Life according to Gordon

It bothers me a lot when people intentionally misquote things or include false or highly misleading statistics to promote their own agenda. There's nothing wrong with trying to promote your own agenda, but if you're going to do it, don't lie or make up statistics out of thin air. This post is going to focus on a recent false statistic used in the current American health care debate. First, so you know where I'm coming from: I believe the public option is already a major concession; what we really need is true universal health care--just like every other developed nation in the world. But if we're going to have to compromise, the public option is what we need. It is the loving, Christian thing to do. I do not trust corporations to magically "do the right thing" after a little prodding with tort reform. In fact that's downright delusional. But my own opinions aside, I want this post to focus on some recent statistics I've come across.

Awhile ago, you may have seen a so-called public service announcement circulating on the internet with a number of celebrities sarcastically decrying Obama's new plan for being harmful to health insurance CEOs and fat-cats. On the off-chance that you haven't already seen it, I have it re-posted here.

Then, earlier tonight I saw that a friend had posted a similar video she had dug up on her Facebook page, presumably the Republican response to this video. I have also included this one for you here.

Now wait a second, did the second video just claim (around 1:10) that 71% of doctors actually oppose the public option? Wait, what? Hearing that statistic made me do a double-take. Especially since I remembered hearing multiple times, through multiple news outlets, that somewhere around 70% of doctors support the public option. I ran a quick Google search. Sure enough, article after article citing figures wavering around 70% in support from physicians. Did they really just flip that statistic on its head? Would they genuinely be that downright deceitful, by saying the exact opposite of what polls showed? I had to find out more, so I've done my research and I'm prepared to cite all my sources. I'll let you be the judge.

First, it is true that 72.5% of physicians SUPPORT the public option. This data comes from a scientific study titled "Doctors on Coverage -- Physicians' View on a New Public Insurance Option and Medicare Expansion," which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine. You can read the full study yourself. More specifically, 62.9% of physicians support a system that includes the public option alongside with the existing private insurance companies, while an additional 9.6% of physicians said they supported a system that used the public option only--in other words, true Universal Health Care. Since these two groups are supporting a public option in one form or another (and yes, they are mutually exclusive in the study), we find that 62.9 + 9.6 = 72.5% of physicians support the public option.

So where'd this supposed 71% figure in the second video come from? I did some more digging, and found an article in a newspaper called the Investors' Business Daily (IBD) conducting a survey by mail of some physicians. They asked the question, "Do you believe the government can cover 47 million more people and it will cost less money and the quality of care will be better?" They claim 71% of their respondents answered "no," although they admit in the article that they hadn't finished fully collecting surveys before publishing their results. I continued to do research, and found that the IBD poll is completely unscientific and not in any way credible. To explain why, and to include some other things to consider, I offer the following succinct bullet-point list.

• The New England Journal of Medicine is the oldest continuously published medical journal in the world, and is the most widely read, cited, and influential medical journal in the world.
• The New England Journal of Medicine is a professional, peer-reviewed medical journal. The survey they conducted is extremely well documented and follows the standard professional methodology for conducting scientific surveys.
• The Investors' Business Daily is a newspaper with an agenda. The article does not disclose any of their polling methods, and admits that they did not finish collecting all the responses before publishing the results. There is no peer review process whatsoever. They have a primarily conservative audience, and they conducted a mail-in survey.
• The question used in the Investors' Business Daily poll is a long run-on sentence. It is multi-faceted, biased, and leading. It would never be regarded as a good question to ask in any sort of scientific study. But it is a great question for writing biased newspaper articles. Asking "do you believe the government can do it?" (what they asked) is very different from asking "are you for or against the public option?" For example, a physician might strongly support the public option, but also no longer believe the government can do it--because the Republican senators have been blocking it. He would have to respond with "no" to the IBD question, despite supporting the public option.
• The Investors' Business Daily is already infamous for publishing poll results that are wildly inaccurate. For instance, in October of 2008--just one month before the presidential election--they published poll results that claimed 74% of American voters between the ages of 18 to 24 were going to vote for John McCain. This did not happen. This did not come anywhere close to happening. That age group voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama.

You can draw your own conclusions, but personally I trust the results of a scientific, peer-reviewed study published in the most trusted medical journal in the world over the results of mail-in poll run by a newspaper that's already notorious for inaccurate polling. 72.5% of doctors support the public option.

I am not an atheist and I never could be one. But it seems that in this day and age, atheism has become the new popular and cool philosophy to fit in with. Everybody's doing it. I do not find atheism repulsive and terrible. Atheism, at face value, is simply the belief that there is no higher power, and I think everyone is entitled to their beliefs. What I do take issue with, however, is what's been dubbed "militant atheism." Really a better term for it would be "antitheism." Atheism is simply the belief that there is no God, but antitheism is the extension that those who do believe in God are stupid, harmful to society, and should be done away with. Richard Dawkins, a British biologist, has become a huge proponent and leader to the cause of antitheism. Personally, I can't stand him.

I had a chance to skim through what has become his most famous book, and the holy gospel to militant atheists around the world: The God Delusion. Much like its author, I can't stand the book, and I thought I'd write a blog post discussing some of it. I find the whole thing terribly intolerant, misleading, and downright poorly researched. Fundamentally, the entire book seems to whittle down to one statement: "If everyone in the world agreed with all my points of view, we'd be much better off." That's the best that I can summarize the whole philosophy he seems to encourage throughout. He also tries to cite quotations from famous and scholarly historical figures, but I did a better job of citing sources in academic writing than Dawkins when I was 14. I'll start off with a quote from the book.

It is conventional to assume that the Founding Fathers of the American Republic were deists. No doubt many of them were, although it has been argued that the greatest of them might have been atheists. Certainly their writings on religion in their own time leave me in no doubt that most of them would have been atheists in ours.

This is really a very telling passage that highlights Mr. Dawkins' general approach to history. He has no doubt that many of the Founding Fathers of America fit the archetype of the modern atheist. Well I do have doubts. Quite a few doubts in fact, since he offers no real evidence on which to base this assumption--in fact all the evidence that does exist on the matter unequivocally disproves his claim. But before we get into that evidence, it's important to take note some of the intricacies of how he's phrased this passage.

"It has been argued that some of them were atheists" is a true statement. This says nothing as to whether or not any of them actually were atheists--all it says is that the arguments have been made by other people that they could have been atheists. Yes, people have argued that. Sure, fine, great. But notice how he phrased that: he didn't say "some of them," he said "the greatest of them," as if to imply that only the great ones had the honor of being atheists, while the not-as-great ones seemingly weren't quite as smart. And how could they be, believing in God, right? This is really the crux of his whole approach. This book isn't about reason; it's about fostering an us-versus-them dichotomy and rewriting history to make the great and scholarly historical figures appear as if they would befriend and support everything he says. It's about him trying to fit in with famous and smart people, and repeatedly insist that they would have supported him had they lived long enough. These passages in The God Delusion on the Founding Fathers are to American history as Inglourious Basterds is to German history (except not as entertaining).

He then gets more specific as he offers up short quotations from particular Founding Fathers to try and suggest that they were secretly atheists all along. (By the way, why is everyone so obsessed with the Founding Fathers of America?) However, it is obvious to see that all he is doing is cherry-picking fragments of un-cited quotations taken completely out of context to support his own conclusions. Here are some examples.

Remarks of Jefferson's such as "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man" are compatible with deism but also with atheism.

Yes, Jefferson did say this, in a letter dated March 21, 1801 to Dr. Joseph Priestley. The full quote is as follows.

This was the real ground of all the attacks on you. Those who live by mystery and charlatanerie, fearing you would render them useless by simplifying the Christian philosophy,--the most sublime and benevolent, but most perverted system that ever shone on man,--endeavored to crush your well-earnt and well-deserved fame.

Dr. Joseph Priestley was a Presbyterian minister who later converted and became a Unitarian minister. He was also a scientist credited with the discovery/isolation of oxygen as well as the invention of soda water. At the time he was criticized and attacked by members of the Presbyterian church for his dissent. Jefferson was condemning the Calvinists (Presbyterians) here in particular, claiming that they had perverted the intent of Christianity. But criticizing one particular sect of Christianity is still a far-cry from claiming that he did not believe in God. The quotations showing that he did believe in a divine creator are numerous. Indeed, Jefferson also identified as a Unitarian as well as a deist. In fact, in another letter Jefferson wrote, dated April 11, 1823 to John Adams, he stated, "[John Calvin] was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be." Is that remark "compatible" with atheism, Mr. Dawkins? Continuing with some more of the quotes he offers up...

The same could be said of Benjamin Franklin's "Lighthouses are more useful than churches" and of John Adams' "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."

First of all, I have no reason to believe that Benjamin Franklin really did say that. Dawkins offers no citations whatsoever, and I haven't been able to come up with any after searching the internet for awhile. A Google search will reveal plenty of websites attributing that quote to Franklin, but none of them seem to offer any citation of where or when he said that--if he said that at all. The only citation that ever showed up was from page 43 of Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion! By the very logic that Dawkins encourages in this book--that you have no reason to believe something unless you can see physical, scientific proof of it--we simply cannot assume that Benjamin Franklin really did say that quote. For all we know, Dawkins could have heard it from anybody at a dinner party and later misattributed it to Franklin. If anyone reading this can find the citation, I'd be happy to go back and revise this post to include an analysis of the quote in its full context.

But even if it was true that Franklin did say that, this by no means makes him an atheist. The more reasonable explanation is that he was making a statement critical of a particular sect, denomination, or religion (much like Jefferson did above)--not condemning all religions as Dawkins loves to suggest. If we take a look at some of the other things Franklin said, which we can confirm with citations, we see a different story. In the book Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion, written by Benjamin Franklin and published in 1728, he wrote the following.

I believe there is one Supreme most perfect being. ... I believe He is pleased and delights in the happiness of those He has created; and since without virtue man can have no happiness in this world, I firmly believe He delights to see me virtuous.

Once again, this is historical evidence that runs completely counter to what Dawkins implies throughout. The only thing that Dawkins does successfully prove is that he'd make a great poster child for confirmation bias. From Wikipedia: "Confirmation bias is an irrational tendency to search for, interpret or remember information in a way that confirms preconceptions or working hypotheses." In a nutshell, confirmation bias happens when you search for evidence that confirms what you believe, but then stop short once you've found some, without trying to see if there is any other evidence that would contradict what you believe. The God Delusion is chocked full of this. Dawkins takes sentence fragments that--when taken alone, at face value--seem to support what he's saying, but then he doesn't bother to look for any quotes that would contradict his own beliefs. Indeed, in some instances he seems to ignore the fact that the next sentence in the very same quote can contradict his hypotheses! Here's the full context of the Adams quote from above:

Twenty times, in the course of my late reading, have I been on the point of breaking out, "this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!!" But in this exclamation, I should have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in public company--I mean hell.

This quote is very straight-forward. John Adams declares in the very same breath that the portion of this quote Dawkins has picked out was only a temporal and mistaken frustration, which he immediately recants. Adams explains in no uncertain terms that life would be hell without religion. That's completely opposite to the implication Dawkins makes with this quote. In fact, this quote was included in They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, and Misleading Attributions, published in 1989, as a clear example of how people will change the meaning of quotes completely by leaving off the full context. The fact that this quote was already widely known as an exemplar of misquotation 17 years before Dawkins wrote his book shows that either Dawkins is not anywhere near as rigorous as someone with a doctorate should be, or just downright deceitful. I find it hard to believe that someone with a Doctorate of Philosophy wouldn't recognize that the quote was only partial and out of context, so my belief is that he included it as a fragment to intentionally mislead his readers and encourage others to misquote it. But I will admit that this is only speculation. It's also possible that Dawkins is just unintelligent.

In any case, the simple fact is that Richard Dawkins is uninterested in providing accurate, historical context for the quotes he offers up. He's more interested in this self-affirming vitriol he passes off as logic. To suggest that any of the Founding Fathers were atheists, despite their own associations with religious bodies such as the Unitarian church, despite their own numerous writings declaring their belief in higher powers, and despite their many letters expounding on their deist beliefs is utter nonsense. Dawkins' arguments are sadly juvenile. He might as well have written, "If Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin were born in the 20th Century, they would have been atheists! And they would have liked me, and we would have been friends!"

There is no historical basis to assume that any of the Founding Fathers were atheists. And even if there had been, what does that matter? Again, why the obsession with the Founding Fathers? Are his misquotes just an attempt to sound more credible? Or is this just an attempt to try and establish an "in crowd" and insist that only the smartest and most revered people belong there? Would it really matter if a small handful of people from 200 years ago didn't believe in God? In any case, all of them did publicly state on numerous occasions that they did believe in a higher power, so regardless of what Dawkins was going for, his arguments fall apart.

But all this failure to properly quote people aside, to his credit Dawkins admits that he cannot prove that God does not exist; he can only assure you that he thinks it's highly improbable that He does. For me, that point makes writing this book completely superfluous. He is of course entitled to his opinion, but I would be more supportive of his search for understanding if he didn't so strongly need to force his beliefs down others' throats while doing it. Again, saying "I don't believe in God" is one thing, but saying "I don't believe in God, and you're stupid if you do" is another. And in not as many words, that latter bit is a good summary of his book.

Hi there loyal blog readers -- all four of you. I haven't updated this in awhile. Well rest assured, further updates are coming; I just haven't had time! I've had too much time for life! Well the most major change that some of you have heard about is that I am dating someone. Her name is Megan, and we've been dating now for just shy of one month.

Megan is a girl I knew from high school. We actually went to both middle school and high school together, but we didn't meet until high school. She was friends with a girl who was dating a friend of mine, and we all went out to a movie. Both of us often never had dates at the school homecoming dances and proms, so we would often default to being each other's slow-dance partners then. I had her over to my place a couple of times, where I would watch Radiohead videos videos with her, or play her songs on guitar, etc. I also took her to a movie once (just the two of us), at which the ushers came in the theater and announced that the owner of the car with XYZ license plates should know that there was smoke coming out of the car's engine (it was mine). And to my embarrassment, I must admit that I had actually forgotten about a lot of this, as I think I've effectively blocked out some of high school (or just ran out of memory). She recalled all of these things, and I just kind of said, "ohhhh yeaah! I kind of remember that!" Give me a break, it's been more than half a decade.

So it's interesting how things work out. Right now I can proudly say that I'm happier than I've ever been. Everything fits, everything feels comfortable and natural, and probably for the first time I feel like I can be 100% me without reservation. In the past, I think I always had to dress myself up a bit, so to speak, and maybe be 90% me at most. They always say that when you find the right person, you'll just know. I just know. I mean, to be fair, I thought I knew before, seeing as I'll probably always think I know, but now I know. Anyways, I understand what I'm talking about. I can only hope you can follow along.

And just yesterday, apparently Megan was toying around on the internet, and stumbled across some old poetry written by "Gordon Myers" and wondered if it was mine. I didn't recognize the particular one she sent me at first, but after looking through all the different ones on the internet I eventually remembered. That's an aspect of me that I guess I had forgotten. I used to write depressing poetry. I imagine a lot of kids do. I wrote it all in high school, so keep in mind that it is high school poetry. I do think there are a few in there that were pretty good, but there were also several that I read and immediately thought, "Aha! I must've just discovered what a thesaurus is!"

So feel free to peruse through my high school poetry. In other quick updates, last weekend I ran a mini-triathlon, and I did horribly. I finished, but I finished in 197th place. This is what happens when you never practice, kids. In my defense, I've never been a strong biker, and the bike part just killed me. This coming weekend I'll be running the half-marathon here in Madison. My goal: finish the race. I looked at the course map they have on their website, and it's a looooong way. I had done the mini-triathlon before, but I've never done a half-marathon before. I've never run that distance period. We'll see how it goes.

Last weekend I also went to the Packer (preseason) game with my dad, and got to watch them crush the Buffalo Bills 31-21. There were a lot of people wearing Favre jerseys with X's over the 4, and there were posters that said things like "#12: 3X better than Bret!" The Minnesota -- Green Bay games are going to be very, very tense. And Favre has sullied his reputation forever, all seemingly in the name of money. Lastly, I am quite serious when I say that I've been meaning to blog for awhile. I have a legal pad full of handwritten pages containing the makings of the next blog post. I'll give you a sneak peek by saying it'll be my thoughts on Richard Dawkins--well-known militant atheist and author of The God Delusion--and why the intolerant bastard pisses me off. That's on the way. For now, since this post mentioned poetry, I think I'll end with a limerick.

I know that I've promised more updates
And often they're absent or just late
But I do a lot
So more often than not
Writing well requires you just wait

I'm a PHP developer. It's what I do for a living. I enjoy being a PHP developer because I generally enjoy coding in PHP. I've written a few posts here in defense of PHP. As such, I'd have to be living under a rock to not have noticed that many other people don't seem to share my enthusiasm. Programming sites all around are littered with "PHP sucks" headlines and articles. In fact, I think PHP might currently be the trendiest language to bash. It used to be Java, and I'm not sure what it was before that (maybe Perl?), but now if you want to find your way into the in-crowd of cool programmers, the first step in initiation is outlining all the reasons why you've always hated PHP.

I read these articles on occasion, and usually walk away shaking my head with disappointment. There are a number of valid criticisms of PHP, because it definitely has flaws and drawbacks (every language does). In fact, as someone who programs in PHP every day, I would wager that I understand many of the drawbacks better than many of the people authoring all the "PHP sucks" articles. But I work around them and continue to love the language. But what really "grinds my gears" is how the criticisms of PHP have really diminished in quality as they have become more ubiquitous. It's now a lot harder to find any "PHP sucks" articles that can succinctly state genuine problems and drawbacks without mixing in false information, matters of personal preference, and things that really aren't drawbacks at all. In any anti-PHP thread, you now seem to find a flurry of young programmers so eager to chime in and add their two cents to the mix that a lot of the arguments that show up lack any meaningful content or criticism.

For instance, on a recent thread I saw about the drawbacks and design failures of PHP, one commenter used one example he thought would highlight the obvious flaws of the language, namely, the "strpos" function. The "strpos" function is simple: it's used for locating the first position of a substring within a string. In PHP, this function returns either a non-negative numerical value specifying the index of this substring, or boolean FALSE. This commenter thought it was ridiculous that a function such as this could return 0 on success, presumably because 0 typecasts to FALSE in an == comparison. However, he failed to realize that just about every other language you can find similarly can return 0 on success (which would likewise typecast to false in any of those languages as well). That was probably the most glaring example of a poor attempt at criticism I found, seeing as he criticized a standard, cross-language function behavior. I pointed this out to him, which got him on the defensive, and then started claiming that it was absurd that it didn't return -1 on failure instead of boolean FALSE. That just left me thinking: why does that matter, really? (And it's still not a behavior unique to PHP by any stretch.) If you're worried about 0 being a "true" value, that means you're evaluating it in a boolean manner: checking if the substring is there or not. So why does it matter to have to check for "=== false" instead of "< 0"? That really becomes a matter of personal preference, not a flaw in language design. The argument reduces to "well I just don't like it," which isn't an argument at all. I can rattle off a long list of languages that similarly don't return -1 on failure for substring searching functions: C, C++, Ruby, Common Lisp, Haskell, etc. Again, this particular argument is just one rather ridiculous claim against PHP, and may be an "outlier" so to speak, but it's one that got under my skin.

The particular article I found the above example was actually a question someone posted earnestly that asked, essentially, "why do you guys hate PHP so much?" So it got a lot of responses, at least half of which I would say are complete junk. But after sifting through them all, I found a couple that I did really like and felt like sharing. First, I offer you a more critical but still very honest quote about PHP:

I also write PHP daily. My conclusion is that it's a fine language for getting things done. There is nothing beautiful about it. If given a choice I'd pick Python every time.

People always say that PHP is so successful purely because it's easy to get started with. I think it's also successful because it scales from small inline HTML pages to large applications similarly easily. Many programmers don't leave PHP because they never run into a problem that it can't handle. It's not like BASIC where you run into that wall quite early on.

PHP is the best bad language there is.

While I can't personally say I'd go and pick another language every day, seeing as I still enjoy working PHP, he makes a lot of good points. I will admit that it isn't a particularly elegant or ground-shattering language. There's nothing you can do in PHP that you can't do in other languages, for the most part. But likewise, the reverse of that is also true, for the most part. It's a high level language, and you can get things done in it. And the real advantage is that you can get things done in it quickly. Another advantage is that it's still extremely popular at the moment, so chances are if you buy some web space, it supports PHP fully. The popularity is also very likely the reason it gets so much flack. But back on the topic of getting things done quickly, here's another quote someone had to offer:

PHP is nothing more than a very thin layer over the C, posix and glibc libraries. If you come from a Linux/Unix C background, it takes about 15 minutes to pick-up PHP.

That guy is spot-on, and honestly that's probably one of the reasons I loved PHP so much when I first learned about it. I had only ever touched C++ prior to that, so it was a very natural and easy transition. But another reason it's still great is that it's a very fast language to both program and run. Combine it with something like eAccelerator and you've got yourself a very powerful and speedy engine to run web scripts. Now I've also seen a lot of people (primarily Python fanboys) complain about a few points: 1) PHP is only single-threaded, 2) PHP has terrible consistency with function/method argument order, 3) PHP has standard library bloat, and 4) PHP lets you get away with too much shit. Being single-threaded is not a problem. It just isn't. The purpose of PHP is to serve up webpages, and you simply do not need the scripting language to be multi-threaded for that purpose, when the webserver already is. PHP is not meant for desktop applications. If you're trying to do something that absolutely needs to be multi-threaded with PHP, chances are you're doing it wrong. (And as a quick aside, if you really want to have threads, you can always emulate threading by calling fsockopen to your own server to open another script, which the webserver will give its own thread to).

Two is a perfectly valid criticism. The lack of consistency is terrible. But to cope with this, most developers I know either memorize the order for the functions they use, or use a text editor that has code hints so they don't have to. And honestly, code hints are freaking awesome, and they make that argument moot. Three I've never really seen as a fundamental problem, but instead more of a "personal preference" issue. Yes, there are a lot of frickin' functions in PHP. I actually see that as a positive thing. That means that if I want to do something, chances are someone else has already wanted to do that same thing and so there's a library function for it. Awesome. I can understand that some people prefer a more minimalist approach, and only want to include things they absolutely need, but again that's really a matter of style than anything else. I have yet to see any PHP application that blows up because the standard library is too big. With op code caching and the like, it's still really fast.

And the final argument I mentioned is simultaneously a blessing and a curse. Honestly, it's the reason I love the language so much--being able to get away with a lot and not having the system freak out at you. But I acknowledge that it can also be the bane of ones existence. I like that things are loose in PHP. It means I can write code quickly and not have to worry so much about all the pedantic details. That's also the reason I loathe Java. Any little mistake, no matter how tiny, I find out about right away in Java. In PHP, I can be more lazy and still get away with it. But I do know well that this also presents a problem: if people can be lazy, they will be lazy. And because of this, there is a lot of awful, awful PHP code floating around out there from programmers who didn't know what they were doing, didn't have time to learn, and were as lazy and unorganized as could be. And if you've ever had to deal with any of their code, you know it's a nightmare. This is probably the biggest thing that turns people off to PHP: debugging poorly written code. If everybody wrote good, elegant, organized code, I really don't think there would be nearly as much criticism of PHP. This is also a reason some developers prefer the stricter languages so much, because you just can't get away with that. But I still like the laid-back environment PHP offers, and as a developer working for a very small company where we write all our own code, it's relatively easy to maintain quality control, at least when compared to larger companies.

But anyways, people are going to continue bashing PHP so long as it remains popular, and it's going to remain popular for awhile. A lot of the alternatives seem like great languages with a lot to offer, but none of them cater to web programming quite as completely as PHP does. Functional programming languages will probably never be popular, because functional programming is hard. Or at least harder than procedural programming. Languages like Python and Ruby have lots to offer, but since they're threaded, that means strings are immutable. And any way you look at it, immutable strings just aren't very conducive to web programming. But then I could be wrong. With the proper framework you can always overcome those limitations to some extent, and Python certainly has been gaining a lot of popularity in programming circles, so we'll see. Though I would recommend this very brief article comparing PHP and Pythong in terms of usefulness for the web; it's good. But for now, I'm still quite happy with PHP, and similarly happy about all the shiny new things that came with version 5.3!

For some reason I feel about writing a very quick rant about things that I've noticed about people in relationships. Some of these things I've seen exclusively in others, some I've seen in myself whilst introspecting a bit about the past (because I am not currently in a relationship), and certainly some of these have been present in both myself and others. In fact I think most would fit in that latter category; I'm not as weird and unusual as I sometimes like to think I am. (But mind you, I am weird and unusual.) So here goes.

They disconnect from their friends
This one I see all the time. Sometimes people don't even realize they're doing it--especially if it's their first major relationship. They dedicate all their time and energy to being with the other person. And while it's good to have someone to confide in, to relate with, to spend time with, it's not as good if it means giving up friendships. Of course no one would ever really admit that they're doing this, at least until it's too late and they've spent enough time away from their former friends that when they finally try to reconnect they find themselves suddenly incompatible and then blame either their friends or themselves, depending on what type of person they are. Oftentimes people might not even consciously notice that they suddenly spend less time talking with or spending time with their friends because they're still too starstruck about being in a relationship to notice. Fortunately though, a lot of people who fall into this trap do so at an early age when it's still easy to make friends again after they eventually break up. I think this is kind of a lesson that you learn mostly in hindsight--to pay attention and not take for granted all your regular friends. It's good to spend a lot of time and energy on your partner, but it's also important that this doesn't come at too much of a cost to the friends you value.

They start to become slightly different, less interesting versions of themselves
Again, this is something that more often comes with the first major relationship than later ones, but I've seen both in myself and others how people will essentially sacrifice parts of themselves to be with the other person. Unfortunately this is kind of another lesson that people seem to have learn for themselves, and won't realize until after the relationship is over. Hindsight is everything.

They think they're cuter together and better for each other than they actually are
This one I find especially baffling, despite my ability to sympathize with it, because often people will naturally have ridiculously high/unreasonable standards for selecting a partner prior to entering any relationships, but once in one, suddenly a lot of the criteria they had in mind for a partner seems to fade away. And naturally, if confronted about this, many people will often rationalize and give excuses, thinking that what they've got is special and unique. Spoiler alert: it's not.

They suddenly become more careless/carefree when it comes to PDA
Public display of affection is generally only okay in very small doses. Hand holding? Great. Awesome. Spectacular. A quick kiss? Yeah, okay. Passionately making out? Ehh....can't you guys do it somewhere else? Groping/etc.? Get a freaking room! I think these are some pretty good standards for PDA, and I think most people would agree with me there. Some people even get irritated at nothing more than a light kiss in public, although I think that's silly. But what is truly strange is how those same people will later seem to forget how much it irritated them to be forced to watch others gloat in their passion when all of a sudden they themselves find themselves locked in a relationship. All those former rules, guidelines, and dos/don'ts about PDA...out the window. I'm not going to try and pretend that I myself never made this mistake, but that's the thing about mistakes...you learn from them. So the next time you're out with your sweet honey cakes at the park, in the pool, or wherever you may be, try to force yourself to experience some sort of existentialist look, and cool it on the passion. Or at least get the heck out of there and take care of each other in private, if you need it right then.

They suddenly start giving out relationship advice as if they know what they're talking about
This one annoys me to no end sometime. Just because you happen to be in a relationship right now does not mean you know anything at all--let alone that you know significantly more than those around you, particularly single people. Even if you have a lot of experience with relationships, experience hardly means a thing if you haven't learned from your mistakes. Never assume you know more than everyone else around you just because life seems to be going your way for the time being. There will be times when you know more than other people, and in particular there will be people who are not as wise as you. But the state of being "officially" in a relationship does not make you an authority on anything and everything who has all the answers. It makes you a person who happens to be in a relationship.

So those are the things I've noticed and felt like sharing. I feel like they all fundamentally boil down to the same, simple piece of advice: "try to have a little self awareness." I hope somebody reading this can get something out of it. Otherwise, stay classy, non-single people.

A recent trend among the Facebook-addicted to further bolster the narcissistic web-trendy persona has been to take a series of online quizzes that automatically post their results to your profile. So a little while ago I spotted a quiz that asked, "What's Your Bible IQ?" The result which I hoped for (and admittedly somewhat expected) was that it deemed me a "Bible scholar," meaning that I answered the majority of the questions correctly. (There were some pretty tough questions in there too, mind you!) It's been awhile since I've taken that quiz, so I don't really remember the majority of the questions it asked; however, there was one particular question that stuck out in my mind. It asked, essentially, "how many times is the Trinity referenced in the Bible?" It's a good question, I think, because I think it's an easy "trap" for anyone who's gone to a mainstream church their whole life but have never really invested their time to actually reading the Bible or trying to interpret anything for themselves. Spoiler: the answer is zero.

Yes, the concept of the Trinity, or tripartite Godhead made up of the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit, one of the fundamental tenets of many mainstream denominations, one of the most essential pieces of modern Christian dogma, is not actually mentioned in the Bible even once. Not directly, anyway. The concept of the Trinity is purely an interpretation, and one that I find to be a rather strange interpretation. Some people will get absolutely up-in-arms over even the mere suggestion that the Trinity might just be myth, even though the real, Biblical evidence can be shown to refute it. And that fascinates me. I remember when I took that 600-level Religious Studies course, at one point it was mentioned that the whole concept of the Trinity was solidified as creed in the Council of Nicaea in the year 325. So it was almost 300 years since Jesus' ascension that this was accepted as a sanctioned Christian belief. Although that's not wholly surprising, since I think it took a similarly long time to standardize which books were going to be included in the Bible and which books didn't make the cut.

Then, recently, I came across an absolutely fascinating article examining the historical background of the council of Nicaea and the power struggle between Arius and Athanasius. Arius taught a non-Trinitarian view of Christianity, while Athanasius spearheaded the Trinity. So naturally, they came into conflict, and because the article author certainly knows more about it than I do, I'll just give you a sample of the article here.

There are numerous accounts of Athanasius' followers beating and murdering non-trinitarian Christians in the lead-up to the Council of Nicea, torturing their victims and parading their dead bodies around. Non-trinitarians were accused of "rending the robe of Christ", crucifying Him afresh, and far worse. It would be wrong to think of the dispute as a matter of learned men of God disagreeing with each other over a matter of Biblical interpretation. Athanasius, who had the ear of Constantine more than Arius, was out for victory. He therefore emotionalized the issue and used every manner of politics and destruction of his opponents in order to get Constantine to come down on his side, exile Arius for heresy, and therefore leave him as the senior churchman of the Roman empire--which meant major political power, in an empire which had newly adopted Christianity and sought to enforce it as the empire's religion. It's highly significant that the draft 'creed' relating to the Godhead was initially acceptable to Arius; but because Alexander and his side simply wanted Arius 'out', they made the language more extreme; so that reconciliation wouldn't be achieved. And so they added the clause that Jesus was homoousios, of the same substance, with the Father--knowing Arius would have to reject this. Again, this was no outcome of sober, sincere Bible study. It was pure politics.

This kind of thing fascinates me. The battle between Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian churches rages on today, though thankfully I don't think we see quite as many instances of parading around the dead bodies of opponents. The things that have been done in the name of Christianity and its various sects always baffles my mind. The crusades, the invasion and forced conversion of indigenous people by the Spanish conquistadors, witch hunts, and even the torture and murder of so-called Arian heretics, all show a stark contrast with anything and everything Jesus ever said. Jesus was a consistent proponent of the "love thy neighbor as thyself" doctrine, the "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" doctrine, and the "turn the other cheek" doctrine, through and through. So how anyone has ever been able to sanely extrapolate that killing in his name is a good thing is just beyond me. Nowadays it seems the conflict between different sects is a lot more passive-aggressive, with differing denominations decrying each other as being false or cultish, and emotionalizing the issue just the same, but without the whole "we'll kill you if you disagree" part. Although from the way some people get so flustered over this, I don't think it's entirely by choice that they hold back in this regard.

So feeling inspired to learn more, after reading that article, I went digging and found an interesting collection of Biblical quotes and corresponding analyses on the website of a church that identifies as being "Biblical Unitarian." Specifically they cover 17 verses from the Old Testament and 88 verses from the New Testament, all of which are the quotes most typically used in support of the concept of the Trinity. I thought it was very good, honest analysis of each Bible verse. And I do appreciate the disclaimer they have at the top, which starts off, "please feel free not to believe everything you find here." The site seems very genuine in its attempt to discuss each verse rationally and with proper historic context and does not attempt to force any particular doctrine down ones throat, so to speak, at least as I read it. And again, I find it all fascinating. I thought I'd quote here a sample of the analysis given on that site, in particular addressing what is probably the most famous quote given to support the idea of the trinity, namely John 10:30 ("I and my father are one").

There is no reason to take this verse to mean that Christ was saying that he and the Father make up "one God." The phrase was a common one, and even today if someone used it, people would know exactly what he meant--he and his father are very much alike. When Paul wrote to the Corinthians about his ministry there, he said that he had planted the seed and Apollos had watered it. Then he said, "he who plants and he who waters are one" (1 Cor. 3:8 -- KJV). In the Greek texts, the wording of Paul is the same as that in John 10:30, yet no one claims that Paul and Apollos make up "one being." Furthermore, the NIV translates 1 Corinthians 3:8 as "he who plants and he who waters have one purpose." Why translate the phrase as "are one" in one place, but as "have one purpose" in another place? In this case, translating the same phrase in two different ways obscures the clear meaning of Christ's statement in John 10:30: Christ always did the Father's will; he and God have "one purpose."

I tried to confirm this myself by searching for the original Greek texts of both Biblical verses online, and learned two things: they were somewhat hard to find in the first place, and I don't speak Greek. I did notice that there was definitely a grouping of words in the first quote that was identical to a grouping of words in the second quote, which is enough for me. Plus I also noticed that in about half of the different English versions of the Bible, that line in 1 Corinthians 3:8 is translated as "are one" while the other half translate it as "have one purpose." Personally I have to agree with the Biblical Unitarian analysis here; why on Earth would certain editions of the Bible translate the two verses differently even though they have the same structure in Greek? (Probable answer: because the ones responsible for translating in the first place either wanted to find better support for the idea of the Trinity / Jesus' divinity, or felt pressure from above to do so.) So anyways, like I said, this kind of thing fascinates me, and I would recommend that you take a moment to look at some of the other analysis if this similarly interests you.

An old friend of mine from my school-of-ed-days called me up today in the middle of one of his classes with a math question. He was subbing in a precalculus class at some high school, and had come to a problem that was causing a lot of hubbub amongst the students, and apparently no amount of internal deliberation was clearing anything up. He read the problem to me over the phone in the hopes that I might immediately recognize what was going on and what the proper solution was. Unfortunately, I found myself in a similar boat as the students, and to give you a quick spoiler, I ultimately determined that the real problem at hand was that the question was extremely poorly worded and just not practical. Unfortunately since I never got to see the problem or the textbook from whence it came, I'm just quoting--as best as I can--what I think he said the problem was over the telephone, so understand that just as in the game of telephone, the accuracy of my quote may have already degraded. But if I recall correctly, it was something like this, below.

A company has a total of 14 computers, 1 host computer, and 3 printers. Using graph theory, show whether it is possible to connect the computers so that each one is connected to two other computers, the host, and one printer.

The first issue I have with this problem should be obvious to anyone who understands a decent amount about computer networking: he's doing it wrong. In fact he couldn't be more wrong about his general setup to this problem. In the real world, you would never use graph theory in this situation. The actual solution, which we'll get to eventually, is so much more straight-forward. So as you might imagine, when I first heard that question, I did not hear a sophisticated mathematician posing a practical problem about graph theory; instead I pictured a bumbling old man frustrated with technology walking into an electronics store ranting about the "best" way to connect a series of computers together--a bumbling old man who clearly doesn't understand a thing about modern networking at all, that is. Lord have mercy on whatever poor sales associate has to deal with him and try to explain how horribly inefficient his use of unnecessary mathematics is making things. So I don't see any real mathematical insight to be gleaned from that problem; I just see a lot of ambiguity that leaves the students worse off in the end. I see an older math teacher gradually losing touch with the modern world, struggling to explain concepts of graph theory to uninterested youth and desperately trying to tie in real-world examples to make the problem seem more interesting. While that's a good thing to do in theory, it's actually quite harmful in practice when the real world example doesn't make any sense. And take my word for it--in this particular case, it just doesn't make any sense.

First of all, he's omitted some very important details. Keep in mind that my phrasing of the problem above is not at all a verbatim quote, and from what I recall, one central point of confusion for the students was whether or not we should count the host computer as a "computer". For the sake of clarity, the question should explicitly label each reference to a computer as either the "host" or a "client," rather than using a broad term. It seemed to be asking to connect each client computer to 2 other client computers as well as the host computer, although they didn't really explain that well. So which is it? Do we connect each computer to 2 other clients + the host = 3 computers total? Or do we just daisy chain the host in there somewhere, essentially making it indistinguishable from any of the client machines? The latter option wouldn't really make sense, because it'd be extremely difficult to configure any of the clients not directly connected to the host to even recognize it as a host. Plus you'd have to have all of the computers powered on at all times for that to work, and even then, if any one of them had any hardware issues, all machines further down the line would lose connectivity.

And what about the printers? Are these the low-budget, only-has-one-USB-connection type of printers you'd find in a retail store? Or are these full-blown network printers? If they're the former, then they can only possibly be connected to one computer at a time, so the quick answer to the question is: no, you cannot connect each client to a printer. But even if you could somehow hack together some sort of one-to-many, direct plug connections with printers to computers, why would you? There are much easier and better solutions. You'd connect each printer to a single computer (and if you had any sanity to your setup, all three printers would be connected specifically to the host--though this would not be strictly required), and then configure them as "shared printers" on the network. But in an office where you need 14+ workstations, the likelihood of buying three low-end printers is already quite low; you would more likely get network printers which would be connected to the network at large and not directly to any computer (though you would still install the printer drivers on the host computer and allow it to act as a controller). But I suppose this doesn't fit well with the graph theory model to suggest that we don't have the printers attached to any computers directly.

So the real question at this point should start to become a little more clear, namely: what the hell does the author actually want us to learn? It's important to recognize that he clearly has a very misinformed view of how computer networking works, and instead try to abstract the problem into something meaningful. If our goal is to connect each object to no more than two other objects, then I don't really see the point. Clearly you can line the computers up in a circle and daisy-chain them together. That's easy. And with the additional (potential) requirement of each one connecting to the host and a printer, you just throw them in there somewhere as well. Here we have to abandon our sense of real-world common sense and assume that printers can magically have as many computers plug into them as is desired, when in actuality (as mentioned above), they would only ever allow one input connection--either direct USB through a computer or indirectly over a network. So our messy graph theory diagram might look something like this:

But again, I don't really see what the point of this would be. If all this exercise is intended to do is to get students to be able to line up things in a circle, then it seems completely trivial and a waste of time. If that was really the lesson, perhaps the class would be better suited standing in a circle holding hands to the benefit of any bodily-kinesthetic learners in the class. Although I suppose that hand-holding is probably considered sexual harassment nowadays, so scratch that. Looking at that diagram above produced from the problem, the real question we should be asking is: what the fuck is wrong with our IT department?! If we are directly connecting computers as the problem implies, there are still more problems this creates. First, computers typically only have one network card. If we are connecting them directly to each other, in any interpretation of the setup described, we will absolutely need at least two network cards in each computer (if not three).

From there we would either connect each node directly together with crossover cables, or we would need to place 2-port switches between each connection. I should probably be tarred and feathered for even mentioning the possibility of using crossover cables as such in a business environment, so forget that I even said that and stick with using 2-port switches. But let's not forget that 2-port switches don't actually exist; they generally only come in multiples of 4 or limited multiples of 5. So we'll get a bunch of 4-port switches to connect in between each pair of client machines. We might use the third port to also connect the host, but the problem now is that we potentially have redundant connections to the host, as each computer is connected to two different switches on two different network cards, yet each switch might have its own connection to the host. Fortunately, since we have an even number of nodes, if we daisy-chain them all into a loop, then we can alternate switches to also be attached to the host computer. If the problem had an odd number of clients, though, we'd be fucked. What I've described so far would look something like the diagram below. The hexagons are switches. And keep in mind that I'm not even bothering with printers on this one.

Next logical question: how the hell are we assigning unique IPs to each of these computers? We can only have one DHCP client (which is why I've chosen switches instead of routers), so is the host computer somehow magically handling this? That seems exceedingly complex, and would require it to have eight (yes, 8!) network cards installed (one for the internet), which is downright ridiculous. Of course I could modify my diagram above and have each switch feed into a central router that is also connected to the host. That would be reasonable (all things considered) and would no longer require the host to have eight network cards. But even still, this is getting exceedingly complex. The fact that we've got 14 machines with 2 network cards each is insane. And do we really want to buy fourteen 4-port switches when we'll only ever be using two ports on half of them and three on the other half? Who in their right mind would set up a network that way?

If you want to know how this would be done in the real world, it's actually quite simple. We'd have a server room that contains the host and a clusterfuck of network equipment, like most businesses do. There you would have your 24-port switch (instead of fourteen individual switches), your router, any firewalls and spam filters you might like, and your host machine. The host machine would act as the domain controller running Active Directory on a Windows network, or do something similar on a *nix-based network. There would be absolutely no daisy chaining. Each client would just be plugged into the one central switch, which allows it to connect to the host or to any other client machine. The printers would all be network printers and would similarly be connected to the switch and controlled by the host. Nice and simple. Here's the final diagram.

As you can see, we don't need to even think about using graph theory in this practical, real world example. We just get a switch with enough ports to accommodate all of our machines and peripherals (and then some, so we can always add a few more), and then just plug in everything and go. Graph theory should never enter into the equation. So now I kind of hope that at least one of the students in that class, or even the regular teacher, might see my analysis of that confusing problem here. The students have every right to question it. Whatever "right answer" was intended to be produced, I can assure you it was not all that "right." I understand that math is a mostly theoretical field which makes it sometimes difficult to tie in a broad range of real-world examples. But even so, this example just makes it look like the author isn't even trying. That was a terrible example, and I think it does more harm than good to ask a student something like this, because if they're in the least bit tech-savvy they should be able to tell you "you're doing it wrong," or simply fail to come up with any intelligible answer out of shyness.

If this question was intended to hint at some discussion of star topology versus ring topology between interconnected routers (not computers!), then maybe you'd have something worthwhile. But generally speaking, you would never connect two client computers directly to each other. You would connect them to a larger switch or router which has a host controller attached at some point, and that router may be connected to further routers. A much better question would have been from the perspective of an internet service provider trying to connect a number of network clusters. That question would probably have a number of parallels with the current question, but would have been substantially better seeing as it actually makes sense to ask that. Connecting different routers together that have to share a "host" connection to the outside world is an actual, meaningful problem with real world applications. Connecting 14 client machines in an office directly through one another is not.

Unfortunately it's questions like these that contribute to a general loss of interest in schoolwork. Because if the author is trying to illustrate all the uses mathematics has in the real world, he should probably, you know, make sure that his real world examples are actually plausible. Otherwise, what's the point? Lastly, a quick shout out to an online web app called Autodesk Draw, which is fantastic for making Visio-style diagrams if you don't actually have Visio and don't feel like paying any money. But anyways, the lesson to walk away with is that your high school teachers might not have a clue what they're talking about. Don't trust that they do, kids.

As some of you might already know, I'm a HUGE Legend of Zelda fan. It's been my favorite video game (read: franchise of video games) ever since I was a kid; I even like it more than Mario (although that is a close second). I've played and beaten just about every Zelda game there is, with the notable exception of Zelda II: The Adventure of Link, which I could never really get into. (Note: CD-i games and the like don't count. If you don't know what those are, you're lucky.) And I've always been the kid who, after beating a Zelda game, has to continue to make sure I've finished all the side quests, found all the pieces of heart, and unlocked every secret. It's a minor obsession of mine. There have even been many times where I'll be screaming at the console/hand held, fuming with frustration over having to attempt certain tasks over and over and over again, but I'll keep trying until I get them right. I think you might call it OCZD, or obsessive-compulsive Zelda disorder. And then I generally go back and replay each game years later as well. Right now I'm replaying Twilight Princess, and it's just as fun the second time.

But anyways, I've noticed a couple of common themes and hidden messages to the Zelda games over the years, and I've decided to compile them here into a short list. I'm not sure that the game creators had really intended for kids to take away these messages with their games, but nonetheless they seem pretty prominent to me, regardless of intent.

1. Everyone else's problems are your problems

And not only that, but in fact everyone else is literally incapable of solving their own problems without your help. The Legend of Zelda games, particularly since Ocarina of Time and especially true in Majora's Mask, have made the concept of "side quests" integral to game play. You learn that farm women are incapable of keeping their chickens penned without your help, carpenters are unable to locate their own tools without your assistance, and if anyone's ever in need of eye drops, a trip to the local pharmacy is utterly impossible; they need your help. This isn't an entirely bad lesson to learn. If it was intentional, then hopefully it's meant to teach kids a sense of empathy and to place value on helping others. But it's honestly ridiculous the lengths you have to go to help other people who would be perfectly capable of helping themselves in the real world. The flip side of the coin is that it teaches you to pry your nose into other people's business with an incessant desire to "help" them, as if to believe that you somehow have more capacity to do things "the right way" than everyone else around you.

2. The only skills in life that matter are the ones you've most recently acquired

The basic format of a Zelda game is to have to fight your way through a series of dungeons/temples, where each one contains a map, a compass (which has never actually functioned in the way any normal compass would, mind you), a number of "small" keys, a single "big" key, a unique item that grants you a new skill, and some magical artifact or piece of one. That's the format they've chosen and stuck with, and it works pretty well overall. But one thing I've noticed with this format: you're completely helpless in a given dungeon until you have acquired the new item/skill. Then, once you have this new item, it's pretty much all you need. Forget the fact that you've become an incredible archer overnight, forget that you've learned to jump vastly higher and farther than any normal human could, and forget that you have an amazing Batman-style grappling gun. None of that matters anymore because you gained all those skills in the last level. If you want to survive in this level, you need to acquire a new skill. In fact, this new skill is really the only thing that matters. Sure those other things seemed nice at the time, but you need to keep up with the latest trends, and all those things you learned before are now obsolete. There's no point in sticking with anything for too long or trying to see the larger picture; what you need to stay focused on is what's in the here and now.

3. You need to be a Jack-of-all-trades

With that said, Link still does retain all of the items and skills he gains and usually has to use them all again by the end of the game. The final dungeon is usually where the developers try to create an amalgam of everything you've done so far, thus requiring every skill you've learned so far. So while most of the game you only ever need to stay focused on whatever new skill you've just picked up, eventually you do need to bring everything together and use things you've learned in the past. And you often need to be able to do a lot of different things. Link certainly becomes very well-rounded and worldly by the end of each game. And he always ends up with an inordinate amount of stuff. Which brings me to my next point...

4. Never throw anything away; you will always have space for it

This game definitely teaches you to be a pack rat, just because once you gain an item, no matter how large or unwieldy it may be, you have it with you until the end. This often flies completely in the face of physics, as it doesn't really make sense that you're much heavier while wearing the iron boots you acquired on your feet, but normal weight when you're simply carrying them in your pocket. And how on Earth do you fit a pair of iron boots in your pocket to begin with? Isn't your pocket already full of sticks, nuts, bombs, boomerangs, slingshots, pendants, shovels, grappling guns, mirrors, boots, flippers, two changes of clothes, a dictionary, a giant hammer, musical instruments, baseball gloves, a lantern, a wooden raft, a step ladder, and more? I mean, seriously, it's just so much; how can you fit it all in there? (That's what she said...) The problem with this message is it teaches kids to keep acquiring more and more things without ever once thinking of where they're going to put it. It teaches them simply not to worry about space issues; what's important is that they keep getting more.

5. You can (and should) make unimaginably huge profits by mowing lawns and mugging people

In just about every Zelda game, you can find hundreds upon hundreds of precious gems just by cutting away shrubbery. In fact, this is actually what you need to do in some games. You need to acquire some item only available in one particular store that is impossible to shoplift from, so you need to get money. The way to do this is swinging your sword at any grass you can find, because surely this will turn up emeralds and rubies if you keep at it long enough. And indeed, you don't have to keep it up very long at all! And the other way you can get money quick is by assaulting anyone who crosses your path. Half the people you encounter are loaded and easy pickings if you stab them, and you can eat the flesh of the other half to recover your health. Very positive message there, Nintendo.

6. Every girl you meet will fall hopelessly in love with you without delay

This is true regardless of race, creed, or even species. Every girl you meet has never had any other friends her entire life, and as such will become instantly and completely infatuated with you. They will give you looks of longing if you leave, force you against your will to agree to marry them, and be playfully cheery and receptive to anything you say or do. The damsel in distress archetype really drives it home, too. None of these girls can seemingly do anything without your help (just like everyone else in the game), so you better believe they're grateful when you come to their aid.

7. ...But for some reason, you aren't getting any (and you won't, no matter what)

Despite the fact that all the girls seem to be head-over-heels for Link, none of them will put out. In fact, no matter what unbelievable lengths Link goes to, no matter how many incredible deeds he does on their behalf, and no matter how much time and effort he puts into fulfilling their wishes, none of them are willing to give Link any sort of reward for it. In the end, all the female characters are just a bunch of teases. Honestly I feel bad for the guy, but that's probably because his experience sometimes seems to mirror my own. While none of the female characters actually encounter each other during the game, I'm pretty sure they actually continue living after you turn the game off and talk to each other. I'm sure the only real reason they show so much interest in Link when he's around is not because of anything about Link, but instead because they want to compete with the other girls in the game. It's not about Link; it's about becoming the alpha female. So they'll play coy when Link's around, doing only what they have to in order to lure him in, but they only do so for the purpose of proving to the other ladies that they're the most attractive one. As soon as Link starts asking for things, though, you better believe his needs are going to be ignored. Either that, or I need to get out more and stop personifying game sprites.

So it's been almost exactly a full month since I last blogged. It's actually been 29 days, which is you know is the length of February when it's trying extra hard, but everyone knows February is still a pansy as far as months go. Although it is a great time for snowboarding and music videos. Anyways, I've already received several complaints that I've dropped off the face of the Earth with lack of blog updates from multiple people, since in internet/nerd time, everyday is as long as a life-age of the earth. So I'm back, and I have updates.

First of all, I now have a new roommate. I'm not sure if I ever formally mentioned here on this blog that I've been living alone in my own fancy-schmancy apartment, but I have been since January, up until recently of course when I got a roommate. She is a she. And I actually kind of have a deal with her that she doesn't have to pay any rent, and I also have to purchase all of her food. This is, of course, because she is 9 months old (going on 10!) and wholly my responsibility. I also have to clean up after her as you might imagine. She is half black and half white, and actually a little bit furry. Her name is Emerald. And she is adorable. She absolutely loves to snuggle up in my armpit as I'm lying on the couch, or crawl over my face to wake me up in the morning. She likes to cuddle. However, I would generally describe her as a bit of a "scaredy cat," so to speak, since she doesn't seem to like alarm clocks or vacuum cleaners.

Oh, by the way, she's a cat. Also see this chart for an explanation of what my conversations with her are like.

My sister and I went to Petsmart a few weeks back after learning from one of my bosses that a number of local animal shelters had a bunch of their animals for adoption on display at said retail chain. I immediately fell in love with Emerald because she immediately made it clear that she would not be outmatched for "most cuddliest" by anyone. She's maintained that title very well since I've had her. When she first moved in, she was naturally very scared, as cats always are when they move someplace new. She found hiding spaces I never realized existed. Most of her time was spent those first few days hiding in various nooks and crannies in my second bedroom, which I use exclusively as a music studio. Little did she realize that all those big "safe" things she was hiding under were amplifiers and drums and other things that make lots of noise. She found out later on.

But even when she was still in the "omigosh my world's been turned upside down" phase, she's still been remarkably obedient. From day 1 she's come on command whenever I snap my fingers twice, and no one ever trained her to do this. She just picked it without delay on her own. She also now knows that when I clap my hands and scrunch my face up menacingly it means that she's doing something (or about to do something) that she shouldn't.

Speaking of doing things she shouldn't, thankfully all my furniture is still shipshape. She has all her claws but has hardly even thought about touching the couch or anything else valuable. She does go ahead and let loose on the carpet I have under my coffee table, but that's fine with me since it's not the best carpet to begin with. As a result, I've kind of been going back and forth on whether or not I should declaw her in the front. I've been acting like a damn woman quite fickle in this regard, as it's been hard to come to a decision. We always got the cats I grew up with declawed in the front and thought nothing of it at all. For some people it's necessary because some cats will go after the furniture as soon as you leave the room. But Emerald is not one of those cats. Like I said, she's been extremely obedient. And I was reading some stuff by animal rights activists and veterinarians saying that declawing is cruel, although they're probably hippies and vegetarians. So I don't know. It might just not be necessary. And if it's not necessary, I might not do it. I'm still deciding though.

In other news, one thing I've been keeping mildly busy with is trying to do volunteer things around town. Every Sunday at 2:00 at the Capitol Building, the Lutheran Campus Center sponsors an event called "Savory Sunday." It's an event where they bring a lot of food to give away to the homeless. Apparently a number of local restaurants donate plenty of leftover ingredients to the Lutherans, and then at 11:00 on Sunday morning they come together in the kitchen and basically say, "okay, what can we cook?" They cook whatever they can muster using whatever ingredients they happen to have, and then bring it over to the capitol building to serve at 2:00. So far I've only taken part in the second half of it all--serving it to the homeless people--though I think I might try my hand at the cooking portion one of these Sundays. The third and final portion which I also have helped out with once is the cleanup afterward.

It's been a very interesting experience. Some of the people there are fascinating, and everyone shows an incredible amount of gratitude for something so simple. One man I met actually held a Bachelors of Science degree in architecture, yet was homeless. That's just not the typical portrait of a homeless person that you'd envision. Another man who goes regularly is blind, and my friend Ginger often walks with him and helps him pick out which food he wants. Yet another regular is a man who is a strict vegan. I guess I had never expected that from a homeless person either; I always just assumed they'd take whatever they can get. But this man apparently refuses to sacrifice his principles of not eating any meat at all even though his financial situation is far less than ideal. I find that incredibly admirable, even though I am a person who usually mocks most vegetarians (as both my sister and friend Karen could tell you). I also encountered a man who told me how he used to "kill people for the government" (presumably in the Army or Marines), but explained how that's just not the answer and just wasn't right. For someone who has actually killed other human beings, he seemed like a remarkably gentle and compassionate man with the way he spoke.

I've actually only done this about four times now, but I always value the experience and plan to continue doing so as long as the Lutherans keep hosting it. But in the spirit of continuing community service, I also recently signed up to help out with a very large community service project that a local evangelical church is hosting. I saw their chief pastor explain in a sermon that church is not defined by the building they're in, and church is not simply the act of attending a lecture every Sunday, but instead church is the very body of people who were present, seeking God and wanting to help others. And so on Sunday, May 3rd, instead of having church services, they were organizing an array of community service projects around the town and asking for as many volunteers as possible. In principle I think this is a fantastic message that I'd love to see encouraged in just about every church. I signed up for an activity that sounded a little more "manly" than some of the others, something that involved potential heavy lifting and sawing of branches. Unfortunately I don't know a soul who will be involved, but I think it's still something I'd like to do. I can freely admit that getting involved in social situations where I don't know anyone is something I find extremely intimidating, but it's good to face your fears, right? Plus I don't think I did nearly as much community service as I would have liked during college, so it's about time I start making up for that.

Lastly, I've recently discovered a website that I think is absolutely incredible. To say that I discovered it only recently is actually a little misleading, because in truth I've known about the whole website for awhile, but I only recently stumbled across one section of this website that I will focus on. The whole website I'm talking about is of course reddit.com, a relatively popular social bookmarking site and a site I've known about for some time now. It's basically a collection of links to interesting things on the internet that people submit and vote on, and is a quick way to find what's popular. All of the content is submitted by users, and it's sorted into categories which are similarly maintained by users. The admins of the site are generally very hands-off; they just provide a framework for people to submit things or leave comments about them, but it's up to the people to come up with the actual content.

There are literally hundreds of different categories, like funny, happy, or cute; pics, videos, or entertainment; science, technology, and programming; feminisms, mens' rights, and equality. There's even a category exclusively concerning bacon. But the one that really caught my eye and that I thought I'd bring to your attention is called Suicide Watch.

Suicide Watch, or SW as they prefer to go by, is really a fantastically incredible community. The whole purpose of that little section of the site is to allow people to vent, share their stories, ask for help and advice, and generally just find someone with a willing ear to listen. And the people who have found their way into that little community are some of the most helpful and caring people you'll ever meet, electronically that is. Many of them have really been there. Unquestionably the main reason people come there looking for help is because of relationship issues coupled with depression. Many of the people who regularly offer advice have been through very abusive relationships and things beyond my comprehension. But the degree of openness, honesty, acceptance, and support of others is unmatched by anything else I've ever seen. And the advice is quite often very good.

I would say that right now about 50 or 60% of the people there asking for help are people who are seriously contemplating suicide and need the support of just about anyone to help talk them out of it, while the remaining are people who will acknowledge that they are no longer at any real risk of committing suicide, but still wanted an outlet to vent and find support, answers, and advice. I myself fell in the latter camp just a little while ago when I posted a rant venting about how I was feeling, on a night when I was feeling quite low. And like I said, the willingness to listen and offer support from this community is virtually unparalleled by any other group I've seen. I've chimed in a couple times now to share my own stories and offer my own advice to others asking for it and felt like I've actually made a difference in some lives. It's wonderful to be able to have a positive impact on people who are feeling very low and looking for whatever support they can get, and if you know anyone who is going through a hard time and also can at least manage their way around the internet, I'd definitely recommend it to complement whatever other support structures they have.

Also right now, I'd say that probably about 40% of the submissions to that category are "songs of the day," when people find music videos they find inspiring or uplifting and want to share them, while the remaining 60% of the submissions are just rants, posts, or brief cries for help. While that may sound dreary, I am just very grateful that it exists as a truly helpful support structure for a number of people, and encourages healing in a very tangible way. If you think you have any advice you could offer anyone in need, I'd encourage you to take a moment this weekend to browse through some of the submissions, see if there's anything you'd like to chime in on with advice, and if so create an account to do so. One of the major advantages of reddit is that they hardly collect any personal information at all. All they ask for is a user name and password (entering your e-mail address is entirely optional!). If you know me and think you might actually be interested in volunteering your advice or just a listening ear but are afraid of technology, just ask me sometime and I'll show you how to get started.

In related news, I've actually been working on a small pet project website that will function extremely similarly to SW. Since I've started to notice a slight trend of people who really aren't considering suicide but still ask for help with relationships and depression in SW nonetheless, I have plans to create a website for people to share their stories of heartbreak and offer advice to each other in much the same way. I thought I'd also include mechanisms to easily post artwork, music, poetry, and articles that people have found helpful. While in many respects I will be ripping off some ideas in trying to create a community with a very similar but somewhat distinct focus, I figure no one will mind, as the more support structures are out there, the better. I'll have an update on that site whenever I actually get around to finishing it, which I cannot even estimate yet.

I have also very, very, very slowly but surely been continuing work on creating an album of original music. I still have a good number of songs in incomplete draft form, a handful in complete draft form, and a couple of ideas floating around nebulously as well. I can tell you right now that several of the songs will probably come off as being "emo" when they're finished. But I'm quite satisfied with the way they're turning out nonetheless. Also, I have very rough plans to write a song explaining how to do partial fractions, mostly because that topic by far confused me the most in high school when I took calculus and I don't think there are any songs about it yet. Although, that's one of the nebulous ideas, as I haven't written anything for that yet.

So that's that. Now that it's midnight:50, I'm off to bed.

Warning: Rant

I got into another small political fight on the internet recently. I don't fully know why I get involved in these things, since they can really get me riled up and frustrated, and I often end up with a serious case of someone is WRONG on the internet, but I do so anyway. There's a little background to this, first of all. This argument I got involved in is actually one I've heard before, and thought was utterly ridiculous from the first time I heard about it. But it kind of subsided for awhile, but was recently brought up again, and it's still just as ridiculous as ever. Back when President Obama was still only President-Elect Obama, he was using change.gov as his online base of operations. (Now everything on that site has since been migrated to whitehouse.gov.) But back when we were still in that brief transitional period, he had all of his agenda bullet points neatly organized, and this argument I haven't explained yet regards one of the bullet points he used to have on the change.gov site regarding education.

His team had come up with the idea that, as a graduation requirement in public schools, middle and high schoolers should have to do a total of 40 to 50 hours of community service. Shortly after this was published, conservative talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh saw this and lambasted it as "reenacting slavery." To avoid bad press, they just quietly removed it from the change.gov website. And I hadn't really heard much about it since then, until recently, when I happened upon a hypersensitive internet troll looking to pick a fight.

First of all, before I get into the nitty-gritty details of the argument that took place, I just want to say that I think the idea of including 40-some hours of community service as a high school graduation requirement is a spectacular idea. I'm an Eagle Scout, so I was blessed with many opportunities to help out with community service-y stuff growing up. And I think it's great. It builds character to be out there, laying down new mulch on a school playground, or building a new sandbox, or cleaning up church basements from flood damage, or giving food to the homeless, etc. etc. etc. Not only does it directly help the community you're serving, but it helps you indirectly. It can teach you the value of a hard day's work. It can broaden your perspective some by actually making you get off your ass and help other people. Bottom line is I think community service is wonderful, and not enough people do it.

Now I'm not going to try to hide the fact that I am not a big fan of Mr. Limbaugh. I think he's an arrogant hypocrite. The man preaches that anyone who does illegal drugs should be sent off to jail without exception. Well--except for him of course, when in 2003 it was revealed that he was addicted to illegal drugs. And his message on family values would probably be more sincere if he hadn't been through three divorces now. At this point I really think he only serves to poison the Republican party, because he just comes off as a wolf in sheep's clothing. And his claim that 40 hours of community service is slavery is just downright absurd to me, and epitomizes the sheer laziness of the times.

Think back with me for a second, to when America was first formed. Pilgrims at all. It's not hard to envision that "community service" was pretty much an unspoken requirement. People just did things for each other. They didn't complain. They didn't fight tooth and nail against any idea of helping their neighbors. They just helped them. It was the right thing to do. Think barn raisings, for instance. Whole communities would band together to build barns for each other. The same communities would also come together to build churches. It was a time where if something needed doing, people didn't moan and whine about it, they just got it done. And this is an area where I will freely acknowledge that times have changed. Nowadays, we seem to live in a somewhat narcissistic and selfish society by comparison.

I mean, first of all, just think about the logistics of this. Middle and high school adds up to seven years of schooling. And since there are 180 days in a standard school year, with class 7 hours a day, that means spanned across this interval you have a total of 8,820 hours devoted to school. Keep in mind this does not include homework at all (which could greatly increase the number of hours, depending on how serious the kid is about good grades and whatnot). 40 hours is one standard work week for adults, and it's less than 0.5% of all the in-class time during this period. Bottom line is: if your kid can't do one week of work spanned across seven years of school, you've got some problems. 40 hours is nothing at all. I think it's pathetic that someone would compare 40 hours of service work in a 7-year period to be "slavery." I mean, really? If that's "slavery," then just how long will it be before we have parents suing the schools for assigning too much homework? Where do we draw the line? Because that's just like involuntary servitude, too, dontchaknow. I can hear it now... "You can't force my child to do all this homework, it's just not fair!" I mean, honestly, just how lazy can we be as a country?

So anyways, someone very briefly mentioned the topic, and I replied with my thoughts, and then another person stepped in to argue with me, adamantly assuming the position that this 40-hour plan would without question be illegal slavery. I pointed out that the idea is no more slavery than homework is slavery, and he came back at me, saying, "don't young people have rights too?" I pointed out that, in fact, young people have significantly less rights in American society. They cannot smoke. They cannot drink. For the most part, they cannot drive a car. They cannot vote. They cannot be outside during certain hours in most cities. So on and so forth. My opponent conceded that they did in fact have fewer rights, but further insisted that they must have some rights (with the implication that making them do one week of community service is a clear demonstration that they have no rights). He also gave a hypothetical situation in which a child was forced to go door-to-door for the sake of a political cause they didn't support.

That's a valid concern, even though it's ultimately completely off-topic. I agree that children shouldn't be forced to labor for one specific cause, if it goes against their political or religious ideals. But that's not something anyone has actually proposed--other than this guy who I was arguing with, making up ridiculous hypothetical situations. I really am inclined to believe that he's probably never done a single hour of community service in his short life, because if he had, he would know that what he was describing is just not how it works. In fact, in college, students in the education program already are somewhat required to do community service! They've had this requirement for decades. They have to help tutor young kids in after school programs. No one's ever called that "slavery" before. But that's college, not high school, and college is optional--so the argument goes. Actually high school is optional too in a way--you can home school, pick a private school, or the kid could choose to simply not do the requirement and thereby not be rewarded with a diploma. You're not being forced to graduate, after all. A diploma is something you're supposed to earn through hard work.

Also, the majority of community service projects I've seen are completely apolitical and completely secular. For instance, I don't see how pulling up weeds from a school playground can possibly be offensive to someone. Or scrubbing off graffiti from walls. Or handing out food to homeless people. Or mopping floors. Or volunteering at an animal shelter. Etc. etc. etc. Sure, there are some groups you could volunteer for that have political or religious affiliations, and surely these causes are not something everyone wants to support. But in the grand scheme of all things community service, they're still in the minority. If I were to come up with a hypothetical situation, I can imagine that if a student wanted to help out with some political organization and have that count toward their community service hours, that would probably be okay. But the thought that a school would tell students they specifically had to work for one organization and one organization only is just ludicrous. That's just not how it works. The teacher education programs in colleges already serve as a prime example of this; students get to choose where they volunteer.

I pointed this out to my internet opponent. He came back at me again, querying, "Is this really an educational requirement? What the heck does involuntary service have to do with reading, writing and arithmetic? Does the school have the mandate or the capacity to teach morality? Why not religion, then?" At this point it was pretty clear he was not about to swayed no matter what I said. So I just ended the argument, saying that we were going in circles, and that he was being utterly ridiculous. But I will share my thoughts on his last round of questioning here. He seems to think of education as nothing more than reading, writing, and arithmetic. As someone who was in the teacher education program for four years, I think of it as hopefully a lot more than just that. As it happens, schools did used to teach religion and morality for quite a long while. The removal of religious teachings from the education system is still fairly recent in our nation's history. Teachers used to whack misbehaving students with yardsticks, made them do physical labor, and many other things beside just bookwork. That's not a new thing at all (and this continued well after the 13th amendment passed, mind you). Now I'm not advocating going back to the early 1900s style of education, but I'm just pointing out that the precedent is set that education is (or at least used to be) a good deal more than just course material. And I really do think it should be more than about just passing tests. My opponent also asked me this next question, which I'm just going to quote verbatim, because it's just so damn poetic.

What if they have better things to do? What if my child is an entrepreneur who has their own work to attend to? Or would like to work a part time job in order to save up funds for some hobby? Or to practice the music or math they love? You'd take that time from them without apology, and feel self-satisfied in having done so?

Yes. Yes I would. I derive all of my satisfaction from knowing that I've forever stolen 40 hours of your child's free time. That's 40 hours less he'll be playing the latest rendition of Grand Theft Auto or Halo. That's taken 40 hours away from the time could have spent experimenting with alcohol and trying to bang a cheerleader. That's 40 hours less he'll be watching porn. Oh, woe is you. Your poor, poor child. My heart weeps for the fact that he'll actually be exposed to community service and might learn a thing or two about the idea of helping people in his community--you know, those ideas you've done such a spectacular job of instilling in him yourself. Your poor, poor child.

Seriously, though, all those "better" things he listed--being an entrepreneur, having a part time job, practicing music and other hobbies--there's already something school-related that gets in the way of that, and it's called "homework." How is this any different? It's just a different type of homework assignment. Students are already expected to put their part-time jobs on hold and their hobbies aside to finish their homework. That cuts into their personal time. But they're expected to just get it done. Are we that touchy-feely of a society that we should be expected to weep with sorrow and sympathy for these poor children being forced to volunteer at animal shelters, hospitals, and nursing homes for one week? Again, as a nation, are we really just that damn lazy? The thought is just appalling to me.

So, as I said, I ended my discussion with this interesting internet fellow, because he just wasn't getting it. But of course, he felt the need to get in the last word, where he said, "such a program would subvert the choices and waste the time of an unknown number of children and parents." Cry me a river. And stop being so damn lazy. Teaching our kids the value of community service is exactly what this country needs.