vLog Unspecial 06: Private Parts

I don't know how this slipped through the cracks Space Travelers. I made this vLog Unspecial some time ago, and it seems I never posted it up!

Enjoy! I will it so!

Lt. Dan is in the House

Long time no post Space Travelers.  I was a little blogged out for a bit after working on two blogs at once rather actively.  The Metrics of Me adventure in fitness and health is complete.  I don't have any current quest, so I won't be posting there.  I plan to leave the blog up because you never know if someday I might return there to document some other exciting life change.

I've created a facebook page for the blog so people can follow it and get updates more easily when I post new entries.  Additionally, I think this will be a good way to get more feedback and even take requests on future content.  These days, I've been in a rather editorial mood with the blog.  I've have my writing style critiqued as being rather didactic and another person referring to some of my arguments as being totalitarian and lacking respect for pluralism.  I don't fully know how to process this feedback.  On the blog, I've been wanting to talk more about ideas, and less about what is going on in my own life.  I can't say I credit anything specifically for this trend, only that I've viewed this blog less as a diary and more as a creative outlet for my thoughts, and I don't know how creative I can be with the daily minutia of my life.  Some bloggers are great at that, and I love reading their stuff.  I wish I could make my logical Tuesday rich with metaphors and witty insight.  I don't think my lifestyle currently fits that kind of blog, although I do like doing the "Chapter/Verse" posts when I do travel.  This blog is my sandbox, it's often been experimental, but it's always been very intimate.  For the last three years, I'd like to say thanks to all the Space Travelers reading.

... normally I'd try to offer some sort of introduction to the topic, but I'll just jump in...

I've been thinking a lot about the media relationship with Atheism.  A few years ago, Space Traveler Leek pointed out one of his greatest frustrations in film:  Lt. Dan.  LD represents a mythological atheist:  The atheist who believes in a god, but is mad/angry/upset with it.  Needless to say, this is not an atheist.  The atheist apostate meme is something that I believe creates a great deal of stress in many atheist's lives.  


That frustration can lead to actual anger as my girlfriend pointed out to me recently when she said:  "You sound angry."  My anger wasn't a product of my atheism.  It was a resentment that I did not feel I was capable of expressing anger (in the same way and degree as a religious person), without it being some sort of statement about my beliefs.  I'm human, and I experience the full range of emotions, and that includes anger.  I'm not defined by anger, it should not mean that media generalizations of atheists are justified because I take objection to being put into a box.  The more my anger is emphasized, the more my joy, love, and patience is deemphasized, and I feel less appreciated as a human being.


Two very lead fictional atheist characters right now are House and Bones.  While popular, they tend to be depicted as socialy flawed and unhappy individuals. To complete their task/agenda (whatever the plot is) they seem to require the compassion of other more well adjusted spiritual people.


I had someone tell me in contrast that "Yes, he's weak. But he's also right. Logically, clearly and obviously right about everything all the time. He points out delusions and comforting self-deceptions in others. I think [House] does atheism more good than harm, at least more so than those who have gone before."  They went on to say "Sometimes see Hugh Laurie himself insisting on a more real representation of an atheist."

It could really go both ways couldn't it?

His weakness and bitterness are unrelated to his ability as a doctor. Certainly he could be as sober and disillusioning to self-deceptions without being bitter and mean. One of the ways to make a story interesting is to give your protagonist idiosyncrasies.  The TV detective Monk was OCD.  This played into the role he had as a detective plus it provided for humorous scenes about how it affected otherwise normal social situations. House has no tact, which is makes his bed-side manor humorous and shocking.

House is perhaps a good atheist character in many ways. He doesn't choose the easy road. He chooses one with many hardships, and much pain as a result. That path however means that he helps many people, and it's no less meaningful because he chooses to do it (as opposed to doing it because he has faith that it is his purpose).


Honestly, House is fine.  His character flaws are interesting ones, and his story is compelling. My worry is that these negative things are projected to be a part of his identity as an atheist. After all, it seems like his mental anguish would be lessened if he did believe in god.  It would make all the nice people he has to see die feel like less a tragedy if he could delude himself with thoughts of an afterlife.


While House is angry at the world, and Lt Dan is angry at a god, I can't help but feel like the subtext on both is the same:  All atheists are incomplete and hurt people who will ultimately be better and happier once they accept god.  In the epilogue bits of Forrest Gump, we see Lt. Dan, clean shaved, in love, calm, polite, emotionally healed, and god loving.  In the movie Signs, Mel Gibson's character, a former priest, rediscovers god, and is seemingly cured of his anger.  I don't know how house will end, but he's already had scenes that were either supernatural or drug induced transcendent moments that suggest we are walking a familiar path.  


House's pain makes him human.  We connect with him.  I'd like to see and ending with House emotionally healed too, I just don't want his Atheism treated like it's a wound.

Son of a Gun

Bang Bang Space Travelers. Keep honking, I'm reloading the rhetorical six-gun. Lock stock and and two smoking rhetorical barrels. Let's chit chat rata tat tat about guns.

I own two guns. I never asked for either. They were gifts. One was a rifle gifted to me by my grandfather. It has a small caliber, but a decent scope. The other is a 38 Chief special, a small 5-shot snub-nosed revolver. You might recall this gun from my Home on the Range vLog. I don't desire the liability of owning either gun so I've asked a family friend to store them in his gun safe. I'm not afraid of guns, I just don't want the responsibility.

I don't object to gun ownership. I don't think that if you own guns you're some nut-job either. That said, there are plenty of gun-nuts, and they aren't relegated to some obscure corner of society; they're everywhere. It's not simply enough to be able to own a firearm, but rather they believe that they should be able to own any number of guns and of any type.

There are two major arguments I hear in regards to the ownership of advanced weaponry. The first is self defense, the second is that it is a form of control to keep the government in check. I'd like to address both of these. I think however now is a good time to talk about some terms.

An assault rifle is defined by it's ability to have selective rate of fire, intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.

An assault weapon is defined by having both a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, sometimes in conjunction with other features such as a folding stock or a flash suppressor.

There is often some overlap in these terms, but in general these terms refer to legal language as outlined by the laws of the United States. Specifically, the term assault weapon draws a great deal of controversy from gun advocates. They say that any weapon is an assault weapon if used to assault someone. Cute, but hardly the point. The Assault Weapon Ban written in 1994 was allowed to expire under President George W Bush. There has been a great deal of debate on what the effect of that has been. Other than debate, people have enjoyed frothing at the mouth.

The argument of self defense is certainly a justifiable one. I have no objection to a person purchasing and owning a gun for self protection. As an engineer however, I have something to say about what guns are designed to protect and what guns are designed specifically for purposes of attack. Engineering is more than the fabrication of a item. It is the specific tailoring of an item to a specific objective with defined parameters.

E.g. - In formula car racing, the aerodynamic package will be changed each race and tailored for specific tracks. Tracks with long straight lengths will lead a design group to minimize drag, while a track with many tight curves would lead a team to optimize down-force. Either way, asking what type of car is the best is a questoin only answered given a specific context.

Some firearms are certainly well engineered for self-protection. Their engineers clearly understand that the ability to operate a weapon properly and accurately is balanced with the ability to transport or store the weapon. Similarly, engineering a weapon for the purposes of attacking will have different concerns and therefore will drive different design elements. To pretend all firearms are equal or even designed to accomplish the same goals is foolish. I seriously doubt that the creators of the AK-47 or the M-16 market their weapon as anything but the ultimate in attack.

Certainly, a sword is nothing but a large knife, but to pretend it was designed to chop vegetables in your kitchen would be to ignore the sword's proper context. This is the problem. Some groups are arguing that they have the right to chop their vegetables however they like, and when challenged on that front they are hiding behind some strawman argument that they have a right to own knives!

Here's the formula: Take an extreme position. When confronted, hide behind a reasonable position. Then argue there is no difference between your position and the reasonable one. By doing this, the reasonable position is used as some sort of umbrella argument for all positions. Argumentum ad reductio. This is frustrating.

Many argue that assault weapons are simply classifications which are only cosmetic. I'm hard pressed to understand how a flash suppressor is a cosmetic change on a weapon. Flash suppressors have a very specific function, and it is not a defensive feature. It is a feature which tactically aides in concealing your position. If your position is concealed, who are you defending yourself from? What defense fantasy are you in where this is self defense?

The second major argument I hear is that the reason the constitution grants gun ownership is because citizen's reserve the right to defend themselves... from the government itself. This idea is that basically that the central or state government could become out of control and it would be the public's job to take control. No, I'm serious. I hear this one very frequently.

While it is only speculation whether or not we've ever needed such a protection from our own government, it's obvious when inspecting our history that if we ever did need it to fight a police state (Japanese internment camps, Hollywood blacklists, National guard opening fire on students...), we didn't use it. In spite of this, we do NOT have to speculate on the effect gun ownership has had on the household. Perhaps, the recent attempt by the Michigan Christian Hutaree Militia to kill police officers and start an uprising is what the founders meant. I hear plenty of dommsdaying about how Obama is a socialist, Marxist, communist, secret muslim, and eater of babies (Bobs ya uncle!). I hear plenty about the inevitable sky-is-falling end of our republic. So here is my question: Why aren't out proud gun owners storming the capital? Seems like they are the same people complaining about Obama and the creeping red menace. Isn't this exactly what the argument calls for? Aren't we supposed to be putting our government in check? I'm calling the bluff. The Hutarees are the embodiment of this belief, and we can see that this kind of illogic leads only to madness. I say for all the tough guy posturing of the gun lobby, they seem perfectly fine with this argument... as long as it's somebody else.

Plenty of ammo left here, and I know there are additional arguments. I see them however as being closely enough related to the two I choose that I did not feel they demanded direct addressing.

I believe that the 2nd amendment does grant the right to personal gun ownership. I however am not as dumb to think that it grants citizens a carte blanche access to any weaponry they desire. The citizens, state and central government have a real compelling interest in limiting access to this kind of weaponry. Finding the balance of individual and civil interests will not resolve to people owning more and more and more guns.

Americans should additionally know about how our gun laws and access affects the world outside of our borders. Recently in a speech to congress, the Mexican president requested of the USA to better regulate our access to guns. He explained to congress that when the Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004, the cartels have become more armed, and they are using American purchased weapons. 80% of the weapons seized from the drug cartels are purchased in the USA. With the body count rising in Mexico, we are accessory to this violence. I defy anyone to explain to me how their desire to own an assault weapon is worth this. Gun apologists that say the cartels would get their weapons elsewhere, sure. However, they choose to get them from us, and it's because it's easier and cheaper. We're their favorite. We arm them, and we buy their drugs.

Dear Space Travelers, we live in a crazy and violent world. I only hope that people realize that no solution is to be found in embracing either madness or violence. I'll close with a story.

Yesterday I went to the Smithsonian Museum of the American Indian with my mother. She has been an anthropologist her entire life. She knows a great deal about the native peoples, and as such was able to add quite an enlightening effect on the museum's displays. She told me the origin of the phrase "bury the hatchet." It involves the Iroquois Nation's foundation. There were six tribes in total that came together, but they did not wish to come together peacefully and there was much blood shed. Finally, they met in peace and formed their confederacy. Their confederacy helped protect them from the ever expanding colonial presence in North America (they were not forced West). It began with them meeting in peace. In that meeting, a great pit was dug. Into that pit, the weapons of the six tribes were placed. They covered the pit in soil and planted a tree on top. To this day, the symbol of the Iroquois Nation is that tree.

If you think you are in threat of your government abusing you, think about burying the hatchet. They do not regret their choice. If you think you prize your gun, imagine prizing a weapon you built with your own hands. They still put it into the earth.

We cannot let gun ownership be the practice of Mutually Assured Destruction on the individual level. Such is suicide.

Chapter 32, Verse 1: The Ruins

A happy photo treat today Space Travelers! Om nom nom on these cool pics while I muse...

These are some select pictures from my trip to the Capitol Ruins in DC. Yes, the Capitol still stands, but if you (read: me) had not fallen asleep in history class so often you'd know that the Capitol was burnt down in the War of 1812. The rubble from the Capitol was moved to a hill in what is now Rock Creek Park. Deep in the park on an unassuming trail, you'll discover an odd site. Ornate pieces of limestone and marble covered in soft green moss and overgrown by plants.

It seemed like the perfect place for a photo date Space Travelers. It's this kind of thing which makes you fall in love with this city.

I've been going through a great deal of change lately. I feel like I'm in a very exciting and profound stage of metamorphosis. It was nice to visit somewhere old and in ruin, and yet so beautiful. What ruins will remain of who I was?