientists.

An assumption is like a belief in that we arbitrarily use them as a starting point. They require faith to be useful. The difference between them is that a belief is arbitrarily regarded as true, while an assumption is only regarded as useful.

Ok so there's my disclaimer and an explanation of the semantics I'll be adopting for the following answer to your question.

I assume there's a purpose to existence. I assume that there is a certain way for me to live my life that will aid in this purpose. Stories throughout history depict that those who are happiest are those have lived with purpose. I have found only corroberating evidence for this (most of it coming from my gut, aka intuition). Therefore my plan is to live life, as best I can, in fulfillment of my purpose.

Because reports from people who are not me about "how to live life" do not completely agree, I assume that it is up ultimately up to ME and my intuition to interpret the information I get from the world and those around me.

Finally to the question at hand... Neither logic (reason) nor my intuition lead me to believe that I will experience an existance remotely similar to this one after I biologically die. What happens to my material remains is easily extrapolated. What happens to my "consciousness" is unclear because it's properties are not understood. At this time my expectation is that my consciousness as an individual human named Matt will cease.

Life, however, will continue after my life. Life will have been influenced by my life, physically and systematically. Therefore it can be said that my after-life is the effect I've had on Life after me.

Perhaps I will remain a disembodied consciousness and get to witness it. Perhaps I'll be an embodied consciousness in some sort of "place" that could be described as Heaven (or Hell for that matter). That remains unlikely, however. We have "places" in this life and the elements of this life are what define them. Once I have left this life it doesn't make sense for the concept of "place" to carry over. And so I take a figurative interpretation to the history's descriptions of afterlife, God, and the soul.

And I look at Life, and the universe as we know it, without time. Regarded as a whole, the universe is infinite. When I cease to be an individual consciousness stuck in the middle of a finite timeline, the perspective shifts (with or without "me") to that of the infinite, timeless, whole.

Infinite, timeless, whole. Everything that is was and shall be. THAT sounds a lot like God to me.

So for now I assume that I, just like you, are actually a fragment of God. Savoring that seems to lead to enjoyment, conflicting with that seems to lead to suffering. Even though our biological processes will stop, the universe (God?) is eternal and so is our existence as part of it.

Just Shutup, Pt. 2

a.k.a. STFU Donny!

So the detective finally gets enough probable cause to arrest Donny, BUT NOT BECAUSE OF DONNY'S REFUSAL TO ANSWER QUESTIONS! (I will not even touch probable cause, a whole blog could be written on those two words. For now just take probable cause to mean "a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed.") What has to happen next?

When someone is arrested, the law requires that the prisoner is given a Miranda warning. A typical warning is as follows:

You have the right to remain silent. If you give up that right, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney and to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to you at no cost. During any questioning, you may decide at any time to exercise these rights, not answer any questions, or make any statements.

This education of rights is very interesting because it goes against the old adage "ignorance of the law is no excuse." In this case it is an excuse and many confessions and heaps of evidence have been excluded from a prosecution because of a failure to give a Miranda warning.

If Donny is not given a Miranda warning practically nothing he says can be used against him. He can confess, explain where the drugs are, name names, etc., and the law acts like he said nothing. Furthermore if Donny confesses at the behest of police questioning and is then later given his Miranda warnings, the warnings "clean the slate" so to speak. The law still acts like Donny never confessed! This prevents officers from "beating" out a confession that circumvents the Miranda requirement.

If that weren't enough evidence that is gained from information violative of a Miranda warning is often voided as well. Let's say the detective does not give Donny his Miranda warning. Donny explains that Tito is the neighborhood drug lord and he has 20 kilos of cocaine in a nearby dumpster. The detective checks out the dumpster and finds the drugs. This evidence cannot be used against Donny or Tito in this manner. The law makes sure that the Miranda warnings are a gate, not a speed bump to swerve around.

Well now that you, avid reader, have a slight understanding of the Miranda warning's power, what should Donny do when he is given his Miranda warning?

First, a police officer can continue to talk and reasonably question Donny after the Miranda warning is given. Badgering out of the question, but guilt trips, etc. are allowable. This is in the hope that Donny will "waive" his Miranda rights (a very stupid thing to do). If Donny says "I invoke my right of silence," or a similar iteration, no more questioning is allowed for a reasonable period. Furthermore, let's say the first question the detective asks after the Miranda warnings is, "Have you sold drugs?" Donny replies by invoking his right to silence. Nothing can be inferred from this, no evidence can be taken from this, and it is as if the question was never asked for court purposes.

The most powerful thing Donny can do is immediately ask for a lawyer. If this happens the detective can do nothing until Donny sees his attorney. If he even questions Donny whole swaths of evidence may be voided and the detective may get in trouble or set Donny free. The attorney, later showing up, will then counsel Donny to shut up and all will be well.

The reason Donny wants to keep his Miranda rights is bargaining power. If he waives his Miranda rights thinking now that he is being good they will go easy on him, he loses out. If he says nothing until his attorney can plea bargain with the prosecutor, Donny might get a much better deal. Especially in Donny's situation where the cops really want the drug dealers, not the friend of one.

The right of silence when questioned outside a courtroom is not one to simply throw away. Police officers do excellent jobs, but their interrogation powers are very limited. Now, the best deal would be for you, avid reader, to not break the law. But if you do, just shutup.

Prologue to Appreciation

My proudest accomplishment of recent times is finding less and less stuff to complain about. I'm still entirely available to criticize at the drop of a hat, no fear! You need the flaws in something found, I'm on the ball. But that's a different critter from complaint. Criticism is productive, especially if reserved for an appropriate occasion.

Complaint, on the other hand, at best simply points out that something is wrong. No advice is usually given beyond a stern, "You'd BETTER fix it, buddy! Or else!" I'd say the reason no recommendations can be given with a complaint is because no understanding of the problem has been undertaken by the pissed off complainer. I'm not saying complaining is 100% badwrong, either. After all if my taco doesn't have any meat on it, simply pointing that out to those responsible should be sufficient to have the problem rectified.

What I'm saying is that folks tend to complain as a first and last resort and then just be more pissed off that the world does not magically become a better place. But, ultimately... That's not even my point, only the prelude to my point.

Everything is flawed. Expectations are rarely met. It ain't all bad.

I'll try not to sound too much like a damn dirty hippy from here on out. But, in essence what will follow is my take on the theme of "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life" and even, if you must, "Don't Worry. Be happy." (As always, however, I make no such promise to avoid the inherent pretention that comes with blogdom. This stuff's on the shelf.)

What keeps me sanest these days is that I've been finding a lot of wonderment lately. Really great stuff. And it was really always there, its that I'm just now receptive to it (a little desperation for positive stimuli aids this process). Rather than approaching a work of art with a particular expectation or demanding desire, I plop down and see what it has to bring to the table. Maybe it won't have much, but odds are it has something and that something will be worthy my while. But that something is likely something that's oft neglected by an on-demand public.

Basically I'm crying out against the crime of ignoring here. Ignoring the beauty of a beautiful day or a funny movie is a crime against yourself and by extension everyone who then has to put up with your grumpy ass. For the record I frown on ignoring faults as well (because if checked they could lead to more positives!)

Specific examples to follow over the course of this site's lifetime. I hope to cast a new light on certain works and experiences that will hopefully let them be seen in a new much more enjoyable way.

Just Shutup, Part 1

Myth 1: When a police officer questions me, I must respond.

First, I want to disclaim: Thank god for this myth. If every petty criminal were intelligent enough to know that this myth is not true, our criminal system would buckle. Police hands would be even more tied than they are now. However, knowledge is power and since our Byzantine legal system requires that knowledge, this post remains.

Donny lives in a shady neighborhood. He is a good, mostly law-abiding citizen, but has friends who he knows are law-breakers - let's just assume they are drug dealers. Donny is not a model citizen because he doesn't rat out his friends, and he does this for a few reasons, the most important being his safety. An intelligent detective comes to find these drug dealers and the old lady landlord says Donny has information and may even be one of the drug dealers. The detective stops Donny in the street to question him. What are Donny's options?

He can tell all he knows. He can talk minimally to try and get the detective off his back. He can lie and try and throw the detective off the scent. He can shutup.

The 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is more powerful than most people know. Let me just quote the pertinent part here: ...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law []. Now, anybody who avidly watches Law & Order, or any other courtroom drama iteration, will understand the first part of the quoted Amendment. If you are asked a question in the courtroom that makes you either implicate yourself (or commit perjury and lie) you can raise the protection of "the fifth." The latter part, which most people don't understand, are the protections outside of the courtroom.

Let's get back to Donny. There is a binary question that must be answered. T he question is whether Donny is in custody. Now you answer will obviously Donny is not in custody if the detective just walks up to him in the street. This is usually true, but take these additional facts. Donny steps under a doorway to get out of the rain. The doorway is locked, and Donny has no access to the lock. The detective stands in the doorway so that Donny cannot easily get past without pushing the detective, and when Donny tries to push past politely the detective physically stops him. Many courts would consider this custody. Donny is deprived of liberty momentarily. Custody does not require handcuffs.

If Donny is taken into custody, his rights change (this will be discussed in Just Shutup, Part 2). But, out on the street not in custody of the detective the Fifth Amendment allows Donny to just walk away.

The detective's job is to root out the truth and find the perpetrator. To do this he might question Donny in a way that makes it seem as if Donny is a suspect (and he may as well be for this scenario). Most detectives know how this works; they have to get the person to speak of his own free will. So as Donny is walking away, the detective is chasing after Donny and telling him how Donny is on the chopping block, do the right thing, or any number of fish hooks.

This is where most stupid criminals may trip up. Now they have been implicated. The detective asked him, "Donny, are you dealing drugs?" If Donny says "no," but is later charged as a knowing accomplice, this evidence may be used against him. If Donny says "yes," the detective is going to handcuff him and definitely take him into custody. But, most Donnys feel the need to answer. If they don't, most people feel like then they are practically saying, "yes, I deal drugs." The reasoning goes if you don't have anything to hide.

This is not the case. The detective cannot assume guilt from silence. Sure, the detective may feel that Donny is hiding something and use other means of finding out the information. But, nothing can be assumed from choosing to hide behind the rights of the Fifth Amendment. If every Donny out there knew this, the efficiency of detective and police work would plummet.

So what should you take from this, good citizen? Am I saying never tell nothing to nobody? No, obviously the police and your neighborhood can benefit from your help. Say a neighbor murdered his wife a few doors down. Your answers to the police may help a lot, and you might really want to help them. On the other hand, there might be times when nothing you say will help that person's case and it might make things worse for you (a portrait I tried to paint with Donny).

E-Violence is A-Ok

Keep in mind, this is a blog. It's opinion not fact. One might expect an informed opinion but I consider that entirely optional. What I'm going to say here is what I think is the case because it makes sense to me, not because some insubstantial statistics back it up. Like the ancient Greeks I have no qualms about reaching conclusions through simple logic. Empirical data is over-rated.

Ok, well maybe I don't need to resort to Colbert-esque "Truthiness" to justify my espousal. I should be able to fall back just fine on the excuse that empirical data (meaningful data that is) is often pretty hard to come by. Sure we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that water flows downhill, but how much data can we actually accumulate to prove that violence in media increase violence in the person viewing it? I'll leave the wishywashyness of "proof" of such matters for a different tirade and for now just stick to getting on the topic at hand. The data I'll be using is just my personal observations of humans being human.

Violent video games are not responsible for violent behavior. Primarily I say this because all games are definitively separate from life. They can act as practice for life, but that's not to say that what you do in play is preparation to do the same things in life. The concepts of in-game activities and in-life activities do have a connection but it's abstractly ciphered in transit from one to the other.

The football player, in playing football, learns strength and determination and can apply that to life. He's not applying his throwing and tackling skills to life. I be he hardly throws and tackles in his every day life at all.

So why expect something different from the kids who play a game about soldiers shooting each other? There is no difference. Why? Because ALL games, from the dawn of humanity have been simulation of the same 3 themes.

Fighting, Chasing, and Resource Managment.

Think of any sport or board game. They all revolve around the combination of these concepts. Why these concepts? Because those are the things we, as animals, need to do to live. Many sports are physically violent. Hell, a game of Hearts can by psychologically violent. But the activities are kept in a frame and the rules provide a structure and also a goal that the player is handed over to. In real life that structure doesn't exist, nor does the clearly defined goal.

Such a frame could be artificially constructed in a person's mind, however only through mild psychosis. Perhaps if someone's life literally was playing games they would adopt the mindset of the game in their outside, the way a career businessman completely absorbed in being Mr. Big-Shot CEO will handle all of his problems, even personal ones, with a businesslike approach.

But the Boxer doesn't go around punching everyone just because (Mike Tyson not withstanding... Again, psychosis doesn't count). However, if he needed to punch someone he'd be VERY well prepared to do so. Likewise, if the Counterstrike junkie needed to gun down some terrorists... Using a mouse and keyboard, that is... He'd have much better hand-eye coordination than the average Joe. But being capable of something doesn't give you new reasons to do it (unless you're just looking for attention, Mr. "I can open a beer bottle with my armpit!").

Now the only thing is... Violent video games let you play at things that other games haven't allowed for. Althetes may hit each other plenty, and other games may focus on deceit and betrayal and predatory bloodthirsty instinct, but video games actually let you shoot people in the face. The abstract concept is focused down into a very concrete cause/effect. This is a difference, but a subtle and somewhat complex one.

I've proposed that games do no inspire behavior but they do allow for a level of expertise to form. Well with such graphic depictions of horrific things (such horrific things which have always been implied in games is now actually portrayed). The expertise this gives the game, unfortunately, is a strong stomach against things that should be repulsive.

So like a boxer who happens to be a psychotic rapist is aided by his strength gained from boxing, the gamer who HAPPENS to be unhinged and in the mood to strike vengeantly at the bullies of his highschool will be aided by having practiced taking life.

Yeah, that's what I said, and I still say that there's nothing wrong with the games. Like any item or activity it is their ABUSE that becomes a problem. In normal use these games provide a fantastic diversion that could even be an outlet to do things one would never do in real life. But these experiences can be abused by someone who has become psychologically unstable due to MANY factors in their life.

Blaming an object for a person's behavior remains ridiculous. I could crush your skull with a rock. Rocks greatly enhance one's ability to crush skulls. Can't censor or restrict rocks, no matter how much we want to. (And man I really really want to.
...
Damn dirty rocks.)

Why Coke is Better Than Pepsi

One word: sweetness.

That's right. Coke is better than Pepsi because of sweetness, and I'll explain.

As a soda vs. soda (or pop vs. pop, etc. this link will show you who is right), they are damn close. Coke has a deeper flavor with hints of spices and isn't so much in your face. Pepsi on the other hand does not have that deep symphony of flavors, but when you want something sweet to drink it beats Coke hands down. It is really a matter of taste which you want to drink. (I'll be honest, I am drinking a 20 oz Pepsi as I write.)

However, as far as refreshment goes... who wants sticky sweet when you are sweating like a short order chef using his face salt to flavor the burgers? I don't. I want something that cleans the palate. Bubbles the phlegm away and leaves me with a clear fresh taste in my mouth. Not something that stickily sugar coats my whole mouth, sucking the moisture away. However, most people don't consider this because when you add ice it cuts that sweetness almost in half. So, Coke barely edges Pepsi out for when you want to drink something to quench your man-thirst, but you will only notice it if you are anal retentive (or writing a blog, which probably is not that far off).

Well dipshit, you, most-excellent reader say... where the hell is the soda smackdown or pop punishment? Cooking, I retort.

You cannot cook with Pepsi. It is too damn sweet. Ever heard of Pepsi BBQ sauce? Put that shit on any meat and it becomes trash worthy. What about as a marinade? Coke offers a multitude of flavors with a spicy, earthy tang. Pepsi just gives you sugar. Want an excellent crock pot roast beef? 3-4 lb. beef, a bottle of ketchup, a can of coke, and an onion dip packet are all you need. Try that with Pepsi...and you have meat that comes out of the closet as candy.

I like Pepsi; like I said I am drinking some now. The only thing I dislike about Pepsi are its Britney-esque ads that it seems to think will have you drink it more (of course Coca-Cola Co.'s Sprite commercials aren't much better, arguably worse). But, I will always have a can of coke around.

Rav's Rockin' Cola-Q Sauce
1 can Coke
1 1/2 cups ketchup
1 tbsp Worcestershire sauce
1 tbsp ground hot mustard
2 cloves garlic
2 cloves
1/2 tsp liquid smoke
1/2 tsp white pepper
salt

Put all in the sauce pan. Simmer for an hour (don't even come close to boiling). Cool to room temperature. Eat.