A Brief Thought on the Government Shutdown

I've not done a post on politics in a while, mostly because they've become completely uncivil in the past few years. However, I thought I'd throw in my two cents on the government shutdown.

I'll start with saying that my company is directly affected by the shutdown. There is a possibility that, if the shutdown goes too long, the funds that my company is coasting on will dry up and I'll be facing a furlough. Thus, the effects of the shutdown aren't exactly theoretical to me.

I'm not entirely happy that the GOP decided to use the budget as the tool to try to get concessions on the hilariously misnamed "Affordable Care Act". At the same time, I can see why the Republicans think this may be their only real chance to take the ACA head on. The ACA was a ridiculously partisan law that was passed along party lines. As far as I know, the law had absolutely no input from the GOP. Many believe that the GOP's gains in Congress the following election year were primarily caused by the passage of a law that was so unpopular with the American public. Many Republican representatives see their election as a mandate to repeal or reform Obamacare.

What really annoys me is how much the media and others are calling this "the Republicans' shutdown". It's not the Republicans' shutdown, it's Congress' shutdown. The government didn't shutdown because Republicans wanted it to, it shutdown because the GOP wanted to negotiate some concessions. Unfortunately, the Democrats, led by Harry Reid (a ridiculous clown that should have been put out to pasture years ago) were entirely unwilling to negotiate and apparently preferred the tactic of name-calling. Since the Republican-controlled House and the Democratic-controlled Senate couldn't agree, the government shutdown.

Here's the problem, Mr. Reid; because we don't live in a single party dictatorship, you have to make make concessions if you want something in return. Our political system was actually designed to work this way to promote moderation. However, you've decided instead to behave like a petulant child since you can't immediately have everything your way. When the Republicans try to do something civil, like offer to fund important parts of the government until a solution can be reached, you scream "no deal!" and then return to lamenting that the GOP doesn't care about furloughed workers. When the Republicans support a bill to ensure that furloughed workers receive back pay when the government shutdown is over, you claim that it shows that the GOP doesn't care how long the shutdown lasts.

Harry Reid's idea of negotiation in good faith

This is why our political system has become so uncivil in recent years. People like Reid don't see the other side as earnest but mistaken, they see them as mustache-twirling villains.

I would argue that this shift in mindset over the past 10 to 15 years is the cause of most of the so-called crises in Washington. When people refuse to accept that their opponents may simply be wrong or just have a different opinion and instead insist that they're actually evil and have impure motives, then you have a recipe for constant deadlock and vicious partisanship.

On the INL Plutonium Exposure Controversy

Warning! Do not eat the plutonium!

Recently, my mother brought an AP article published in the Idaho Falls Post-Register and the online version of The Oregonian to my attention. The article briefly discusses a complaint filed with OSHA against Battelle Energy Alliance (BEA) by two employees. In 2011, 16 employees, including the two who filed the complaint, were exposed to plutonium contamination at the Materials and Fuels Complex (MFC), which is one of the many facilities at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) (the official Accident Investigation Report can be found here). Of course, the article actually says that they were exposed to "plutonium radiation", which once again shows that the media has no interest in learning the difference between radiation and radioactive contamination. Anyway, as part of their complaint, the two employees claim that the 2011 incident occurred after they had expressed safety concerns over several different jobs.

Let me start by saying that I don't deny that the employees involved have a genuine complaint with regards to the incident itself. Had they been assigned to work a properly planned and engineered job, the spread of contamination would have been avoided. As a matter of fact, I heard about the incident the day it happened; my first response was "why didn't they just use a glovebox?" I wasn't too surprised when I found that Table C-1 in the official report states that the problem would not have occured if they had done exactly that.

Regardless of the errors made, I have a low tolerance for the perpetuation of inaccuracies or falsehoods with regards to the nuclear field. While I could criticize or question the article's statements (and the employees' complaints if it's assumed that the article accurately reports them) on several of fronts, I want to address a detail that is completely wrong. Specifically, one of the primary examples given of a safety concern that was supposedly ignored by BEA turns out not to have been a safety problem at all in light of the radioactive properties of plutonium. The fact that the workers still believe that it was an issue shows that the January 2012 report's statement that "Workers did not understand the consequences of Pu contamination" apparently remains true. According to the article:

Twice in 2011, BEA allegedly refused to allow Stanton and Simmons to use lead shielding to protect themselves when handling plutonium. Both workers exercised their right to stop the jobs, according to the complaint.

Let me cover a few of the most basic radiation types encountered in nuclear power and then we'll see why this particular claim is entirely baseless.

Alpha Radiation: Alpha radiation or alpha decay is the emission of particles from a radioactive isotope. These particles have two protons and two neutrons and are simply helium nuclei with a significant amount of kinetic energy. However, alpha particles present very little external risk since their kinetic energy is expended after traveling through a few centimeters of air or striking something as flimsy as paper or the dead layer of cells on a person's skin. Once stopped, an alpha particle is rendered harmless. Alpha particles only become dangerous when a strong alpha-emitting isotope enters the body. Internal tissues can become severely damaged since they aren't protected by a dead layer of cells like the skin is.

Beta Radiation: Beta radiation is the emission of electrons or positrons (which have the same mass as an electron but are positively charged) from the nucleus of a radioactive isotope. Beta particles don't have as much kinetic energy as alpha particles, although they have greater penetrating power. A beta particle can be stopped by sheets of metal, plastic, or glass. While beta particles have the potential to penetrate the outer layers of a person's skin, personnel working with a beta-emitting isotope are generally protected by the plastic walls of a glove box or by anti-contamination clothing. Since beta particles can penetrate the cornea, personnel may wear goggles or a face shield to protect their eyes.

Gamma Radiation: Gamma radiation is the emission of high energy photons with high penetrating power. Dense materials such as lead or steel are typically used to shield significant gamma-emitting sources, although a generous layer of water or concrete can perform the same function.

Neutron Radiation: Neutron radiation is the emission of free neutrons that usually occurs as the result of nuclear fission. Neutrons can also be produced by exposing certain light elements such as beryllium to an alpha-emitter. Neutron radiation is only effectively shielded by water or other hydrogenous materials such as oil or polymers.

Here's where the INL workers' complaint about the lead shielding falls apart. The workers claim that they weren't allowed to use lead shielding to protect themselves while working with plutonium. However, as I mentioned above, dense shielding is used to protect against gamma radiation, which is highly penetrating. Plutonium, on the other hand, is an alpha-emitter. Unless you have a critical mass (in which case you've started a lethal fission reaction and anything short of a reactor vessel isn't going to save you), plutonium is only a threat if it gets inside your body. As explicitly stated by the EPA, the external risk presented by plutonium is very small since it emits almost no gamma or beta radiation. BEA did not endanger the two employees by disallowing them from using lead shielding since such shielding is completely unnecessary to protect people from an alpha-emitter like plutonium.

I can understand why BEA would have disallowed its employees from using lead shielding while working with plutonium. Once BEA had conceded to allowing two employees to install useless shielding because it made them feel better, the company would be compelled to use "feel-good" shielding all the time. The allowance would simply perpetuate the myth among employees that lead shielding is effective and necessary for handling plutonium. Personally, I would never engineer a job to use unnecessary shielding for that very reason, although I would make sure to explain my reasoning to the workers to avoid any misunderstandings.

There's a lot more I could say about the article and the complaint filed by the two employees (I actually deleted a third of my draft before posting because it became too long and unfocused). For example, I believe that the purported retaliation didn't necessarily have sinister motivations, although I don't have any inside sources on this matter. The employees' claim that their radiation dosage information was withheld might sound suspicious, but may simply reflect the fact that dose assessments following exposure to an alpha-emitter are very difficult to perform. Page 61 of the accident report acknowledges that the measurements needed to complete the assessment might have to made over a period of months or even years.

Nuclear power has many enemies who latch onto any accusation of safety violations in support of their cause. Much too often, these anti-nuclear groups take advantage of the public's ignorance of the science to get their way. Inaccuracies like those found in the AP article and the employees' complaint are inevitably used to frighten the public away from an effective and safe form of power.

[The above represents my own opinions and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of my employer, BEA, or the INL.]

Some Political Thoughts

I've been busy over at my Warhammer 40,000 blog and have been spending much of my free time on the 40K hobby, which means that I've seriously neglected my general interest blog. What little content I've added to The Atomic Spud in recent months has been almost entirely genre movie reviews.

I used to post a lot of political commentary, but politics have gotten so vicious and personal in recent years that I've said very little about them in a public forum. (Hence the Atomic Spud's recent content; I've yet to receive hate mail over a movie review.) In fact, the last time I made a purely political blog post was in April of last year when I briefly discussed how uncivil things had become.

Despite keeping quiet about politics, I still follow various blogs and news sources and am concerned about the direction the United States has taken. Like many others, I worry about how indebted the nation has become. However, I'm even more concerned about a fundamental shift in American politics; specifically that the current administration has truly become an "Imperial Presidency" and that relatively few Americans seem to care.

When and why did the American people decide that it was appropriate for the Executive Branch to have the power to specify what an insurance company covers, especially when it infringes on a religious organization's liberties? Or to effectively oust the CEO of a private company? And what about the 23 executive orders that impinge on a Constitutional Amendment? These are just a few well known examples of Presidential overreach.

Not only does the President seem to be getting away with grabbing up power, but it appears that there are quite a few who want him to. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said that Obama should bypass Congress and unilaterally increase the U.S. debt ceiling. (The law requires that any such increases be agreed to by the House and the Senate.) Is anyone else concerned that highly placed individuals in the Legislative Branch appear to be eager to cede their authority to the Executive Branch?

Then there are the Hollywood types who explicitly want an Obama dictatorship. For example, a couple years ago Woody Allen told a Spanish language magazine that "it would be good if [Obama] could be a dictator for a few years because he could do a lot of good things quickly." (I wonder how many dictators have voluntarily given up their power after a few years?) Referring to Obama's political opposition, singer Harry Belafonte said that Obama should "Work like a Third World dictator and just put all these guys in jail." It looks like some on the Left actually want Obama to do the kind of things that they were afraid George W. Bush would do.

The degree to which the far Left wants to expand federal power in general and Executive power in particular is astonishing. They're oblivious to a huge flaw in their strategy, which is that it depends on power being retained indefinitely by the Left. As the old saying goes, "This too shall pass". Obama's reelection notwithstanding, there's no guarantee that the Left will be able to remain in power. I'm sure they remember all to well that after eight years of Clinton there were eight years of George W. Bush. Has it ever occurred to the far Left that whatever degree of power is handed to one of their fellow Liberals may very well be wielded by a dreaded arch-Conservative within four short years? The Astute Bloggers put it best:

When liberals tell you they support another expansion of federal power at the expense of personal liberty you should ask them how'd they feel if President Palin and Majority Leader Cruz and Speaker Ryan had that power.

Do they really want Palin and Cruz and Ryan to control their healthcare or pensions?

Then, while [they're] stammering at the prospect of Palin signing 23 PRO-GUN executive orders or 23 PRO-LIFE executive orders, ask them why they think that giving career politicians and bureaucrats more money and more influence over the lives of ordinary people will improve things for the ordinary people.

I'm amazed that the Left can rant and rave about the greedy and uncaring "1 Percent" while simultaneously believing in the existence of a great and benevolent State with armies of selfless public servants. Human nature is human nature, whether one is a venture capitalist or a government bureaucrat, and any mere mortal who is entrusted with a large amount of authority is just as likely to abuse it to the detriment of the people as he is to use it for their benefit (just ask those who lived under Soviet rule about the extent of political corruption). That's why the Founding Fathers attempted to limit government authority; they wisely assumed that a government composed of fallible human beings is just as fallible and that its ability to harm the citizenry must be limited.

Our nation has been gradually dismantling the Founding Father's system of checks and balances for decades. I think we've picked up the pace in recent years.

Christmas Again

The Annual Christmas Diatribe
Today was my last day of work before our company's holiday shutdown. Apparently it was realized years ago that too many employees take vacation during the week between Christmas and New Year's for the facility to be effective. The shutdown consists of three paid holidays (Christmas Eve, Christmas, and New Year's) with four mandatory vacation days in between.

While being mostly alone in the office and left to my own thoughts, I started thinking about what I should write for my annual "Happy Holidays vs. Merry Christmas" screed. I was going to mention that Happy Holidays is an exclusive rather than an inclusive phrase. That is, it isn't truly a greeting for an amalgamation of holidays but rather a counterfeit that's clearly intended to replace "Merry Christmas". For example, I've often noticed that Menorahs (which are explicitly religious symbols, as opposed to the Christmas tree) and "Happy Hanukkah" are allowed to stand proudly (which they should), while the very word Christmas has become verboten (many a city's official Christmas tree has instead been given the absurd title of "Holiday Tree").

I was even going to bring up how the attempt to phase out the word "Christmas" seems downright Orwellian. In George Orwell's 1984, the Party attempts to control citizens' thoughts through "Newspeak"; a language that supposedly seeks to eliminate "unnecessary" words but is actually intended to abolish "incorrect" concepts from the people's vocabulary and encourage "correct" (i.e., Party-approved) thinking.

Lo and behold, it turns out that I already wrote this diatribe last year:

However, a lot of us don't see the proliferation of "Happy Holidays" as an inclusive practice, but as one that has been deliberately and successfully pushed by certain culturally and politically influential entities to be exclusive of Christianity or any of its outward trappings. It represents one of the earliest and most subtle attempts of the militantly secular (and often explicitly anti-Christian) to strip Christmas of its meaning and origin. Note that no other widely celebrated holiday is considered so unacceptable by the purveyors of political correctness that it is being stripped of its name in a manner that would make Orwell's Ministry of Truth proud.

Well, on to the next topic then.

Elf on the Shelf is Creepy
My wife, a big Pinterest fan, recently introduced me to the concept of the Elf on the Shelf. Apparently the idea is that a family keeps an elf doll in their home during the days leading up to Christmas. This doll is Santa's own little informant and tells the jolly fat man whether or not the children should be on the naughty or nice list.

The official site for Elf on the Shelf says that the elves like to play games with the family, often by hiding in different places throughout the house. Some of the more creative people on Pinterest have also added mischief and pranks to their elf's repertoire.

Although this seemed interesting at first, it got weirder as I thought about it. First of all, the idea of having one of Santa's agents spying on you is a bit too "Big Brother" for me (speaking of Orwellian...). "Dear St. Nick: I'd like to skip the presents this year and keep my privacy. Please call off your spy."

Second of all, look how creepy this elf is:

Oops, wrong elf. I bet he would keep the kids in line, though.

"I can see into your soul"

Sure, it looks cute at first. But imagine this creepy little thing scurrying around your house. It could be watching you at this very moment... and judging you.

I'm sorry, but the magical and/or possessed doll is a horror staple. (Do we all remember the Twilight Zone's Talky Tina? "My name is Talky Tina and I don't think I like you.") And how does this elf doll become magical? According to the website:

The tradition begins when Santa sends his scout elves out to Elf Adoption Centers. Waiting for their families to bring them home, these patient elves hibernate until their family reads The Elf on the Shelf, gives their elf a very special name, and registers their adoption online. Once named, each scout elf will receive its Christmas magic and become a part of the family’s Christmas each and every year.

So, you have to read the book, name the elf, and register its adoption online for it to get its Christmas magic? Again, the stories I'm familiar with have taught me that reading a book to bestow life on something never turns out well, although The Elf on the Shelf doesn't seem like the typical eldritch tome of forbidden lore needed for this kind of thing. Now maybe if it was called The Necronomicon of St. Nicholas and was bound in human skin... Anyway, giving it a name makes sense, since that's often part of bringing an unnatural horror to life, but why do you also have to register the adoption online to finish the process? I really can't see online registration as being the key to unlocking magical powers. And why would you deliberately grant magical powers to a being whose sole purpose is to spy on you?

The whole thing just seems wrong to me. However, if Bride of Atomic Spud decides to get one next year, you better believe that I'll take advantage of all its inherent creepiness and our children will know true terror... uh, I mean the magic of a new Christmas tradition.

A Christmas tradition... of terror.

Book Review: Unwind

Unwind by Neal Shusterman

My wife, whose taste leans towards juvenile sci-fi literature, is often trying to get me to read her favorite books. I keep telling her that the reason I haven't read them isn't because they don't interest me, but because I already have plenty of Star Wars, Star Trek, Warhammer 40,000, and various classic sci-fi books to read.

After she finished Unwind, my wife strongly encouraged me to read it. The premise sounded interesting enough that I described the idea of it to several coworkers. The next thing I knew, I had lent the book to at least three coworkers, each of whom loved it.

While I try to catch up on sleep during the 60+ minute bus ride to work, I always keep a book in my backpack for the return trip. Not long ago I found myself about to rush to the bus stop without a book since I had finished Something Wicked This Way Comes the day before (this is another novel I would highly recommend). I didn't have time to grab one of my own books from downstairs, so I picked up Unwind from our living room bookshelf (we have over half a dozen overloaded bookshelves spread throughout the house).

The book takes place in the indeterminate future. (The closest we get to a date is the statement that iPods were used by a character's grandparents and that it's been at least a decade since unwinding began.) America is still recovering from a second civil war known as the "Heartland War". Apparently the debate over abortion had finally reached the level of an armed conflict between the "Life Army" and the "Choice Brigade". Desperate to end the fighting, neutral parties proposed the "Bill of Life"; a compromise so horrifying that they believed that it would make both sides see reason. Contrary to their expectations, the Life Army and the Choice Brigade accepted the compromise and agreed to end the war.

Abortion is illegal under the Bill of Life. However, the bill makes it easy for unwanted infants to be either left at a State Home or "Storked"; i.e., left on the doorstep of a person who is then legally required to care for the child (or send it to a State Home). The other aspect of the bill is the legalization of a method to eliminate older unwanted children without technically killing them (or so it's claimed). Legal guardians can sign an irrevocable "unwind order" for any unwanted minors over the age of 13. Unwinding involves the surgical dismemberment of a minor at one of the many harvest camps spread throughout the country. Those parts are then transplanted into the sick or injured.

The majority of society has convinced itself that an unwound person is not dead, but that he or she is "living in a divided state". In fact, even a number of religions encourage the "tithing" of children; i.e., serving God by dedicating a child to be unwound for the benefit of mankind. Other motivations for unwinding children are less philanthropic and usually involve strained budgets or troublesome youths. While society as a whole tends to consider unwinding to be beneficial or simply as something to be ignored, most youth who are sentenced to be unwound have a much different view of it. Some attempt to evade the law, becoming "AWOL Unwinds".

This brings us to the story of Connor (a troubled teen whose parents just don't want to handle him anymore), Risa (a State Home ward who, like so many others, is the latest victim of budget cuts), and Lev (a tithe who has spent his whole life preparing to be unwound). After discovering that his parents have signed the unwind order, Connor goes AWOL. While being pursued by the "Juvey-cops", he causes a pileup on the freeway and, out of desperation, pulls Lev out of a nearby car to use as a hostage. When he finds out that his hostage is a tithe on his way to harvest camp, Connor believes that his actions now constitute a rescue. Lev, on the other hand, sees them as the disruption of his ordained fate and attempts to get away. When he tries to return to the car, Lev is unexpectedly told by his pastor to run away from what he had long been told was his divinely appointed destiny. When Lev is hit by a tranquilizer bullet meant for Connor, Connor picks up the unconscious tithe and makes a break for it. In the meantime, the bus carrying Risa to her eventual unwinding becomes part of the pileup. In the commotion, Risa also makes her escape. The three soon end up together and on the run from the law. Although he convinces Connor and Risa that he is also trying to avoid unwinding, Lev continues to believe that he is destined to be unwound.

Orson Scott Card has said that authors of modern juvenile literature are some of the best in the business since they not only have to create an engaging story, but they also have to keep the plot moving to maintain the interest of their audience. Shusterman certainly does that with Unwind. After several close calls, Lev becomes separated from Connor and Risa and has a number of experiences that change his mind about unwinding and cause him to view his parents' decision to tithe him with anger and bitterness. Connor and Risa find themselves in an Underground Railroad-type operation meant to rescue runaway unwinds and send them to the Graveyard; an aircraft scrapyard ran by a retired admiral who wants to save unwinds for mysterious purposes. By the novel's end, Shusterman introduces the reader to life in a harvest camp and presents us with a genuinely disturbing sequence; a first person description of the actual unwinding process.

As unsettling as Unwind can be, it's an excellent novel in a number of ways. The characters are well developed and grow throughout the story. And we don't just care about the fates of Connor, Risa, and Lev; Shusterman also ensures that we can find sympathy even for the unlikable characters. Additionally, the author keeps the story moving, never allowing the plot to become boring or to stagnate. At the same time, it never feels like the novel loses its focus or tries to cram too many events or characters into the story. The novel's prose is also excellent. Like Orson Scott Card, Shusterman uses clear and effective language that never draws too much attention to itself. (As much as I enjoyed Something Wicked This Way Comes, Bradbury's writing is so convoluted that I often had problems distinguishing his metaphors from literal descriptions.) Finally, one of the greatest strengths of Unwind is its ability to persuade the reader that, no matter how horrifying the idea seems, an otherwise rational people could convince itself that unwinding is acceptable.

Why does Unwind seem credible? First, Shusterman shows that society has allowed itself to accept the bizarre idea that a person can continue to live in a "divided state" that is somehow meaningful. This belief has become so dogmatic that people are actually insulted when it is questioned. When Risa becomes upset upon being told by the State Home officials that she is to be unwound, she makes the mistake of saying that death is always hard to accept. At that point, the State Home's lawyer declares that unwinding isn't death but simply "living in a divided state" and reprimands her for using such inflammatory language. That's right, Risa's the one who's going to be dismantled yet the representatives of the State are the ones who are offended. This legal redefinition of life echoes a disturbing statement found in the book Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions, which was co-authored by President Obama's science czar, John Holdren, in 1973. The book, which is focused on the so-called "Population Bomb" attempts to redefine when one becomes a human being as some point well after birth:

The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being.

The absurdities of Unwind become horrifyingly plausible when real life individuals in respectable positions (and who are able to gain significant political influence) actually make such statements.

Second, Shusterman shows that, with the notable exception of tithed children, most adults assume that unwinds are all troublesome teenagers who deserve their fates. Many adults, and even some teenagers who have been sentenced to unwinding, believe that troubled youths might actually be happier in a divided state. While there are a number of violent, disturbed, or criminally inclined kids in the story, many unwinds are the victims of tight budgets or are being discarded by reluctant legal guardians who just don't want to support them anymore. In one of the most tragic cases, parents in the middle of a bitter divorce decide to have their son unwound since neither wants their ex-spouse to get custody of him.

Third, the future society has convinced itself that the good that comes out of unwinding outweighs whatever moral dilemmas it may present. At one point a runaway unwind who had benefited from a transplanted lung when he was younger says that unwinding is a good thing, he just doesn't want it to happen to him. I don't know Shusterman's opinion on abortion or the use of fetal stem cells, but the arguments in support of using body parts from unwinds often directly mirror the real-life arguments used to support the use of stem cells obtained from abortions.

In summary, life is cheap in the society of Unwind. What's left of the collective conscience is mollified with the legal redefinition of life, ignorant declarations that unwinds deserve their fate, and the belief that the ends justify the means. I believe that many readers will look at our current society and, by projecting modern attitudes and trends a couple generations forward, be able to see a future not unlike that of Unwind. Not only does Shusterman give us an exciting story with characters we care about, but he also gives us something that goes deeper than a story of survival in an unjust society.

As a side note, I was surprised when I came to sympathize with Connor's character more than with his companions, Risa and Lev. I thought this would be difficult at first given that, of the three, Connor is the only one being unwound because of his violent temper and propensity towards fighting. However, during their stay at a warehouse used to smuggle runaway unwinds to safety, Connor explains to Risa why he's been trying to stay away from all the other kids; it's an attempt to control his outbursts. He admits that many of his violent episodes have occurred because of his reaction to groups of people, noise, and continuous commotion. In addition to the fighting, he relates the story of how he impulsively threw a dish at a cabinet during a large family event because he was overwhelmed by the noise of so many conversations. Such situations are like having 'ants in his brain'. I immediately recognized my own issues with crowds and social situations in Connor's character and couldn't help but to identify with him. This kind of problem triggers a person's fight-or-flight instinct; for me it's flight and for Connor it's fight. I don't know how many other readers will understand how strong this reaction is, but I can assure them that it's very difficult to overcome. Shusterman seems to understand this challenge so well that I have to wonder if he is also strongly introverted.
A

"How To Care for Introverts"

I found a copy of this poster on Facebook last month:

I was amazed at how accurately this list describes myself and, to a lesser extent, several of my friends. Supposedly, around 75% of Americans are extroverts while those of us who are introverts are in the minority. Unfortunately, that means that a lot of people don't understand our personalities or realize that what's normal and enjoyable for them can be a veritable nightmare for us.

Numbers 1 and 6 have required a lot of patience on the part of my wife. Although I love my family more than anything, my wife and kids have learned that daddy's sanity is often dependent on him having his "daddy time"; i.e., a period of time in which I can sit in a quiet room listening to music through my ubiquitous noise-blocking earbuds. (I've since come to realize that the reason I constantly listen to music is so that I can control the sound around me. Without that control, random noise becomes horribly distracting.) My wife learned about number 6 long ago when she realized that I have extreme difficulty with spontaneity or sudden changes to my routine or my plans.

Numbers 11 and 12 reflect on an introvert's aversion to large social gatherings. For example, I don't know how many people tried to get me to 'get out and have some fun' at a dance or some other activity when I was young. I remember a young woman who was frequently guilty of this and who was able to drag me to the occasional dance. The only thing that made those activities tolerable was the fact that I liked her. That young woman, who became Bride of Atomic Spud just over 10 years ago, eventually learned number 12: "don't try to remake [introverts] into extroverts". The reason why we don't enjoy social events with large groups of people isn't because we haven't been exposed to them, it's because we simply don't like them. It's in our personality to dislike large social events, just as it is in the personality of many people to enjoy them.

Wikipedia seems to have a pretty good definition of introversion and extroversion that tends to agree with the poster:

Extraverts tend to enjoy human interactions and to be enthusiastic, talkative, assertive, and gregarious. They take pleasure in activities that involve large social gatherings, such as parties, community activities, public demonstrations, and business or political groups. Politics, teaching, sales, managing and brokering are fields that favor extroversion. An extroverted person is likely to enjoy time spent with people and find less reward in time spent alone. They tend to be energized when around other people, and they are more prone to boredom when they are by themselves.

On the other side are introverts:

[Introverts] often take pleasure in solitary activities such as reading, writing, using computers, hiking and fishing. The archetypal artist, writer, sculptor, engineer, composer, and inventor are all highly introverted. An introvert is likely to enjoy time spent alone and find less reward in time spent with large groups of people, though he or she may enjoy interactions with close friends. [...] They prefer to concentrate on a single activity at a time and like to observe situations before they participate, especially observed in developing children and adolescents. They are more analytical before speaking. Introverts are easily overwhelmed by too much stimulation from social gatherings and engagement, introversion having even been defined by some in terms of a preference for a quiet, more minimally stimulating environment.

Although I've never been comfortable in social gatherings, it seems to have become worse since college. To say that I'm "easily overwhelmed by too much stimulation from social gatherings and engagement" is an understatement. A couple years ago I found myself at a neighborhood Christmas party being held by some friends. I was with my wife and I knew nearly everybody in the house. Although I initially enjoyed talking with our friends, after about an hour I became quiet. Every voice and noise in the house seemed to become amplified and I felt like the people in the house were pressing in on me. Fortunately my wife noticed my discomfort and we left shortly afterward.

I had an even worse reaction earlier this year when we took our kids to an Easter egg hunt sponsored by the local fire department. The various hunts were divided into age groups and my wife assigned me to supervise our four year old while she went with Son of Atomic Spud. Due to poor weather, the event was held in a local school, so I found myself crammed into a room with literally hundreds of people and their children. Although I stayed in the most open parts of the room that I could find, by the time the hunt was over and we had streamed out of the building, my teeth were chattering and I was shaking. I admit that such an extreme reaction may be less introversion and more agoraphobia.

Yeah, it's kind of like this sometimes

At the same time, most introverts don't avoid social interaction altogether. Every couple weeks I play Warhammer 40,000 with several friends. Once a month three of us even watch an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000 before the game. The difference between these activities and the Christmas party a few years back is that, first, there are usually only four or five of us in the room during these games. Once or twice we've had up to six people, which I think is my limit. Second, all of us have relatively similar personalities. Given that engineers are considered "archetypal" introverts, it's not surprising that our five core players (i.e., the "40K Cabal") are all engineers or scientists.

I have read of parents that are concerned about their right-brained (i.e., typically introverted) child's apparent difficulty with social interaction who are amazed at how animated and open he or she becomes when interacting with other introverted children. Personally, I have never had more than two or three good friends at any given time. In fact, as suggested by number 10, I think I could define various periods of my life based on who that one best friend was at the time. While I'm silent and closed around strangers (or even when I'm surrounded by too many people that I would call friends), the few close friends I've had can testify that I have plenty to say.

Nerd-Hating

The other day I was visiting one of my favorite political websites, Pajamas Media, where I found an article in their "PJ Lifestyle" section entitled "Five Reasons Star Wars Actually Sucks". Much of the article is a fairly inoffensive (and entirely unoriginal) rant about the derivative nature of the Star Wars saga's plot, the extreme degree to which Star Wars has been merchandised ("George Lucas is a plastic toy manufacturer who makes mediocre movies on the side"), the low quality of several of the films, and how much the author, Kathy Shaidle, generally dislikes the Star Wars franchise.

An Internet critic who complains about Star Wars
and George Lucas? How utterly unheard of!

Despite being a huge Star Wars fan, I have absolutely no problem with Ms. Shaidle griping about the franchise on her blog. It's her right to dislike sci-fi in general and Star Wars in particular. The fact that she dislikes it doesn't affect my enjoyment of Star Wars in any way. As for me, I strongly dislike professional sports and have no compunction about expressing my views on the topic. However, I recognize that there are many people, if not a majority, who greatly enjoy them. Although I don't share their interest and can't understand the appeal of watching televised sports, I have no problem with fans in general or as individuals as long as their passion doesn't become unhealthy or destructive (which I've seen before). Although I dislike football, I know that the bulk of football fans are decent people who aren't anything like the grotesque, Homer Simpson-like caricatures seen in sitcoms.

Unfortunately, Ms. Shaidle doesn't give people like myself the benefit of the doubt and has decided that Star Wars fans are a worthless lot. Not content to merely condemn Star Wars itself, Shaidle directly attacks the fans on a personal level. She then goes as far as to belittle pretty much anyone with geeky interests:

Successful, mature men do not play computer games, attend "cons", and get excited about overrated science fiction movies from the 1970s.

Come on, all the conservative boys who’ve read this far:

Do you imagine Victor Davis Hanson is some kind of font of boring zombie lore?

Do you think Mark Steyn wastes his spare time playing World of Warcraft? (Trick question. Mark Steyn doesn’t have any spare time.)

No, these men have careers and families, here on planet earth.

In describing the brother of the man who designed the Stormtrooper armor seen in Star Wars, Shaidle says:

He shared his brother’s passion for militaria, so since the 1960s, Andrew Mollo has worked as a historical consultant to the movies, with an expertise in military uniforms.

In other words: Andrew Mollo is a guy who has a lot in common with thousands of Star Wars fans, except his job does not require him to wear a name tag.

I find her lack of respect disturbing

I'm not even sure where to begin. How about the statement that "Successful, mature men do not play computer games, attend 'cons', and get excited about overrated science fiction movies from the 1970s"? Shaidle's prejudice and contempt for people with interests she doesn't share are on full display in this single statement. Note that she doesn't single out those who can't or won't achieve a productive adulthood and instead latch onto something like Star Wars or World of Warcraft to avoid reality. In my experience, people for whom their hobby becomes a way of life rather than a pastime are given a lot of attention but are relatively few in number. And it's not the fact that they're sci-fi or fantasy fans that makes them this way. I have seen sports nuts, avid hunters, and inveterate outdoorsmen engage in similar behavior. What is offensive is Shaidle's blanket declaration that no "successful, mature men" could possibly play computer games or engage in sci-fi or fantasy fan activities. In her narrow worldview, me and my ilk are all lonely, unmarried losers who could only get the kind of job that requires us to wear name tags.

I bet most of these geeks have more respect for people
with different interests than Kathy Shaidle does

Unfortunately, I've found that many people think like Ms. Shaidle. In response, I would point to the fact that the vast majority of my friends, most of my fellow alumni from the college of engineering and technology, many of my coworkers, and I play video games, attend cons where possible, and get excited about science fiction movies. The majority of us are successful and mature where it matters. Many of us are happily married, own homes, and have children. Given her prejudice, I'd guess that Shaidle doesn't want to know how many of us 'unsuccessful' and 'immature' types work with nuclear power. Nor does she seem willing to consider all those 'unsuccessful' and 'immature' people who design and maintain the technology that she enjoys and upon which modern life depends. And I doubt she's even thought about the number of 'unsuccessful' and 'immature' computer scientists, engineers, and programmers who helped make her blog possible. Only through arrogance and willful blindness can a lifestyle blog author declare that we can't possibly be successful or mature simply because she finds our interests "boring" or pathetic.

It's too bad I don't have a career and family
here on planet Earth. Oh, wait...

What horrible offense have we committed that makes Shaidle and others like her feel justified in libeling us and reducing us to some pathetic and odious stereotype? After a nine hour work day (not counting over two hours of commuting time), I enjoy coming home, spending some time with the kids, and then sitting down to paint Warhammer 40,000 figures. Every other weekend five of us get together to spend a few hours playing 40K. On top of that, most of us enjoy science fiction and fantasy and play video games. However, in stark contrast to Ms. Shaidle's portrayal of our kind, there are seven engineering or science degrees between us. All of us have mortgages, are married, and have children or will soon have children. And all of us have a good career in the nuclear industry. We all wear name tags at work, but they're in the form of security badges. Yes, Ms. Shaidle, even nerds can have "careers and families, here on planet Earth". Does the fact that we enjoy geeky hobbies nullify everything else we do and accomplish? If we were to get together to watch a football game instead would we somehow become mature and successful? I have another friend who has an engineering career, is interested in politics and history, and made more than the average Idaho family in his first year out of college. He also plays video games, has a huge comic book collection, and wields a nearly encyclopedic knowledge of Marvel superheroes. Do his interests make him an immature and unsuccessful loser?

How can Shaidle sleep at night knowing that there are so many
unsuccessful and immature men involved in nuclear power?

My geeky T-shirts, 40K models, and Star Trek books don't hurt anyone. I don't force my Godzilla DVD collection (most of it in Japanese with subtitles) on anybody. I buy the toys and action figures that Shaidle makes fun of, but I do so on a budget that also covers all our bills, contributes to my retirement plan, and provides for religious donations. I don't make fun of those who don't share my interests, nor do I sneer at those who enjoy things that I don't. And there are millions of people like me. For the most part we leave other people alone to pursue their interests in peace. Why don't we deserve the same courtesy?

Happy Holidays Merry Christmas!

It started as my Dad's pet peeve, and has since become mine. I do not celebrate "Holiday". Nobody celebrates "Holiday". Nobody's favorite holiday is "Holiday". Santa Claus does not bring "Holiday presents" in celebration of "Holiday". A "Holiday Tree" is an absurdity; no Western society that I'm aware of uses a tree to celebrate any holiday other than Christmas. For those who use the phrase to recognize other holidays, why not do so explicitly? "Happy Holidays" merely waters down the reason why most Westerners celebrate during the end of December while doing other beliefs the disservice of lumping them together into one non-specific (but Christmas-dominated) "Holiday". By the way, you have from now until December 28th to wish your Jewish friends a Happy Hanukkah.

I apologize to all my well-meaning friends who tend to use "Happy Holidays". Please don't construe this as an attack on you as I know you're simply employing the phraseology that has become the norm in America. However, a lot of us don't see the proliferation of "Happy Holidays" as an inclusive practice, but as one that has been deliberately and successfully pushed by certain culturally and politically influential entities to be exclusive of Christianity or any of its outward trappings. It represents one of the earliest and most subtle attempts of the militantly secular (and often explicitly anti-Christian) to strip Christmas of its meaning and origin. Note that no other widely celebrated holiday is considered so unacceptable by the purveyors of political correctness that it is being stripped of its name in a manner that would make Orwell's Ministry of Truth proud.

All other holidays that are widely celebrated in America are either secular (e.g., Independence Day) or have had most of their religious significance removed (e.g., Easter). Easter, which officially celebrates the resurrection of Christ, is the perfect example of extreme secularization of a nominally religious holiday. Even among many Christians the holiday has become identified more with anthropomorphized rabbits and chocolate eggs than it has with the empty tomb. (You know the forces of secularization have done their jobs well when even the believers can be distracted from the true meaning of their holiday.) However, with Christmas it's almost impossible to remove all traces of Christianity from it. Everybody, believer and nonbeliever, knows what the holiday that has "Christ" in its name is about.

Having gotten their foot in the door by making Christmas the "Holiday that Shall Not Be Named" and by convincing even the believers to use the new politically correct holiday greeting because it's "inclusive", these same entities are becoming even more overt in places like Santa Monica, California:

Across the fruitcaked plain in California, the city of Santa Monica allocated permits for "holiday" displays at Palisades Park by means of lottery. Eighteen of the 21 slots went to atheists — for example, the slogan "37 million Americans know a myth when they see one" over portraits of Jesus, Santa, and Satan.

The real-life Grinches not being content to simply remove all hints of Christianity from Non-Specific December Holiday, they have been working to eliminate even highly secularized symbols of Christmas. Although Santa Claus' origin in the Christian saint, St. Nicholas, has been effectively buried, there have been various attempts throughout the United States to actually ban the mere presence of Santa [a couple examples here and here]. Raise your hand if this brings to mind the Rankin-Bass Santa Claus Is Comin' to Town TV special. There have even been cases in which Christmas trees have been removed. It's becoming more and more difficult for people to claim that there isn't a War on Christmas in the United States.

Often I find myself missing the Christmas spirit I felt while I was an LDS missionary in Veracruz, Mexico. In Veracruz the meaning of the holiday was openly celebrated and over-the-top commercialism hadn't tried to ruin it.

Anyway, now that I've finished my annual War on Christmas diatribe, the Atomic Spud would like to wish everyone a Merry Christmas. And because the Atomic Spud is genuinely inclusive, I'd also like to wish a Happy Hanukkah to any Jewish readers (especially to my high school buddy Joe in San Diego).

On a related note, kudos to the Britain-based Games Workshop Web Team for explicitly wishing all us Warhammer and/or Warhammer 40,000 fanatics a Merry Christmas. From what I've heard, you are more likely to be wished a Merry (or Happy) Christmas in the much more secular Britain than you are in the more religious United States.

Competence

Earlier this year my boss praised me for accomplishing something that I consider to be one of my most basic tasks. Although it was an important and time-sensitive job, it had required less than 10 minutes to do. I looked at him oddly and asked why I deserved such a compliment. That actually flustered him slightly and he responded that not everyone would agree that completing such tasks correctly, on-time, and on a regular basis is easy.

That got me thinking about how often I've been overjoyed when others met my expectations. This definitely isn't limited to the workplace. For example, all I want at a restaurant is a waiter or waitress who keeps my water glass full, stops by a couple times to see if I need anything, and is reasonably civil; i.e., that they do their job. I've talked to many others who will recommend a business or the services of an individual, not because they go above and beyond, but because they simply do what is expected.

I've since coined a phrase that is becoming popular at work:

Mere competence is the new excellence.

How often have you praised a person or an organization for doing exactly what they said they would? Are you increasingly impressed by any book that has a minimum of spelling and grammatical errors? How much of a modern schoolchild's grade is based on the fact that they did an assignment rather than that they did it well? How many college credits have been "earned" effectively because students showed up and breathed the air?

Although this trend depresses me, I guess there is a bright side; it makes the accomplishments of those who strive to do a little better than average look a lot more impressive.

It's Just a Game

Usually my wife takes our second daughter to her basketball games while I stay home with the other kids. Well, this time my daughter asked me to take her. She's not quite discovered how much I hate sports, but the games only last about 45 minutes, and I have to be able to say that I went to at least one game, so I agreed to take her. My mind tends to entertain itself in even the most boring of circumstances, so I figured that the worst that could happen would be that I'd get about 45 minutes to ponder issues of deep importance (i.e., what the next addition to my Warhammer 40K army should be).

Hmmm, Predator or Close Combat Terminators?

As can be expected for a league of 1st and 2nd graders that are just learning to play, no score is kept and the refereeing is somewhat loose. Although I'm not a sports fan, I wish they would keep score if only to teach kids that it's fun to win and not the end of the world if you lose. However, the kids are enthusiastic about it and the coaches encourage the kids to work to develop their skills. I couldn't help but to notice that the least talented among the 6 year olds can still dribble and shoot a basketball better than I ever could.

The vast majority of parents at the game were politely supportive of their kids. Since I'm psychologically incapable of cheering loudly or unironically (the best I can muster is a heartfelt "huzzah" under certain circumstances), I would smile at my daughter whenever she'd look my way. Fortunately, she understands that this is how Dad gives his support. Of course, as is bound to happen, there was one particularly loud and less than supportive parent there that didn't realize that a) it was just a friendly game in a kids league and b) that she was sitting within two feet of a person who is extremely sensitive to loud noise. Thanks to her I spent a lot of the game enjoying some nervous tics I developed a few years ago.

This woman was the perfect example of the rabid sports fan, which shouldn't be confused with the enthusiastic sports fan (e.g., my own parents). The existence of the rabid sports fan is one of the myriad reasons why I dislike sports. These are people who can't distinguish between what should be an enjoyable pastime and a matter of vital, life-threatening importance. In fact, the woman (I shall refer to her as "Rabid Mom") is the worst kind of rabid fan; the one who inflicts her flawed priorities on her child and ruins any possibility that he may actually enjoy himself. The outcome of the (unscored) game is unlikely to have any long-term effect on the course of his life, but his mother's attitude may very well destroy any love he has for playing sports or, even worse, may turn him into a rabid fan as well.

"Surely my continuous screaming will
improve my son's basketball performance"

Rabid Mom felt it necessary to spend most of the game yelling at her son, Mason, to "shoot it, shoot it, SHOOT IT!", "pass the ball!", and "get under the net!". Apparently she thought that yelling the most obvious of instructions (e.g., "Get the ball!") in an irate tone would make her son a better basketball player. On several occasions, Mason failed to pass or shoot fast enough and would run out the shot clock (yes, I didn't know what this rule was called and had to look it up). Of course this led to more yelling from Rabid Mom followed by mutterings of "D*** it, what's wrong with him? Why is he such a ball hog?". I would speculate that he thinks that he has to be the star of the team to gain mom's approval. I wonder where he could have gotten such an idea?

Unfortunately, my wife confirms that Rabid Mom isn't alone and that many of the games have seen other parents behave similarly. I have to admit that I am utterly perplexed that there are so many people who believe that this is appropriate behavior at a children's basketball game. The worst part is that they seem to be completely unselfconscious about it. Are they honestly so obsessed about the game that they fail to notice that nobody else is yelling at their son or daughter and that they're ruining the fun for everybody else?

Immaturity and Politics

It seems like almost all the recent political discussions I've taken part in online have decayed almost immediately into juvenile behavior and incoherent ranting. Until this morning I had posted every comment made on this blog, even those that disagreed with me. However, this morning I found that some brave individual calling himself "Anonymous" had decided that the proper response to this statement from my last post:

Liberals haven't changed for decades. They often call themselves "Progressives", but they simply repackage the same tired ideas from one year to the next while resorting to name-calling when they come up against someone who opposes their philosophies (e.g., "fascists", "racists", "deniers").

was the following tidbit of wisdom:

I would stop at just "fascist". Maybe I would call you a <%$#@> as well. Have a nice life.

I didn't post the comment directly since I will not tolerate obscenity on my blog. However, thank you Mr. or Ms. Anonymous for proving my point.

Name-calling does not constitute an argument and does more harm to one's position than good. It implies that your beliefs are so indefensible that only someone with the maturity level of a 10 year old could hold them (a foul-mouthed 10 year old if you're "Anonymous"). My dear Anonymous, in what way would you say my compatriots and I are fascists? Can you defend or support that statement? Can you refute my claim that Liberals resort to name-calling when they can't provide a cogent argument? Never mind that last item; you actually supported my statement by giving a concrete example.

"That mean old Atomic Spud challenged my beliefs
and hurt my feelings. He's a poo-poo head!"

Oh, and the "have a nice life" is the icing on the cake. It's impossible not to imagine this being said by a petulant, pouting teenager trying to get in the last word before slamming her bedroom door.

"The Shifting Definition of Tolerance"

The nuclear family under attack

I was recently reading an essay adapted from an address given by Bruce D. Porter at Brigham Young University. The subject was on defending the traditional family, which has often caused controversy for Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As pointed out by Porter, the Church and its members are often accused of intolerance when they advocate the traditional definition of the family. In the excerpt below, Porter discusses how the definition of tolerance has shifted in recent decades:

Until recently in our national history, tolerance referred to racial and religious non-discrimination. It meant civility in the political arena; in other words, respecting the right of others to express their views, even if we do not agree with them. It meant treating all people with decency and respect. Such tolerance is an important and vital part of our American heritage.

Today, however, the world is in danger of abandoning all sense of absolute right or wrong, all morality and virtue, replacing them with an all-encompassing “tolerance” that no longer means what it once meant. An extreme definition of tolerance is now widespread that implicitly or explicitly endorses the right of every person to choose their own morality, even their own “truth,” as though morality and truth were mere matters of personal preference. This extreme tolerance culminates in a refusal to recognize any fixed standards or draw moral distinctions of any kind. Few dare say no to the “almighty self” or suggest that some so-called “lifestyles” may be destructive, contrary to higher law, or simply wrong.

When tolerance is so inflated out of all proportions, it means the death of virtue, for the essence of morality is to draw clear distinctions between right and wrong. All virtue requires saying no firmly and courageously to all that is morally bankrupt.

Curiously enough, this new modern tolerance is often a one-way street. Those who practice it expect everyone to tolerate them in anything they say or do, but show no tolerance themselves toward those who express differing viewpoints or defend traditional morality. Indeed, their intolerance is often most barbed toward those of religious conviction. But let there be no misunderstanding or deception: the First Amendment right of free speech applies to religious speech as well as to other kinds of speech. Believers of all faiths have every right to participate in and share their convictions in the public arena.

I agree wholeheartedly with Porter's statement.

The last paragraph of the excerpt reminds me of the experience of Californian Mormons a few years ago. In 2008 I mentioned that Mormons in California were facing a lot of resistance based on the Church's support of Proposition 8 [here and here]. Gay marriage supporters were even going as far as using California's Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) to attack the Church. Apparently they like the idea of 'free speech for me, but not for thee'. From what I've heard from my parents, who live in Southern California, although Proposition 8 may have been passed three years ago and been overturned by a Federal District Court last year (although the ruling has been stayed), Church members in California are still being harassed.

Warhammer 40,000 and The Sixth Circle of Nerdom

On Friday night I played my second game of Warhammer 40,000. This time we played a 1,000 point game as opposed to the 350 point game we played the first time (each individual figure has a point value; higher numbers mean more figures and/or more powerful figures). This time around my friend didn't pull (too many) punches and gave himself what he called a "Godzilla" army of Tyranids (giant Xenomorph-like aliens that are very hard to kill). Of course he swept my Space Marines off the board, but I managed to take out 700 points of his army (not too bad for my second game). I would have done a lot better but I made a few serious tactical errors and I had a horrible run of dice throws at a crucial moment. However, the fact that I wasn't absolutely slaughtered was encouraging and I became even more committed to enhancing my nerd status.

Welcome to the Seventh Circle

There are, of course, several different levels of nerdom; like Dante's Inferno, you could probably divide it into seven circles. Playing role-playing games (RPGs) and games like 40K has to place one in at least the sixth circle (online versions don't count; it has to be live with cards, books, figures, and/or dice). I imagine the seventh circle is reserved for those who actually dress up as their favorite characters or wear costumes from their favorite franchises.

Anyway, having determined to fully enter the sixth circle, I went to the local gaming store on Saturday to check out their prices on 40K models, rulebooks, and painting supplies. The store was filled with several people playing various games, including two individuals who were enthusiastically involved in some sort of card- and dice-based fantasy game. The gaming store setting (which was as cluttered and musty smelling as you would expect) and the patrons' clothing, mannerisms, and banter proved two things to me: 1) that Big Bang Theory rarely exaggerates in its depiction of its characters and 2) that there exists at least one place in the world that can overwhelm even me with pure, unadulterated geekiness. I almost laughed when one player's cell phone rang. His ringtone? Duel of the Fates from Star Wars: Episode I.

Star Wars is well represented in the Seventh Circle

After determining that Amazon.com had better prices than the game store, I went to a nearby HobbyTown USA. While their selection of 40K models and books was minimal, their variety of paints, brushes, and other supplies was excellent. Once I get June's allowance (I've talked about our allowance system before) I'll probably buy the 40K starter set, complete with basic rulebook, dice, and a generous number of figures, on Amazon.com. I can easily get the the paints and hobby supplies I need from HobbyTown. Unfortunately, it looks like the cost of getting into Warhammer 40,000 will initially be on par with that of collecting Lego Star Wars sets, although I expect it to taper off once I have the specialized rulebooks (a.k.a., codices) and a painted army or armies. I'll probably be enlarging my armies with special characters and vehicles over time, but the makers of 40K don't release new models at nearly the same rate that Lego does. Each addition or change to game pieces requires revision of the various codices, which would bring on the ire of the players.

This scene is roughly the same no matter where you go

Whenever I start to think that it's expensive to be a nerd these days, I remind myself that my more normal friends have motorcycles, over-sized trucks, and snowmobiles. I bet I could have a really awesome 40K army for the cost of a cheap motorcycle.

Kids and Fantasy Violence

Yesterday afternoon I watched an episode of Mythbusters with my daughters. The episode tested the truth of the saying 'to slap some sense' into a person. They established their baseline by putting Grant through an obstacle course testing both cognitive abilities and reflexes and, later on, by putting Tory and Kari through a shooting range used for police training. After getting their baseline, they then impaired their performance by spending thirty minutes in a freezing room (Grant) or by combining sleep deprivation, fasting, and a thirty minute chill (Tory and Kari) and then repeating the test. Finally, they repeated the impaired test except that they slapped the person once across the face with a bungee-powered slapping machine beforehand. In all three cases the slap significantly compensated for the impairment, although they still fell short of their baseline. Apparently the slap initiated the fight-or-flight instinct that caused the improvement.

We got to see this over and over again in slow-motion

Later that evening, my older daughter and I watched Star Wars: The Clone Wars. In that particular episode, Anakin Skywalker's apprentice, Ahsoka, found herself and three other Jedi trainees being hunted by trandoshans (an intelligent reptilian species). The episode contained the typical amount of violence seen in the series: several characters were shot, the Jedi slammed trandoshans into boulders and bulkheads with the Force, characters kicked and punched each other, and two characters fell to their deaths (with one of them actually becoming impaled on a stalagmite).

Wookies and trandoshans have never gotten along

Later on I asked my daughter if she liked watching Mythbusters and if she thought it was funny when the mythbusters were being slapped by the machine. She thought about it for a moment and then said that the episode was okay but that she didn't like that Tory, Kari, and Grant were being hurt and that she had felt bad for them. When I asked if she liked the episode of The Clone Wars she got very excited and talked endlessly about how much she enjoyed it when the Jedi and the wookies were beating up the trandoshans. In fact, I believe that nearly all the trandoshans were dead by the end of the episode.

My daughter's reaction to the two different shows reminds me of a very interesting book I read several years ago called Killing Monsters. The book's subtitle declares that "children need fantasy, super heroes, and make-believe violence". The author, Gerard Jones, argues that children can generally distinguish between real violence and fantasy violence and that fantasy violence helps them to cope with the frightening things around them while also serving as an outlet for aggressive emotions. Jones goes even farther and suggests that children who are not allowed to relieve these emotions through make-believe violence may later seek out more realistic forms of it; e.g., extremely violent films and music, animal cruelty, or even by the infliction of it on their peers or family.

Several times I've seen parents or teachers get whipped into a panic because some preschool-aged boy pointed his finger at another child and said "bang, I shot you". Several cases of a "zero-tolerance policy" run amok have made nationwide news, with kids getting suspended from school for normal childhood behavior such as having a "simulated weapon" (this can include "finger guns" and inch long G.I. Joe action figure guns). It's as if these adults have completely forgotten that generations of children have pretended to shoot, stab, or bludgeon each other (some of the earliest identifiable toys were wooden swords used by Roman children) without becoming murderous psychopaths. One of Jones' strongest arguments is that the common presence of realistic toy guns among the baby-boomer generation didn't result in an epidemic of actual violence. And I think I can guarantee that the very adults responsible for many of these ridiculous zero-tolerance policies laughed years before when, as children watching Saturday morning cartoons, they saw Elmer Fudd blast Daffy Duck's beak off with a shotgun.

Although the mythbusters took the slaps in good humor, they obviously didn't enjoy them and my daughter didn't like watching real people get hurt. At the same time, she enjoyed the fantasy violence of Star Wars and later pretended that Son of Atomic Spud and I were Sith Lords and that she was slashing us up with a lightsaber. I wish that more adults were as mature about make-believe violence and as capable of distinguishing it from real violence as most children are.

Miscellanea

On Competence
When did mere competence become the new excellence? I was recently thanked by my manager for doing a relatively simple task on time and without being reminded. I told him that I was simply doing my job, which actually flustered him a little. His response was, "well, thank you for doing your job, then." Has our society sunk so low that a demonstration of basic proficiency and the initiative to fulfill one's tasks without managerial oversight have become praiseworthy?

Do I really need a reason to include a picture of the Hulk?

On Real Value
Hobbies, pastimes, and entertainment should be the spice of life, not the purpose of it. Too often we fill our time with, and spend our money on, things that are of little lasting value. TVs, cars, toys, politics, etc., while fine in and of themselves, are unlikely to bring a person genuine happiness. On a completely unrelated note, this past Saturday I spent fourteen hours playing Lego Star Wars III.

And Speaking of Toys...
The state of the economy is being lamented nationwide, yet the release of each new video game system, iPhone, iPad, or whatnot is met with long lines and record sales. Big screen 3D TVs are selling pretty well and big budget movies are still making huge amounts of money even though theater tickets cost as much nowadays as DVDs did just a few years ago. Is the economy not really as lousy as some make it out to be or are Americans just that bad with controlling their spending habits and prioritizing their finances? I assume it's the latter.

On Video Game Music
When did video game music become as good as the music you find in movies? Not long ago I found out that big name movie score composers like Hans Zimmer and Steve Jablonsky were writing video game music on the side. It turns out that many video game companies don't skimp on their scores; many are every bit as good as you would expect from a big budget film. It also turns out that some of the newer film score composers like Jablonsky (Transformers (2007)) and Michael Giacchino (Star Trek (2009)) actually got their start writing video game music. Having discovered how good game scores have gotten, I've since bought the scores for Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, Call of Duty: Black Ops, Gears of War 2, and a few others.

On Public Memorials
Can anyone tell me what this is supposed to be?

This is a memorial?

Yes, I know it's the Pentagon's September 11th memorial, but what is it supposed to be? Why must today's memorials be exercises in the pointless field of modern art? The proposed Ground Zero and Flight 93 memorials are further examples of meaninglessness. I know that the "artists" claim that they mean something, but if the hacks have to explain what it is then it's a failure as a memorial. I'm sure there are still some real artists available; maybe our public officials could hire them.

This is a memorial