Ramblings of an Armchair Admiral

Innovation

2011-10-09T17:22:00.001-05:00

The other morning, I was sitting around chatting with my parents. I had just woken up, so my mind was still struggling somewhat to get running. At one point, they both left the room and I just let my mind wander. I really like moments like this, where my mind is wandering yet quiet. It's when I have my most interesting thoughts.

This particular morning, my mind turned to the printing press. The invention of the printing press, by any definition, revolutionized the world. It made the spreading of ideas a much more manageable affair, and it helped spawn the Renaissance, the Industrial Revolution, and the modern era. Pretty powerful stuff coming from a Medieval goldsmith.

But when I thought about it a little bit more, I realized that the actual press itself was a fairly simple machine. Early presses were just arrangements of cast letters that were dipped in ink and pressed onto paper. In principle, they weren't all that different than the process of writing by hand, except that they took that process and mechanized it so it would work at a much faster pace.

Such a simple idea right? Then why did it take millennia after the creation of the creation of the written word to come up with such a simple thought? Doesn't seem so simple anymore does it?

And that's when it hit me. True innovations, the inventions that change the world as we know it, aren't huge, complex contraptions. Quite to the contrary, they're often the very simple ideas that any one of us could have, and probably have, thought of but just didn't realize the importance of. That's because true innovation isn't an invention, it isn't a thing, it's an idea. And ideas have a way of building off each other, which is what I think we're seeing in the modern era: the net result of all of history's good ideas mixing together and making new ones.

So, if you ever find yourself trying to come up with "the next big thing", don't think big. Think small, think broadly, and think often, because it's the small, novel ideas that change the world.

I'd like to dedicate this 'blog entry to the memory and spirit of Steve Jobs. Much like Gutenberg and his printing press, Steve changed the entire world in his lifetime, and he did it by recognizing the value of simple ideas and putting them together. Thank you Steve. We'll miss you.

Do You Speak Gut?

2011-10-09T16:59:00.001-05:00

Instincts have been around almost as long as life itself. The first slimy things that spawned from the primordial soup, at least the ones that survived, had instincts of some sort. Eat when you're hungry. Drink when you're thirsty. Avoid things that harm you. Be fruitful and multiply. These are all very basic drives that all life as we know it. Over time, these instincts have evolved. From the drive to eat, hunting behavior has evolved. From the desire to survive, creatures developed countermeasures to these hunting behaviors. And I'm sure that most people reading this knows a thing or two about complex mating rituals. These instincts, developed over hundreds of millions of years, are what drive all life on this planet.

All life, that is, except us Homo Sapiens. Fairly recently, we developed this novel thing called intelligence. It's let us harness fire, create tools, work the land, domesticate animals, and any number of seemingly wondrous achievements. But in the grand scheme of things, intelligence is a total newcomer compared to instinct and, at least I feel, still has a lot to learn.

Now, there are numerous situations where intellect clearly trumps instinct. Solving complex problems, grasping abstract ideas, knowing to steer into the spin, things like that are clearly beyond the realm of instinct. But, I feel that far too many people have put their intellect on a pedestal, so to speak, and have started ignoring their instincts. We all know the situations where your instincts are talking to you. You hear the little voice inside your head saying that what you're about to do is incredibly stupid. (Well, at least that's what I usually hear.)

Lately, I've been trying to listen more to this inner voice called instinct. "Trust your gut" a friend said to me. Aside from really obvious moments, I can tell that there's something that I should know but I don't necessarily know what it is. Said another way, my gut and I don't always speak the same language. Or, more likely, my head is putting too much thought into what my gut is trying to tell me. It's a gradual process, but I'm learning to trust my gut more and more. It's caused me to make some decisions that seemed, at the time, to be a bit out in left field but I cannot think of a single situation where I've said to myself, "Gee, I wish I hadn't trusted my gut." That's a good sign to me.

As with all things, I think that the benefit lies in the balance. Know when to think about something, and know when to not. Speak the language of thought, but don't forget how to speak to your gut either.

(I'd like to point out that I don't really think that Homo Sapiens is the only intelligent species on this planet. There are different levels of intelligence and many creatures exhibit some form of it. I just think that mankind is the first one to develop it to the detriment of their instincts.)

How Do You Really Feel?

2011-10-06T20:09:00.000-05:00

I have a seven-year-old daughter who is very bright and wonderfully inquisitive, even if she's not a fan of doing her homework. Earlier this week while in the car, she asked me how plastic was made. I explained to her that plastic was made of polymers, which were just really long molecules, and that unlike wood or stone or glass, they were all man-made, not found in nature. Later in the week, also in the car, she said to me, "Daddy, how do lasers work?" I was rather stunned by her rather blunt question, but I was more stunned by the fact that she actually understood as I explained to her how lasers use an optical cavity with one complete and one partial mirror to create a beam of light that is very focused and all one color. I even explained to her how a diode laser worked and that there is a tiny laser in every CD and DVD player. Amazingly enough, she seemed to understand.

The next day as I was dropping her off at school, I pulled her aside for a moment and told her how incredibly proud I was of her. I told her that not only understanding the things I was explaining to her, but actually asking to have them explained, made her a very special little girl. I got a big hug and a kiss on the cheek out of the exchange, the latter being a fairly rare occurrence as she gets older. I nearly cried because of how powerful that moment was for me; I think the only reason I didn't was because I very quickly had a little pair of blue eyes rolling at me, as if to tell me "Daddy, did you really need to do this in the parking lot?"

Yes, yes I did.

Earlier this year at work, I had to stand up for a co-worker who had ruffled some feathers with some higher-ups by breaking protocol to help me out in a bind. He didn't have to do it and by all accounts probably shouldn't have, but he did because what mattered to him was getting the job done, not keeping the bureaucrats happy. I wrote an E-mail to his bosses explaining the situation and taking the heat for him, and I wrote him a separate E-mail thanking him for helping me out.

I'm very glad that I did those things when I did because shortly thereafter he was killed on his way home from work in a car accident.

So, the next time you see someone you care a great deal about, who find extraordinary, who makes your world a better place, or all of the above, make sure that they know it. No, you shouldn't to pour your heart out to everyone you care about every time you see them; that would get really old really fast for everyone around you, not to mention yourself. But at some point, sooner rather than later, let those people know, because you never know when you'll never have another chance.

I'd like to dedicate this post to the memory of Russ Estep. He was one of the good guys in life and knew his way around the CVTC systems at work like nobody else. We miss you Russ.

Let's Talk About...You.

2011-09-28T19:01:00.000-05:00

One of the neat new features on Blogger (well, new to me at least, it could have gone in any time between 2006 and now) is the stats page. It lets me track all kinds of information about who is reading what on my 'blog, where they're from, how they got here, etc. Now before anyone panics, it's very top level information; things like country of origin, domain that referenced the hit, and platform type. It's nothing that I, or likely anyone else, could use to identify any of my readers.

I've been going over my stats recently and I've found a few interesting things that I wasn't expecting:

1. 60% of my page hits are from iPhones. That's right, 60%. Windows-based platforms make up about 30%, and everything else makes up the remaining 10% or so. Android hits make up a mere 1%. I'm not sure why there are so few Android hits, unless they're getting lumped in under iPhones. I was also so surprised to see how much traffic I'm getting from mobile devices in general. Good to know.

2. I'm an international 'blog! Although the vast majority of my traffic comes from the US, I've gotten hits from The Netherlands, France, Ukraine, and Germany to name a few. I'm surprised that of my foreign traffic sources, I have to go down five entries before I reach one that speaks English as a primary language (UK is right after Germany). So either this is further evidence that people in The Old Country are better about being multilingual, or it just shows that I'm getting hits by some people who can't read what I'm typing.

3. Oh the joys of Facebook. Not surprisingly (considering that I post links to all of my entries on my wall), Facebook is my biggest traffic source URL-wise. I guess it is good for something after all. And speaking of traffic sources, apparently there are people out there Googling my 'blog by name. Go figure.

4. The power of love? The biggest shocker for me was which posts had gotten the most hits. (Mind you, I know this is an imperfect measure since people can read a post without actually going to the post's specific URL. But it's all I have to work with.) My most popular post was the one about unrequited love and second place goes to love being all you need. Who knew that me, a thirty-something divorcee, would be such a popular writer regarding matters of the heart? I'll try to keep that in mind when I'm thinking of future posts.

5. Reading and Writing? The last thing that I'm going to comment on is the ratio of page views to actual 'blog comments. It's not even close. I have 13 comments here on my 'blog (and probably a similar number on my Facebook entries announcing new posts), but my pageviews rate in the thousands. That's not much feedback folks. I don't really mind 'blogging to a black box as long as I know people are reading it, but a little interaction is a good thing as well. Is there a reason why you don't comment? Are the security measures or need to not post anonymously too annoying to deal with? Any feedback would be helpful. (Yes, I realize it's somewhat futile to ask this question here, but I figure that my readers who know me will get back to me somehow, even if it's not here.)

So that's the state of my audience after roughly three months of 'blogging. I'm really loving having the creative outlet, and I like that I have some tools to help direct my creativity. Thanks to all of my readers. B^)

Community Supported Agriculture

2011-09-22T19:38:00.001-05:00

This past winter, a friend of mine from work asked me if I wanted to go in on a CSA share with her and her fiance. Not knowing what a CSA was (and hoping it wasn't the Confederate States of America), I looked it up. It turns out that CSA stands for Community Supported Agriculture. It's a system where you pay for a crop share up front and then come collect your share periodically throughout the harvesting season. I've been trying to find ways to eat more veggies in my diet so this turned out to be a no-brainer.

The farm that I've got a CSA share at is Gorman Farm in Laurel, MD. It's very convenient because it's close to work and I typically pick up a load of veggies every other week. (The schedule is slightly more complicated than that due to weddings, trips, and such, but I digress.) It turns out that not only did I end up getting more veggies, but a much wider variety than I'm accustomed to. I've had kale, ~~leaks~~ leeks (Thanks Alison!), and a few other types of veggies that I've never tried before in addition to regulars like tomatoes, scallions, potatoes, etc. It's all great tasting, fresh from the field, grown locally, and pesticide-free. In addition to helping my diet, it's helping out a local business which is always a plus.

So if you're looking for an alternative to supermarket produce, look around for a CSA. If your farm is anything like Gorman Farm, you'll be glad that you did.

Advice, Part 2: How to Take It

2011-09-17T20:18:00.000-05:00

Continuing my earlier ramble about giving advice, it seems appropriate to ramble about how to take advice.

Of course, you're likely asking yourself, "Why should Ben talk about how to take advice if he doesn't think people should give it?" Well, mainly because not everyone feels like I do and will give you advice anyways, but also because even I believe that there are exceptions to the rule, moments when you really do need to shut up and listen to what someone is telling you. The tricky part, obviously, is knowing when. And in the spirit of not giving advice, I'm going to try to keep this particular in my own frame of reference and let you, the reader, make their own decisions.

In general, I don't think that people should ever blindly follow the advice of another. If someone is giving me advice, I listen to what they have to say and then decide to act upon it. If I know the advice to be somehow faulty I disregard it, and if I believe that I have no clue about my situation and trust the person's knowledge I will choose to follow it. To me, the advice is just another input in my decision-making process, not the process itself. However, life is rarely that clear-cut so deciding can be a challenge.

Despite that challenge, the real pain in deciding whether to follow advice is in following your own; as the cliche goes, "Your own advice is always the hardest to follow." How often will you tell a friend not to do something and you find yourself doing the exact same thing? I've seen it happen to other people and it's happened to me as well. It's tough; how do you convince yourself that the advice you gave someone else really applies to you? Eventually you will...or you won't. Either way (assuming you live) you'll just have more experience to base your advice, or in my case your discussions, on.

So to wrap up this two-parter. Advice shouldn't be an absolute in either giving or receiving. It should be part of a discussion and decision process that has one person making the decision that's best for them and the other person respecting, understanding, or at the very least not interfering with that decision. And don't feel too bad if you can't follow your own advice; if it were easy to do there wouldn't be an associated cliche.

Advice, Part 1: When To Give It

2011-09-17T14:22:00.001-05:00

As a general rule, I try not to give out advice. I'll be the first to admit that I don't always follow that rule, but I try nonetheless. Aside from not wanting to sound like poor Lucy van Pelt, I don't think that giving advice to other people is all that effective for several reasons.

The first reason I try not to give advice is that everybody is different. Any piece of advice you give is based on your experiences, your situation, and your points of view. The advice you give may be perfect for you, but for the other person it may not be a good fit or it may even be a downright disaster. Sure, you can try to put yourself into someone else's shoes, but rarely can you get inside someone else's head well enough to be effective.

Secondly, if people don't like what happens when they follow your advice, there's a good chance that they'll blame you for it. I don't know about you, but I've got enough stuff to take responsibility for and I don't think I'd want to take responsibility for things that I tell other people to do. That'll lead to strained friendships, resentment, ugly fights, etc. Not pretty.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, if you tell someone how to deal with a situation, they'll never figure it out for themselves. When someone asks me for advice, I'll tell them how I see their situation and what I would see as some possible courses of action, but I try (again, "try" is the key word) not to tell them what to do. Said another way, I'll discuss the situation with them in an attempt to help them figure it out, but I don't try to figure it out for them. If they come to a conclusion that's different than I would have come to, so be it; I'm not them and my solution may not work for them, but at least I (hopefully) helped them figure their problem out and hopefully we'll both understand each other's position.

As with all things there are some exceptions, usually dealing with people asking for advice regarding something that they have absolutely no experience with. It's a total judgement call. The perfect example is the two pieces of advice that I give new parents. Don't take anyone else's advice, and never, ever, under any circumstances, change your baby's diaper until you get home; the stuff that comes out of a newborn's behind for the first two days or so of it's life is something that new parents do not need to deal with. Ick.

Part two to follow....

(First image courtesy of MyFreeWallpapers.com. If I have posted this image in violation of copyrights, please alert me and I will remove it immediately.)

Vacation, or Why I Think Americans Are Just Too Damned Busy

2011-09-17T07:05:00.001-05:00

Apologies for the two-week hiatus; I just got back from a week-long trip (part work, part vacation) and the week before that I was, well, busy getting ready for the week-long trip. My mind was still churning, as always, so expect a surge of posts this weekend.

Earlier this year, I had read a couple of articles about how Americans in general take far less vacation time than their European counterparts. I'm not going to get into a discussion about politics or how capitalism works in the US as opposed to Europe; the articles I mentioned cover than and I feel no need to rehash. What I will ramble about is something more personal: I think that Americans are just too damned busy.

This vacation (three nights in Pensacola Beach, which is absolutely beautiful but I'll save raving about the beach for another time) was my first real, honest-to-God vacation in several years. I've taken long weekends, day trips, and gone on some work trips, but all of these were either very brief, or very busy; there was hardly any time to relax. This past week, I spent the better part three days doing nothing but sitting my ass down on a beach chair, relaxing, and working on my much-neglected tan. Sure, I went out and did fun stuff with my vacation-buddy, but the trip wasn't about doing things, it was about relaxing. I really needed that, and sadly I think a lot of people I know really need it too.

I've heard people say that there's never enough hours in the day, never enough days in the week, and so forth, but maybe the people saying those things are looking at the problem from the wrong perspective. You know how many hours in the day there are and how many days in the week there are and you cannot change those quantities, so why try to cram in so much stuff that you have no time to relax? I read a pithy little quote lately: "Good health is 25% diet, 25% exercise, and 50% happiness." I feel that Americans in general tend to neglect the happiness part in the name of getting more done. Well, when people don't take time to relax and be happy I've seen their productivity go down, not up.

So the next time you're given a choice to take on some new task, project, or responsibility just remember that doing more doesn't necessarily get more done. Don't sacrifice your "you" time for the sake of productivity or you'll end up sacrificing both instead.

Perfection

2011-08-29T20:53:00.004-05:00

People often speak of perfection; "The perfect job", "The perfect car", "The perfect day". The list goes on and on. I often stop to wonder if people really think about what makes something "perfect" or if they're just tossing the word around.

There's objective perfection, which is something that is defined by a mathematical equation, or some other kind of objective criteria. A perfect sphere is an example. A Platonic Solid (example pictured) is another. One has to admire the precision with which such things are created, be it as a two-dimensional drawing or a three-dimensional object. There's no discussion involved with items such as these; if it meets the mathematical criteria, it is perfect. Period. I find this kind of perfection very appealing in a sense because it is so easily measured.

Then there is subjective perfection. This is where our definitions get, well, less defined. What makes a perfect car for example? High top speed? Good acceleration? Low cost? Good gas mileage? There is no simple answer, because everyone is looking for something different. A "perfect" daily commuter car, something low cost with great gas mileage, would likely make a really lousy race car. So can it really be called "perfect"? And then you have to take into account advancing technology; how can any car be called "perfect" when they are continuing to evolve? Once something is truly perfect, it cannot be improved upon, so anything involving technology or engineering is pretty much ruled out from ever being "perfect".

And as we get into less practical matters, art for example, the definitions of perfection become even less clear. No longer are there clear, practical goals in mind, you are now dealing entirely with matters of emotion perception, and experience, all of which are inherently difficult to quantify. Take the Mona Lisa for example. It is widely considered to be one of the finest works of art in the world. But can it be called perfect? To an abstract artist, it would look bland, to a pointillist too precise, and a true landscape artist would point out the flaws in perspective. Yet, despite all of its flaws, people still stare at this painting for hours, hundreds of years after it was painted, looking for some hidden meaning or morsel of truth. If the goal of the artist is to inspire awe and self-exploration, could this painting not be considered at least close to perfect?

So what do I consider to be perfect? While there is much to be said for improving something, I think that there's even more to be said for actually completing something. To conceive of something, to plan it out and understand it, to implement it, and to stand back upon its completion and appreciate it in spite of any flaws or shortcomings; to me, that is perfection. To later look upon something you have done, and, in understanding its flaws and shortcomings, devise and execute a plan to improve upon it; to me, that is perfection. To understand that you have accomplished what you set out to do; to me, that is perfection.

(First two images used in accordance with the GNU Free Documentation License, courtesy of Wikipedia. Third image from the public domain, courtesy of Wikipedia)

Why Not Make It An Adventure?

2011-08-26T20:18:00.003-05:00

"An adventure is only an inconvenience rightly considered. An inconvenience is an adventure wrongly considered." - G. K. Chesterton

I used to be a die-hard planner. Not so much in the sense that I always made plans, but more in the sense that I always had a plan in my head about how a given situation was going to turn out, a set of expectations for every event. I guess you could have called me more of an "expecter" than a planner. If things didn't go how I expected them to, I got downright grumpy because I was disappointed, inconvenienced you could say, and nobody likes to be disappointed or inconvenienced.

Fast forward to today. Over the past several years, I've learned to let go of these expectations as much as possible. Now I try to walk into a situation with some general notions of what may happen, some options and possibilities, but as few set expectations as I reasonably can. Aside from being disappointed far less often, this has had a most unexpected side effect. It has taught me the joy of a good adventure.

Many of my recent adventures have been piggy-backed off of work-related trips; if I have to travel for a class or a meeting, I always try to make sure I have some time to "get lost" in the area, especially if it's somewhere I've never been before. I don't ever complain about having to travel for work; to the contrary, I love it! I have had the best times in dives, holes-in-the-wall, and local hangouts simply because I was wandering around a new place with no set destination in mind. I've met fun people, tried different foods, gone to exciting shows, and just plain had a great time. It's fun, it's exciting, and it's liberating.

Mind you, I still need to make plans when I travel. If I'm taking a trip somewhere, I have to make travel arrangements, coordinate with friends & family (and work, sadly), and make any other necessary preparations in order to make the trip go smoothly. That's all scheduling. But you can't schedule an adventure, they just tend to happen once everything else is taken care of.

And then there are the little adventures that are truly random. Today, for example, I hit really bad traffic on my way home, so instead of sitting in it, I diverted to downtown Frederick to explore a little bit. I found several very neat stores that I had never been in before and found some great gift ideas. Not really a grand adventure mind you, but a good time doing new things nonetheless, and all because I just went with the flow. (Or, technically, didn't go with the non-flow, but you get the point.)

So what's the moral of this story? Stop spending so much time trying to plan life and just let it happen. You'll be amazed at what you've been missing....

(First image is taken from the public domain, courtesy of Wikipedia. Second image taken from the collection of the author.)

Quantity vs. Quantity.

2011-08-26T18:53:00.002-05:00

It may come as a surprise to you but I'm generally not a fan of Facebook.

Okay, now that you've recovered from my obvious sarcasm bomb, let me continue.

One of the things that originally turned me off to Facebook was the fact that my feed would get bombarded with such a wide variety of information that I had a hard time sorting through it. There were funny little snippets, pictures, links, and serious updates that I really should have been paying attention to. It took too long to sort through it all and that bothered me. I can't even imagine the kind of experience that people with 500+ or 1000+ friends have; how much do they miss, or how much time do they spend sorting through it all?

Recently, for reasons more related to privacy control, I trimmed my number of friends on Facebook by roughly half. It wasn't a matter of whether or not I liked someone, it was about whether or not I really wanted them seeing what was going on in my life or felt the need to see what was going on in theirs. Of the fewer-than-a-hundred that I have left, it's either family, close friends who I see regularly, or more physically distant friends that I like to keep up with.

After I went through this process, I noticed something unexpected: Facebook had become a little bit more interesting. I didn't have to spend as much time reading, I didn't have to read as often, and what I was reading were things that actually mattered to me. If you've read any of my other entries, you'll know that I see Facebook as much more useful for connecting with people than for actually communicating with them. I'd like to change that position slightly; I think it's useful for connecting with people and for notifying them. It's a good way to send up a proverbial smoke signal to say, "Hey, I've got something to say, come listen."

One interesting aside: despite dropping nearly a hundred people from my friends list, I had exactly one request to re-friend me. Whether the others didn't notice or just didn't care, I'll likely never know. But if I'm not being missed, I can't think that I made the wrong decision.

If you take this whole discussion one step further, you come back to an age-old truth: it's better to have a handful of close, trusted friends who you can share anything with and will always have your back than it is to have a huge number of friends who barely know you. So really, given that this is something that I've always believed, I shouldn't be all that surprised. I just wasn't expecting Facebook to mirror life so closely in this regard.

And yes, I still think Facebook is bad; both the service itself and what some people do with it. I just think it's slightly more useful, and enjoyable even, if you treat your Facebook "friends" more like your real friends.

Know When To Walk Away

2011-08-18T20:28:00.000-05:00

"...know when to walk away, and know when to run." - Kenny Rogers, "The Gambler"

I'm generally not a big fan of country music, and I'm really lousy at poker, but Kenny Rogers' "The Gambler" is one of my all-time favorite songs. The chorus, talking about knowing whether to stay or go, and knowing how quickly you should be going, talk to much more than poker or country musicians.

In life, as in poker, there is a fine line between loyalty to a cause and needlessly going down with a sinking ship. People often find themselves asking, "Is this cause really worth so much of my time?" or "Is this relationship really worth the effort?" Loyalty usually says "yes", and self-preservation usually says "no". The problem is that both answers are right; true loyalty is a rare gift and is often repaid in unexpected ways, and removing yourself from a bad situation can be just as beneficial, if not moreso.

So if both answers are right, how do you resolve this conflict? Patience. Experience. Knowing your own limits of how much you'll put up with, and knowing the needs and limits of the other party, be it a cause or a person. It's not an easy thing to figure out. If it were, we'd have far fewer Gamblers gracing our country song lyrics and far fewer Armchair Admirals rambling about it....

I could go on about this one for hours, but tonight I'm gonna keep it short and sweet, just like the lyrics I quoted.

(I realize that this makes two song-related 'blog posts in a row. It wasn't intentional, but I certainly won't refrain from it in the future. Pun intended.)

All You Need Is Love

2011-08-09T22:25:00.000-05:00

"All you need is love" - The Beatles

I'm a huge fan of The Beatles. No, I'm not that old, but I do have fond memories listening to them growing up. Their music spanned a huge range of genres and styles, but there are are songs of theirs that are just simple, pure, and deep. And what really hits me about these songs isn't just their depth, it's that my understanding of their depth gets greater with time. "All You Need Is Love" is a perfect example. For now, I'll forgo an in-depth analysis of the lyrics and just stick with the title and the evolution of my understanding of it.

At first, I thought that all you needed was love to be happy in a relationship. I've seen the song quoted in several movies to this effect. Sadly though, I eventually learned that simply loving someone isn't enough to maintain a relationship with them; there is a lot of work that needs to go into it, and there's a certain level of compatibility that has to be there. Without those other factors, the relationship will fail, no matter how much the two people love each other.

After realizing that my first interpretation was incorrect, I came to another conclusion. I decided that the song wasn't talking about relationships per se, but was instead talking about your own happiness in general; in essence the "You" was singular, not plural. So, my understanding of the song shifted towards being happy, even if alone, if you were loved by those around you. Support systems of close friends and loved ones have been key to helping me through some trying times, so this made perfect sense.

That is, at least, until I realized that I was wrong again. People are, well, human. They aren't always there when you need them, even if they'd really like to be. So, how can you base your happiness on something external, something outside of your control? You can't. And at that moment, my understanding of this simple lyric reached new depth. You aren't made happy by people loving you, you are made happy by loving people. It doesn't matter what people in your life do or think or say or feel; it matters what you do for them, think about them, say to them, or feel about them. Happiness comes from within. Happiness comes from loving, even if in silence or from a distance or without acknowledgement, not from being loved.

So if you're feeling lonely, stuck, or at your wits' end and are desperately searching for love, summon the will to give that love first to someone around you. You'd be surprised by just how much strength there is to be had in loving someone without question, hesitation, or thought of reward.

(I'd like to toss out a special thanks to my daughter Abigail for teaching me what it means to love unconditionally, so that I can show that love to others in return.)

Is Your Life Really Effed?

2011-07-30T21:08:00.001-05:00

DISCLAIMER: This post contains profanity, but I feel it's appropriate and not gratuitous.

One of the funnier websites that I've been reading lately is fmylife.com. It's a site where people can log in and post snippets about how horribly fucked up their life is. Hence, Fuck My Life or FML for short. I appreciate the humor in this site because it is twofold.

First, the stories themselves can be pretty funny. A lot of them are just silly teen angst scenes, humorous drinking incidents, or office romances gone bad, but some of them are downright funny. As they say, the truth really is stranger than fiction, and I'd wager to say that it's funnier than fiction too. I know, it seems wrong of me to giggle like a teenager at other people's suffering, but I guess that's just part of my dark sense of humor. Besides, if they're going to share it on the Internet for everyone to read, I'm not going to feel an ounce of guilt over laughing at it.

Which brings me to the second thing I find amusing about fmylife.com. While the stories that people share are tragic, albeit in an often comically overplayed sense, they'd generally hardly be reason for me to consider myself to be fucked. Do people really think that these unfortunate yet seemingly minor situations really fuck up their lives, or are they sharing them simply as a mean of venting, a form of catharsis to help themselves deal with the situation? Either way, I consider the possibility that people really think these incidents fuck their life at least as funny as reading about the incidents themselves. Seriously people, there are far worse things in life than awkward moments in bed or accidentally insulting an old lady on the street. (There are exceptions of course. Some of these stories are horrible. I try not to laugh at those because these people really are fucked, but they are in the vast minority.)

So, it's important to remember that one aspect of humor isn't the story you're telling, it's the perspective that it's given when being told. Whether intentional or not, making any situation overly dramatic can reduce it to a laughing stock, a mockery of the real situation, even when the real situation is something tragic that should be lamented or something serious that needs to be resolved.

Rather like American politics and media today....

Unrequited Love

2011-07-25T05:51:00.006-05:00

I was watching an episode of a TV show on Netflix recently when a character said in a very tragic sense, "All love is unrequited" to the object of said unrequited love. At first, I disregarded that statement as the kind of love-lorn rambling that someone in that situation (as poor Dante in this image, admiring his beloved Beatrice) is bound to say and didn't give it much of a second thought. Despite this character's suffering of love not returned, and the suffering of others like him, people do manage to fall in love with each other on a pretty regular basis, so how could all love be unrequited?

Some time later, I remembered an important lesson that I have learned about love: no two loves are exactly the same. Each love you feel is different because each situation is different, each person is different, and even you are different every time you feel a new one. I believe that this is an inherently good thing as it provides for a wonderful variety in relationships even though it does have the potential to also cause tension and misunderstandings.

So in light of this, I reevaluated the initial statement: is all love unrequited?

First, let us be clear as to what unrequited love is. According to Merriam-Webster, "unrequited" means "not reciprocated or returned in kind". So, technically speaking, unrequited love is a love of someone that is not reciprocated; said another way, the object of your love does not love you in the way that you love them.

Combining this definition with a little logic, my answer was, rather surprisingly, "yes". I know that logic and love don't often mix, but here's how I reached that conclusion:

1. I love person A.
2. If person A does not love me in return, my love is unrequited. This is fairly straightforward, and corresponds to the initial example at the beginning of the post.
3. If Person A does love me in return, their love for me is different than my love for them, by nature of the fact that each love is different. Said another way, they cannot love me in the same way that I love them. Nobody can. Therefore my love is still unrequited; person A loves me in return, but not in the way I love them.

So yes, in light of this little thought experiment I do now believe that all love is unrequited, although not in a tragic sense. To me, it is a beautiful thing that prevents life, and love, from becoming monotonous. It adds to the mystery that is the everyday world around us, and that is a very good thing.

What? You didn't think all of my ramblings were going to be about politics and Facebook-bashing did you? ;^)

(Image is taken from the public domain, courtesy of Wikipedia.)

Politifact: Love It And Hate It

2011-07-23T07:24:00.000-05:00

For those of you not familiar with Politifact.com, it's a Pulitzer Prize winning website who's mission is to fact check statements by major players in American politics. This includes members of Congress, the President and Vice President, Cabinet Members, White House staff, lobbyists, and even the occasional yard sign or chain E-mail. They rate statements using their "Truth-O-Meter", with ratings ranging from "True" all the way down to "Pants on Fire" for really egregious falsehoods and outright fabrications. They also keep running records of individuals so you can get an idea of how truthful that person has been.

So, here's why I love Politifact. It provides a service that is increasingly rare in today's media: unbiased research. It doesn't pick sides, it doesn't shy away from sensitive topics, and it never takes any statement at face value. In a nation that's based on representative government, cutting through the quagmire of posturing and punditry that permeates the political process is key to understanding important issues and making wise decisions. It also provides a degree of entertainment because you will often find yourself laughing at some of the patently false statements that people are making, and that their audiences are believing! Is it perfect? By it's own admission, no. They've made mistakes, but they also correct them if they become aware of them. Do I trust them completely? No; I don't believe that any one source can find "the whole truth" behind a story, but I do value their factual research greatly when making up my own mind about something.

And here's what I hate about Politifact. I hate the fact that it's even necessary. To me, Politifact represents the downfall of journalism in the mainstream media. It's doing the job that the major news outlets used to do; finding the facts and reporting them. But more and more, the major "news" outlets are just a source of opinions, re-stated party lines, and even entertainment in the form of political theater or trumped-up courtroom drama. I very much respect and value the work that Politifact does, but, as a friend put it, sources like that should be the double-check for reporting, not the source. We live in a time where a comedian, Jon Stewart, is considered by many to be the most trusted news anchor on television (I question the validity of the actual poll due to it's small sample size, but not it's sentiment). He often does more research on a story than his major news counterparts. What's wrong with this picture?

Here's what I think. Sadly, the problem may not be with the mainstream media at all. Above all else, the networks are businesses, and to make a profit they need ratings. They need to sell themselves, so they broadcast what they feel most people want to hear. There was a time when people wanted to hear facts, when they wanted to hear reporters digging through politicians' shifting talking points. But now it seems that people just want to feel good. They don't want to think, they want other people to think for them. I can't say whether the audience changed before the media or not, and therefore can't place blame since I know not where it lies. But I can say that they have both changed, and I fear that our nation has suffered for it.

Scatterbrained....

2011-07-18T06:28:00.001-05:00

No, I haven't lost my 'blogging steam so quickly. I just find myself about half-way through several posts and I need to start finishing them instead of starting to write about new things. I'll finish a few of these "real soon". B^)

Go Take a Hike!

2011-07-11T20:57:00.001-05:00

One of the activities that I've gotten into lately is hiking. Given that I live in the mountains of Western Maryland, there are lots of places in the area to go hiking so I figured I'd give it a try.

I'm very glad that I did for more reasons than I had anticipated. First, it's a great form of exercise. I'll usually hike 10-12 miles in an afternoon if I'm hiking solo, and that's usually up and down some pretty hilly terrain. It builds balance, strength, and stamina.

Secondly, it's a great opportunity to spend time alone with my thoughts, or time alone with friends talking about whatever comes up. Given today's electronic hyper-connected society, I think that both of these are sadly lacking from many of our lives. Although I'm sure that I can't attribute it directly to this, I find myself happier when I get to hike once a week or so now than when I don't.

Third is the opportunity it's given me to partake in another hobby of mine, which is photography. I'm hardly as advanced as several of my friends, and I'm usually restricted in what I can carry due to weight limitations, but with my little Olympus pocket camera, and a good eye, I've managed to take a few photos that I really am proud of. I'm sure that with more time on the trail, my photography will only get better.

Lastly, and perhaps most profoundly, is the deep appreciation for the world around me that I seem to be acquiring. I tend to think of things now more in terms of the environment, society as a whole, or, in general, not based purely on how they impact me. Troubles don't seem so troublesome, and I tend to focus more on the positive aspects of the world around me. In the increasingly trying times that we live in, I think it's an appreciation that we could all use a little more of.

The majority of my hiking to date has been along the Appalachian Trail, a 2,181 mile scenic trail that runs from Northern Georgia to Maine. Although I doubt I would ever get to "thru-hike" the entire trail, I certainly enjoy my adventures in my little Mid-Atlantic segment. Because of my appreciation for how spending time on the trail is benefiting my life, I've joined the Appalachian Trail Conservancy and plan to begin volunteering with them in the near future. I've been looking for an opportunity to give back to the community, and if I can pass the benefits of hiking along to other people; to get them some exercise, to let them see the beauty in the world around them, and to help them realize that their day-to-day troubles and strifes are often not so bad in the grand scheme of things; then to me that is a worthy cause.

If any of you, my readers, ever want to go take a hike, just let me know.

(All images from the collection of the author.)

Tools, Firearms, and Independence Day

2011-07-04T14:14:00.000-05:00

This is a claw hammer. It is a tool that has multiple purposes. Its primary purposes include driving nails and extracting nails, but it can also be used for other purposes like demolition. There are other styles of hammers that have different uses; ball-peen hammers can be used for shaping metal, sledgehammers are much better for demolition work, etc., but all hammers are basically variations of the same tool. Hammers require practice in order to use safely and properly. Improper use of a hammer can result in injury to the user or persons around the user. In a pinch, most any hammer can also be used as a weapon to defend oneself against an attacker, or it can be used by someone with criminal intent to harm innocent people around them.

This is a firearm. Like the hammer, it is a tool with multiple purposes. Its primary purposes include hunting, target practice, and self-defense. There are many styles of firearms that have different uses; handguns are small and easier to conceal on your person, rifles have longer range, shotguns have a wider area of effect, etc., but all firearms are basically variations of the same tool. Firearms require practice in order to use safely and properly. Improper use of a firearm can result in injury to the user or persons around the user. Most any firearm can be used as a weapon to defend oneself against an attacker, or it can be used by someone with criminal intent to harm innocent people around them.

Both hammers and firearms are tools. Both have peaceful purposes in society (one builds your house, the other protects it and puts food on its table), both require care in use to avoid injury, and both can be used by criminals to harm innocent people. So why is it that anyone can walk into a hardware store and buy a hammer and hammers can be carried anywhere, yet there are numerous restrictions on firearm purchase and possession? And why are such restrictions even allowable in the first place given that the Second Amendment of the Constitution plainly states that "...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? What ends are served by restricting the access of law-abiding citizens to firearms?

Happy Independence Day everybody. If you appreciate your freedom, remember that it is never free.

(First image is taken from the public domain, courtesy of Wikipedia. Second image from the collection of the author.)

American Politics and the n-Body Problem

2011-07-01T13:34:00.005-05:00

Throughout much of our nation's history, American politics has consisted of a two party system. The issues have changed, the parties have changed, but by and large, the American people were represented at the national level by two political parties. There have always been Third Party movements, but they remained small and didn't cause significant impact. Recently though (I can't lay a finger on when exactly, but let's say the late '70s/early '80s), that has begun to change. There are still two major politlcal parties in American politics, but any more they seem less interested in representing the American people and more interested in representing American corporations. There is a growing concern in this country that politicians, whether you agree with their political idealogy or not, are out of touch with the people they represent. This has led to a swath of Americans feeling like they aren't well-represented at the national level, and with it has come the rise of movements like The Tea Party, The Coffee Party, and expanding membership in existing Third Parties (Green Party, Libertarians, etc.).

Enter the n-body problem. It is a central field of study in physics that aims to understand and predict the interaction of n bodies under a given force (most typically, gravity). For n = 2, the solutions are generally straightforward and can easily lead to simple, predicatable behavior. However, as soon as n increases to three or greater, the solutions become chaotic unless you can make certain limiting assumptions about the problem. One of those assumptions for n = 3 is to limit the mass of one of the bodies to be negligible compared to the other two; under these conditions, you can predict the behavior of the system reasonably well.

The image below gives a good example of what happens when the mass of the third body is not negligible.

I feel that American politics can be approximated rather nicely by a classical 3-body problem. Two bodies represent the two major American political parties and the third body represents everyone else. If you follow this approximation through (and assume that it's meaningful), you'll see that American politics has been relatively stable up until recently because the third body has been of negligable mass. However, as the third body gains in mass relative to the other two, the system will become more and more chaotic, be harder to predict, and will no longer behave as it did in the past.

So what does this all mean? Should we squash the third party movement in order to keep American politics stable? Should we scrap it all to come up with a "better" two party system? I have no answers to these questions; all I can say is that if American politics continues down the road it's on right now, it will become harder and harder to predict and that's not necessarily a bad thing. (I do feel rather strongly that Congress should be representing the American people instead of American corporations, but that's a topic for another discussion.)

(Image is taken from the public domain, courtesy of Wikipedia)

Welcome Back to The Armchair (Or, Why I Dislike Facebook)

2011-06-27T18:57:00.000-05:00

Welcome. It's been a long time and a lot has changed. I'll be skipping the details of those changes, and my personal life in general, for the time being. Those of you who know me already know the details, and those of you who don't know me don't need to know the details.

My previous incarnation of this 'blog was just a place for me to post semi-random stuff about my friends, family, and immediate surroundings. It was fun, but it wasn't very fulfilling which is why I didn't keep at it. So this time around I'm taking a different approach; I plan to treat this 'blog as my Internet soapbox, a place where I can write longer pieces about topics that matter on a much broader scale. I'm sure that there will be some smaller, fun stuff in there as well, but I don't want to let that become the norm.

So what prompted my return to 'blogging? As with most things, it was a confluence of factors. Two factors were the desire for academic and creative outlets, but the third, and probably most influential, was my growing dislike of Facebook.

I've been on Facebook for a little over two years and it's safe to say that, for me at least, the magic has passed. While I definitely see the value in Facebook as a means to connect with people, the problems I have with the service have finally outweighed the benefits. I've found that it's not necessarily good for communicating with people. Status updates are length-limited, there's not much variation in what you can do in terms of posting/commenting, etc. I see this as a growing trend in social media outlets in general: they tend to favor quantity of communication vs quality. Short snippets instead of well-thought-out conversations. It's almost like people are forgetting how have a serious conversation. I'll likely still use Facebook to stay in touch on a very basic level with some people, but I haven't had any really serious communication via Facebook in a long time and that's a big turn-off for me. There's the advertising on Facebook that gets annoying, but that's something more tolerable, especially if you use any sort of ad blocking utility; the annoyance there is more one of principle. Facebook's seemingly carefree treating of privacy also really irk me. Most items get defaulted to allow large numbers of people, most of them you don't know, to see your profile. Then there are the constantly changing settings; I have lost track of the number of times I've had to re-adjust my settings to keep them where I wanted. But to me, one of the biggest privacy issues is the fact that there are ways to see information about people without their consent if you know how to do it. That's not cool in my book. (No, I'm not sharing.)

So there you have it. I'm looking forward to spending more time communicating and less time chattering. I will likely be playing around with the new templates at some point along the way; please feel free to share your opinions of my layout or make any suggestions and please excuse anything that I break along the way.

Under Construction

2011-06-25T07:10:00.002-05:00

Or "Coming Off Of Life Support", "Returning From Six Years in Tibet", etc. Long and short of it...the Armchair is returning....