The Karmic Shuffle

That which is conceived in shadow

2011-12-02T21:47:00.001-08:00

It has been said that people do not do things they are proud of in the shadow of night. They do not take pride in those midnight-doings, those goings-on. One such example is the raids performed on the Occupy movements. In New York itself the raid was completed by turning off the lights in the park (literal darkness, as it was very early in the morning), rousting reporters out and telling them their press badges were useless (figurative shadow, the shadow of censorship).It is obvious that Bloomberg did not want it to be a public spectacle, that he didn't want clear, visible, visceral scenes displayed for all to see. It is clear he didn't want the press reporting on it, as bloggers are easier to discredit than Mother Jones (too bad for him their reporter managed to get some visibility to it all, live feed via twitter). It was also fairly obvious that his attempt failed utterly and painted him as exactly the kind of figure he has been made out to be, an almost comical call out to the be-monocled Robber Baron's of yesteryear. His perception of the common man through shades of disdain palpable to any who hear him speak; he cares not for someone who earns an hourly wage, he sees them as 'lesser'. As those who had serfs and slaves did before him saw the worker. As a plantation or sweatshop owner. Those that work for him fear him, for his whim can destroy their dreams almost instantly.But I digress, misdirected by my musings on the character (such as it is) of Mr. Bloomberg. I apologize.What I would like to touch on, in this rambling nighttime post, is the idea, the concept of things done in shadows. I demonstrated one (the police actions above). I feel there is another brewing, and this will be far more fearsome, far more zealous. You see, in forcing the Occupiers out of the squares they did something else. They forced them to organize, to plan. And now those plans, that organization is being done in shadow.They present their plans, they livestream much. But there will be a lot that is unspoken, unaired. A radio newsperson was told by a local (smaller) Occupy movement that the traditional media was not welcome anymore. This concerns me greatly. It means that we have achieved the next step. Some of these occupiers are fighting. It might be non-violent (likely at this stage). It might be more. It most certainly will be disruptive.Now before I get lit up like a Kerosene soaked christmas tree in a 4-pack a day smoker's house keep in mind: I generally agree with the Occupiers on both method and goals. I think they are our next, best, hope of a better tomorrow. However they have been backed into a corner. I have said this before in various places, but when a populist uprising occurs, (a real populist uprising that is) it happens because of scarcity of resources, specifically food. And if someone ELSE in the society has more than enough it never bodes well for them. Especially if that person has 300x (or more) resources than the common man.Mr. 1%, whatever happens now, you brought this on yourself. Greed and Idolatry are not only a sin, they are stupid in the extreme. Karma, bitches, is brewing. (Disclaimer: I have no plans and am not an active member in any General Assembly, or Occupy Protest, just simply an observer of trends. In other words, don't shoot the messenger)

The Police State - U$A

2011-11-19T10:37:00.000-08:00

I know I don't blog very often; however I feel like I need to say this in something more than a short tweet comment. It requires a more verbose approach than the venue that twitter maintains.

First a little background; you have to understand my father was a police officer for most of my childhood, first in the Air Force as an SP (the Air Force equivalent to the MP's, the Security Police). This was because in the 70's when my father decided to try to be a cop in Michigan, they wouldn't let him because they had a vision restriction (he has glasses). The Air Force did not, so he enlisted. He served his term, as an SP guarding missile silos in the god-forsaken hinterlands of Wyoming. This resulted in him becoming a cop for the City of Cheyenne after he left the Air Force.

Now my dad and I are on relatively opposite ends of the spectrum politically, at least these days. He has broken for the Tea Party on most things; I am much more aligned with the 'shit's fucked up' avenue of the OWS guys. But there is one thing both groups agree on: Money has corrupted Politics, possibly irrevocably. This is why Ron Paul (as off the wall as he is on some issues) has not discredited the Occupy movement out of hand; he sees that they are a populist movement with some common goals. Some people are calling him opportunistic. That may be, (he is a politician after all) but I think he is probably more human and realistic than that. Disclaimer: Do NOT mistake my candor as a ringing endorsement of Ron Paul; I disagree with him fundamentally on quite a few things (like the Austrian School of economics, his desired withdrawal from NATO, and his stance on Women's right to choose. It will be a cold day in hell before I vote for him because of those deal breakers.

But that is all color and background for what my topic is today: Police militarization and their totally inappropriate response to these protests. They have been heavy handed, coordinated and disrespectful. These police departments feel justified and protected by the many years of being propped up by the DHS. The FBI has been weakened and disenfranchised by the DHS. Federal policing is supposed to be their exclusive territory (with the exception of escaped convicts, which weirdly is exclusively the purview of the Marshall's office I believe).

My father taught me that his belief was that a police officer was meant to Serve and Protect the public, regardless of how the officer felt about the individual in question. He was meant to use force only when it was necessary to protect them from themselves, or when they had demonstrated a 'clear intention of harming others'. It is clear to me that these police officers are not engaged in honest police work; they are scared men and women. I am sure that many of them are just like the people they are facing: scared of losing their jobs, their homes. Like everyone they are just doing what their bosses tell them because they are afraid. America is now in a culture of fear, and has been living there since, 9-11-01. Five days before my wedding. The maid of honor was on one of the first flights into my airport.

An interesting thing about fear though; it excuses all manner of behavior. It is the fundamental weapon in a propagandists war chest. It's also worth noting that Propaganda and Marketing are EXACTLY the same thing. They use the same methods, the same tools, the same psychologies.

Fear is what Hitler used to come to power. Fear is what Stalin used. Fear. Those are the obvious ones; how about some others shall we?

Nixon
Kennedy (The Russians will get to space FIRST!!!!)
The Boston Tea Party

Fear based marketing is commonplace as well; it is commonplace in Insurance commercials obviously, the Allstate 'Mayhem' series is a great example. However less obvious is stuff like Oil of Olay commercials. They play on your fear of aging, getting old, and dying.

Fear based propaganda/marketing (I will forever read them as the same thing), appeals to our hindbrain, skipping the logical part altogether. One of the problems with the Occupy movement is also one of it's beauties; it is attempting to appeal to your HUMAN brain, your thinking mind. Not the fear riddled, hiding in a cave animal instinct side. The one that lashes out at perceived interlopers.

I had a point, I really did. And to sum it up it is this: Police need to stop being afraid. We, as citizens look up to you to NOT be afraid. It is your job to not show fear, to be the best of us. I implore you as a Public Servant to do what you signed up to do, and to Protect and Serve ALL the citizens, regardless of race, creed, gender or religion. If your captain is telling you to do something out of fear, you need to tell him to stop being afraid. Tell him, these people are not a threat, they are CITIZENS.

Conservative Motivations

2011-02-11T22:02:00.001-08:00

It's always disappointing to me to think that my friends who start 'liking' conservative websites might never bother to look at who actually owns the website. One such I just looked at is coming from a lawyer at a big hostile takeover Mergers and Acquisitions firm out of NY. The firm that invented the poison pill defense in fact. I would say lower taxes for the rich is quite personal for them, as well as loser corporate regulation. to whit:

Conservapedia.com whois info:

Registrant:
Andrew Schlafly

hmmm.. ok. wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Schlafly
Not bad... family man, all good.... wait who is this?? his employer??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wachtell,_Lipton,_Rosen_%26_Katz

my my; talk about self-serving political stances...

total time for revelatory discovery of a person's political motivations: 10 minutes.
And yes I do in fact turn that mirror both directions. I spent substantially more time on George Soros and Julian Assange as their motivations are not nearly as linear (well Soros' isn't. Assange seems to be a narcissist/anarchist so that's easy)

Androoooooooooooid!!!!!!!!

2010-06-30T14:14:00.001-07:00

Woot! the Devs have built a largely functional and FAST android port that works on my phone. It's like a breath of fresh air after being enslaved by windows mobile.

Adorable Dystopia

2010-06-21T05:20:00.001-07:00

Naturally I am a touch on the obsessed with dystopian visions. And I have a long standing love of all things lego (they are one of my fondest childhood memories). And so with that I link to you...

Legoland Hell (AKA: 'Containment' by Nannan Zhang and Tyler Clites

On a lighter (but related) note

2010-06-20T11:46:00.000-07:00

I am however going to be starting a Cyberpunk game. first time in probably a decade, and I will be dusting off my referee hat. No idea what I am going to do, but then thats generally kind of how I do it anyway.

Should be good. going to be full of mood, element, style and maybe even some bloodshed.

Cyberpunk est mort, vive le Cyberpunk!

2010-06-20T11:23:00.000-07:00

Ah it seems that we are in a state where this applies. The original cyberpunk movement, with it's roots extending deep back into the early origins of computer sciences (the late 60's), peaking around 1994 or so.

Those heady days for me, just after High School where the convergence of cultures created a hotbed for a social, political, and literary storm known collectively as 'Cyberpunk'. The popularity of fiction (Gibson, Stephenson, P.K. Dick etc) espoused a collective thought of dystopia, miasma and contrarily, a hopefulness brought about by enabling the common man access to heretofore unprecedented levels of access to information.

It was a time when 'Information Needs to be Free' was common, in the hearts and tongues of those of the movement. The movement is not dead, but sleeping. And lacks identity. Those in the movement have buckled down, gotten jobs, families, etc. They have not entirely abandoned their hopes, dreams and nightmares, but they have set them aside.

From 1 Corinthians 13:11
"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things"

And much of this does indeed seem to be where the status of the 'movement' such as it ever was, rests.

However just a bit further down is this gem:

(1 Corinthians 13:12 'βλεπομεν γαρ αρτι δι εσοπτρου εν αινιγματι'
"For now we see through a glass, darkly."

Which is both more allegorical and certainly representative of a core principal of (at least in my mind) 'teh movement'. To me, this passage says, "We see where the world could be, in it's darkest reflection". And by that token means that those that do see it's darkest reflection, are the most well-suited to survive, thrive, and provide for others.

This is an open call. If you have ever used the term cyberpunk to describe yourself, (or one of the ancillary/alternate labels such as cypherpunk, phreaker, cracker, black-hat, white-hat, etc etc etc) then please remember why you got involved in the first place. Tell me what your philosophy is, where it has changed, where it has adapted.

I expect it has changed, as 'Cyberpunk' as a definition was certainly nothing more than a placeholder for something we all collectively felt but lacked the words to describe. If there is truly one consistency, it is that we believe in the organic and adaptive nature of any system that humanity comes into contact with.

Oh and please don't let the biblical quotes fool you; I am by no means dogmatic nor even particularly Christian. They just make excellent allegory.

Corporate Ethics and the New Amerika

2010-04-01T15:39:00.000-07:00

I posted a response to an article on Gizmodo today. I realized that this is something I have implied before but I feel I may need to spell out.

I believe in the core of me that our government is largely controlled by Corporate America. Keep with me here, as this is where it gets tangled. These corporations and special interest groups spend ridiculous amounts of money directing the voting of the Congress. And since I have a lot of difficulty with where this country has been going over the last decade, I feel I can place a lot of the blame squarely on them (as well as Ronald Reagan and Bush Sr. since a lot of the corporate entitlement came during their runs, though Clinton was no saint either).

It occurred to me that when I purchase something from a company I am always trying to determine if it is a company or person that I feel is treating the world in a responsible way. Are they making decisions and acting in a way that I can approve of, or at least tolerate without being angry? If not then I will find an alternative provider. In this sense I think of my expenditure of cash as a 'vote'.

Each dollar I spend is one more going to fuel the corporate machine, and each dollar they spend I feel a responsibility to making sure that it is spent in accordance with my wishes.

I wish everyone treated their purchases with the same due consideration that my family and I do.

The Problem with Militias

2010-03-29T09:36:00.000-07:00

I believe I come from a somewhat unique point of view; My father was a soldier, then a police officer, and now a government administrator. My mother has had any number of roles, few of them careers in any way shape or form. However as she has gotten older she has become much more of a journalist and activist, in her close associations with the local SEIU (union).

Bearing those things in mind you also have to include the following. My childhood was spent largely in one of the reddest states ever (I remember the Bush Sr. Election when I was in Jr. High), then moved to one of the bluest states ever (California) at the age of 15. I will put it out there right now that I am a progressive, and as such my opinions will be colored by that.

Firstly I will say that the idea of militias are very much in keeping with what our forefathers had in mind. And so in principal I am not opposed to their formation. But the application is where things start to diverge. One of the fundamental problems is where this sense of 'self defense' comes from. The essential belief that their 'way' is under attack is a fallacy at the heart of it, especially since (at least with the current crop of militias) the most vocal opponents of social entitlements are in fact receiving unemployment or disability insurance themselves. The hypocrisy is staggering to behold.

The other problem I have is that these people see themselves as islands, and that everyone has a right to be an individual. This is something I can in concept agree with but where it breaks for me is this: EVERYTHING YOU DO AFFECTS SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE. No one is excluded. And, when following that logic you cannot make decisions based solely on your own (selfish) point of view with no consideration for your fellow man. This is isolationist, and is exactly the kind of thinking that has led to wars, famine, disease, depravity and destruction. Not understanding the interconnectedness of all things may well be the most sacrilegious thing I can think of in fact. Even 'removing' yourself from society does not exclude you from this interaction entirely. Your consumption of food, energy and resources continues to go on, either eating stored food, bought food, or killing animals and eating plants somewhere has an affect on someone, even if it's not obvious to you.

At any rate, I am also not surprised that the overwhelming majority of this is from the extreme conservative perspective. Conservatism in thought strikes me as a fundamental thinking pattern, a thinking pattern based on scarcity. So this is why it is not surprising to see so many poor involved in the conservative movement where on the surface the poor should constantly be backing progressive, social expansion movements. Because the poor are, well, poor, they are coming from a mindset of scarcity which will in turn, make them want to defend what little they have. Even though the status quo is crappy for them, they feel like change will only be for the worse. Not to mention that conservative politicians figured this out pretty early into the birth of the middle class and have always played on the fears of the working man. 'Redistribution of wealth' is the constant refrain, when in fact, especially now, those working class people that have had their income ripped from their hands by irresponsible corporate behavior couple with a lack of oversight from the government. So exactly who's wealth is being redistributed? mine? I work. I pay taxes. I have had a whole whopping 3 weeks of disability (State Disability I might add), as my benefits.

I am middle-class. And I pay for those people out of work right now. And you know what, I don't mind. Do you know why? Because I feel like it's the only way I can help out right now, and I badly want to. I am generally a very caring person but I am also very absent-minded and kind of lazy about stuff like that.

The good things about militias are that they are very community oriented. They want to assist in taking care of the town's business, they want to help the community. As the conservative movement has pointed out, the line between helping the community, and becoming a politically motivated group is a very very fine line however. It boggles my mind that the conservative movement would get so upset at Acorn, who tries to help people re-educate and improve their lives and yet completely sidestep Community Organizers like the Hutaree, who also helped the community in search and rescue operations, but have also been busily recruiting with the full intent of violently opposing the government.

This is going to result in a cop getting shot simply because he is trying to do his job.

Viral Marketing, Conference Formats, etc

2010-03-17T10:53:00.000-07:00

So in reading an article on modern marketing, Conference Format Fails, I realize that our consumption model is changing rather dynamically here in america. The article is largely a reference to conferences and how they no longer meet the needs they once did, that our consumption model is much more interactive and informed. What I wonder is if this is in general changing our consumption model, from what clothes we buy, where we shop, what we eat. In thinking about it I think that it is, that we now make (and expect to be able to make) more informed decisions about what we buy.

As an example, when going to the grocery store we can make an informed decision about which one is closer, we can plan our route via GPS or google maps to make sure and hit all of our stops in the shortest and most efficient trip possible and even know how long it takes to do so. We can then choose products and goods for their cost vs. social cost (choosing earth-friendly, or organic choices to improve our health etc). Due to marketing services and rss / twitter alerts we can get real-time alerts to 'phantom' deals, those sales that last hours or minutes and can get the best deal before product is shipped off to secondary retailers (like Nordstrom Rack, Ross etc).

We can compare prices, build quality, customer service etc on every product or sevice under the sun. For the first time ever, we have almost 100% transparency to the consumer process. I don't see how this could NOT shape our buying habits.

As a person interested in marketing, with this new turn in consumer habits I have to wonder if the first piece of advice a marketing company shouldn't give is to have a quality service or product.

Anger, hurt, frustration

2010-03-16T15:10:00.001-07:00

I work for 2 companies. One of which is part time at best, usually 2 - 4 hours a week sporadically. The last week or two I have had to take a couple calls while on shift at my other 'regular' job. The total amount of time is quite limited, maybe half an hour to an hour of time spent, taken away from my regular job. I keep close track of the time and make it up in the morning or at night if it is there. If anything is of immediate concern with my regular job, it always takes priority. However some of my coworkers seem to think I don't work 'for the company' anymore. I have had some absences that I have not clearly defined for them (multiple doctors appt's for my wife, a recurring psychiatrist appointment for myself, a root canal etc) that I have not wanted to share. It appears I will have to. ugh. I hate having to defend myself when I have proven myself over and over to be a reliable employee with one exception: communicating what is going on with me to those who have no business caring about it since they don't report to me and I don't report to them.

"Dangerous Exercise in Democracy"

2010-03-01T11:50:00.000-08:00

oh really??

Why do they let this little tart open her mouth? She is literally as vile as her father, and even less intelligent.

To whit, she speaks of this issue of voting for health care reform on reconciliation as if it were something unique to those 'dirty liberals'. However I beg to differ:

Historical use (from wikipedia)

Congress has used the procedure to enact far-reaching omnibus budget bills, first in 1981. Since 1980, 17 of 23 reconciliation bills have been signed into law by Republican presidents (a Republican has been president for 20 of the last 29 years). Since 1980, reconciliation has been used nine times when Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate, six times when Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate, one time when the Democrats controlled the Senate and the Republicans the House, and seven times when the Republicans controlled the Senate and the Democrats controlled the House. Reconciliation has been used at least once nominally for a non-budgetary purpose (for example, see the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007, when a Republican was president and the Democrats controlled Congress). The 1986 Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) contained some health care provisions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It is also worth noting that there has never in the history of America been a more partisan and obstructionist Senate. The conservatives have not broken ranks on even one thing, not one bill. They have towed the party line completely irregardless of all of their constituency. They claim that the public is against the public option (not true) that it is against health care reform (again, blatantly false, though there is a lot of opposition to the CURRENT bill). And yet they still stab their constituents in the back. Now that is not to say that there are not many many corrupt politicians on both sides. For instance I would love to kick little miss Blanche Lincoln squarely in the teeth, but it looks likely that she is going to be replaced in the primary by the current Arkansas Lt. Governer (Halter I think). There are others (and Pelosi isn't exactly my first choice) but thankfully MY state is represented accurately for me by Jeff Merkeley one of the most progressive voices in Congress. Wyden not so much but we do have a strong conservative movement here too, so that makes some sense (not to mention Nike is one of his biggest contributors).

Muse, (the band)

2010-02-28T21:39:00.000-08:00

For those of you who don't know I am a huge fan of Muse. This is a relatively recent thing (within the last 3 years) so I have gone and listened to most of their back catalogue as well the new stuff. Part of what I like is their variation, and their skill. Not to mention that I love Queen as well (and there are definite parallels).

So there is a contest here at our local radio station

As a result I submitted an ad based tightly on the Affiche Rouge poster from WWII. I will post my version after the contest (not sure if I am allowed otherwise).

Anger, secondary emotion

2010-02-24T10:00:00.000-08:00

I recently had it pointed out to me that anger is not quite how I thought of it before. Anger is in fact a secondary emotion, and not a primary one.

My first reaction was one of minor incredulity; it seems so basic and primal that I had assumed it was a 'primary' emotion. Part of this probably dovetails into my poor handling/understanding/comprehension of anger in general throughout my life.

See this link for reference: Anger As a Secondary Emotion

With that in mind it changes my relationship to anger quite a bit. Part of my issue with anger has to do with my relationship to my mother, and her lack of control around it. She was uncontrollably angry throughout so much of her life, and I have seen it destroy so many things in her life. It has done terrible levels of damage to her personal relationships, she has lost jobs because of it, and gained a reputation as difficult to work with in many parts of her life. Because of that I vowed to myself when I was a small child to 'never be angry'. While this was not necessarily a healthy thing, my goal I think was admirable; so as a result I am changing that vow to be something healthier: 'I will not let anger rule me or those I care about'

That of course has many ramifications, but essentially what it means is that if someone is angry I will work to find out what is hurting them, as anger is almost universally about some kind of hurt, physical or emotional. What it means is that I will always strive to communicate deeper with people about what is hurting them. This goes for me as well; communicating my own hurt has never been something I have been very good at, but my eyes have been opened by my child. I will need to communicate these things far more clearly with her in my life.

On public opinion

2010-02-10T13:54:00.000-08:00

It is interesting, but I drew an odd parallel between myself and those entities known as corporations. I find that so many of the decisions of management hinge at least marginally on egotism, much like those of the common man. Unfortunately CEO's, COO's, CTO and to a lesser extent, CFO's are an incredibly egotistical bunch, bordering on narcissism.

As I discovered recently in a therapy session, my own ego is so bereft of actual faith in myself, that my ego has inflated to mammoth proportions. I can also assume that this is probably the case for these people I am so willing to judge so readily.

The post came up in reference to an article I read on Gizmodo, regarding an email on how Microsoft essentially failed with regards to iTunes and they knew it. The email was from 2003, indicating that they just weren't able to cut deals with the music industry like Apple was.

I argued that it was because Microsoft (particularly at the time) was being assaulted on all sides regarding anti-competitive/monopolistic practices, and that the cases were incredibly public, thus souring people on business deals with them. In other words their aggression towards the DoJ and other governments, as well as Sun, and others, had colored them as someone not to do business with. In other words, a matter of PR and perception (right or wrong).

It's funny how perception can play out both in business and in your personal life.

Gizmodo - Itunes-Microsoft-fail

So I guess the big question is, if I am in therapy, why isn't corporate america?

Individuality vs. Contentment?

2009-11-18T09:59:00.000-08:00

So I am always such a conflicted person where spirit, soul and calm meet the modern world. I know that I am most certainly not the only one.

I am now in a weekly mediation group, one without religious or spiritual conviction. I find the frank discussions we get into there after the meditations to be very refreshing and insightful, however sometimes (as in this last one) I find some things that disquiet me a bit.

To whit: The concept that enforcing one's individuality, one's sense of self in the universe is, or at least can be, a very contentious and conflicted reality. The extension of that however indicates that allowing oneself to conform, to flow with that around you, makes you happier.

This is one hand obvious to me (the term 'going with the flow' of course is the first thing that springs to mind); but on the other implies that I should simply be like all that around me, something that I recoil from almost on principle. I am a bit at a loss as to how to proceed then, as I most certainly enjoy my sense of individuality my sense of self, but also know that I struggle and would like to make my life more peaceful. So to that end I will focus myself more, and try to let the universe work with me.

As soon as I figure out how I'll let you all know.

Hatful of Holisticism

2009-05-04T15:32:00.000-07:00

My lovely nonsensical titles. Ah well I guess it all ties back to the fact that a certain commitment to spirituality is in fact lacking in my life.

I usually say that I am spiritual in that I have a spirit and there are things that I believe inherently; and that all that preachiness of other faiths is simply dogma (which I have a distinctive aversion to). Dogma in my mind is simply pure mental and emotional laziness. It is the giving over of your beliefs, trusting them to someone outside of yourself. It is my personal belief that no spirituality can exist externally from yourself. You are (for lack of a better term) 'of God', and as such by exerting your will and your belief you are acting in the interest of the universe and 'God'.

Ah but this is simply musing, perhaps. Or perhaps it is simply justification for my own actions. Either way I have a feeling I am just missing the point of organized religion. I refuse to be saved (or damned) by anyone but myself. And on that I can think of no harsher judge.

I really get quite over the top on the blog postings.

In other news I applied for a part time blogging job with Lifehacker (one of my personal favorites, as are all of the gawker media sites). Do I think I will get it? who knows? I am not a writer, but I do fit a number of the other criteria. A little extra money sure wouldn't hurt about now.

I really have had an interesting life I must say. Not necessarily movie/book quality but I am not even 40 and I have known some really interesting people, and even done a few mildly interesting things. I have exposure to certain business sectors that most people know nothing about. It's interesting being part of a technology that is so absolutely ubiquitous. I could point out the window and the chances are anyone I pointed at will have, within the last 30 days, come into direct contact with one of the machines I support. Even more interesting than that is that you (whoever you are) , if you are in the United States could probably pick someone and the chances would be exactly the same.

Having grown up as the son of a police officer, and now working in a financial sector, I find that security is always on my mind. I become uncomfortable sometimes thinking about how I can compromise my own systems, wondering if I am becoming a 'villain' or 'criminal' just by thinking about it. But then I realize that that is the only realistic way to keep criminals out of my hardware. I have to look at my handiwork and try to step outside of myself, and break it. In any way I can. There are times when my job is inordinately cool and dorky all at once.

Going Straight to Hell

2008-11-13T09:30:00.000-08:00

I find myself in a strange transitional stage, like many today. I have a certain melancholy about the shape of the world, especially as it relates to me directly.

The economy is in a shambles (and is still pinwheeling out of control). My own job is in question. I have a daughter and a wife to support. The whole situation is depressing, and crushing to be honest. My wife wants to return to her hometown (or at least close by) but financially it is virtually impossible to do since the cost of living is insane there.

This is the territory that my brain resides in at the moment, and is the jumping off point for the rest of my thoughts as they follow.

To whit:

We have a new president who is selling us hope; is this a good thing? I think so. Is change good? well that is debatable. Many insist that change (or 'Change' as ol Barry would have it) is not necessarily good in and of itself. I would argue quite the opposite in fact; change itself may be uncomfortable, dangerous, scary and even destructive. But absolutely nothing ever improves unless change happens, even if the initial change is destructive, we learn from it and improve. Change is by it's very nature catalytic. If we never changed we would never learn as a child to not put our hand on the stove. If these catalytic changes did not occur we would still be in the stone age. We would not have language, tools, buildings.

In religious history fire was brought to us by a god or other messenger. For example, in Apache mythos Fox stole fire from the fireflies and brought it to the world (and amusingly incidentally created the first drum as well). In Cherokee belief Water Spider solved the puzzle of the burning sycamore and carried a burning coal across the water in a basket she had weaved once most of the others had failed to transport it (indicating superior intelligence and craft as opposed to strength or prowess). In Norse mythology it is Loki (the rough equivalent of Lucifer in christian faith) that brings fire to humanity; mostly to piss off the gods. Loki is an interesting figure in and of himself as he represents a more human take on the 'devil's advocate' role. He advocates change, many times at the cost of safety (even his own on a regular basis as Thor tends to beat the crap out of him for his tricks). Interestingly if you look at their history, the Norse gods would never have done anything but sit around and party (like veritable Lotus Eaters) had Loki not kept screwing with them. Which brings us to the most interesting comparison; the ol' devil himself, Lucifer, Satan, Satanaiel (sometimes even Samaiel). In various references fire (the ultimate symbol of change) is brought altneratively by either Satan (to anger/thwart God) or as a gift by Gabriel(? one of the other host... not sure off the cuff). Depending on reference it makes the cases for change quite different. I have to wonder if the differences in the presentation were not interpretation intended to make the Church (Catholicsim most notably) more attractive to other cultures (the Norse for instance) much like some of the holidays were shifted to certain periods of time (Christmas being the most notable example, falling strikingly close to pagan holidays celebrated throughout Northern and Western Europe during the dark ages).

At any rate if it is a Gift from God via angel (or Archangel if you prefer), then it makes the case that change is not only gifted from god, but is encouraged. That questioning the world around you is not only acceptable but is expected. However it also makes things changes 'God approved' and means that you should tacitly seek god's acceptance when you make changes.

The alternative is however that God is petulant and that Satan/Sataniel/Samael/Lucifer had to steal fire for humanity as a slight paints a very different picture. It paints the relationship between God and Satan as far more petty than I would hope it would be, as humanity would simply be the poor children in a shitty custody battle being used to slight one another.

I happened upon some interesting and less popular references to the fall of Satan as well, coming from Persian interpretations. In their concept of the fall, it is that God created man and advised his angels (Sataniel was born of fire, humans of clay for reference) to bow to them as his greatest achievment. Here is the twist; it is not that he was jealous of humanity so much as that he had such a great love for God that he could not follow his directive as he could see nothing to be superior to his god. So his fall is that of a spurned lover, devout, and devoted to the absolute end. It is an interesting twist that colors the battle between heaven and earth with a different twist, at once more personal and more intimate. Surprising to me is that this is something espoused by Sufi tradition (or at least it is based on this Persian belief). [For reference, most of what was Persia is now Iran, and most 'Iranians' will tell you they are Persian not Iranian; they have pride in their heritage, not so much their country. Not so different from America I guess].

Another side note on 'Satan' There is a lot of confusion about this identity, particularly his fall. Interestingly it is only really in the King James (and other similar-era versions of the english translation of the bible) that the proper name 'Lucifer' is used. The fall is refrenced twice, once in Isaiah and once in Ezekial with strikingly similar language. Also of note is that one is in reference to Lucifer (proper) and the other is in reference to the unnamed King of Babylon...

Anyway I have digressed almost entirely from the point of the post which is that I believe wholeheartedly in change. I do not approve of Bush and never have. I have groused quietly, but would not suggest disobeying, or deriding him for anything other than reasonable legal issues. He has done things that violate the law, the consitution and has caused innumerable amounts of damage to our image on a worldwide stage. Can Obama undo it? I have no idea. I think he will try. I think we need to step the hell out of his way and let him make mistakes just as we let W do. It is our civic duty to support our president while he is in office, regardless of what we think of him. Should we watchdog Obama? hell yes. He is still a politician after all and anyone who WANTS to be president should be watched closely. I do NOT however believe that we should be obstuctionist just because we may not agree with him on certain wedge issues.

Wow. In the same post I managed to talk about half a dozen devils and two Presidents. I am going straight to hell.