Sunday, 2 October 2011 by Marcus Aquinas.

After a weekly trip to pick up the groceries, I sat on the patio with some fresh bread, a nice bit of cheese, and a little Chardonnay to enjoy the pleasant weather of an early autumn afternoon. For some odd reason, a piece of one of the better-known quatrains of FitzGerald’s Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam was running through my head:

A Book of Verses underneath the Bough
A Jug of Wine, a Loaf of Bread – and Thou

Not being content to dwell on that, I remembered a cartoon in Playboy, many years back. I forget the exact wording, but the gist was “the wine and bread are on the house, Omar, but ‘Thou’ is going to cost you.” You can probably fill in the picture without my having to describe it.

At any rate, keeping in mind that this cartoon appeared something like 30 or 40 years ago (time flies when you’re having fun), I wondered how many of our current college graduates would catch the joke? Granted, I was pretty well-read for a teenager, but it still makes me wonder.

Culture is about as malleable as anything else related to humans. Although I’m loth to adopt Newton’s “shoulders of giants” analogy, it’s nevertheless true that nothing develops in a vaccuum. Everything we have and do is either the result or a divergent offshoot of something prior. Do we, as the older generation, inflict our cultural norms and ideals upon the current generation because they are valuable in and of themselves or because it is supposed to help them understand the mindset from which we come? Perhaps both? Perhaps neither?

Cultural literacy, as I understand the term, is a sufficient foundation in the literature, philosophy, and the rest, of earlier generations such that one can understand without getting bogged down in idiom. But how much is “sufficient”? Yet another of those “makes me wonder” things. Perhaps more Chardonnay is in order.

Posted in Musings and Thoughts, Whatever | No Comments »

Saturday, 10 September 2011 by Marcus Aquinas.

With due apologies to the staff at “The Economist” for swiping their title.

Several things converged and set me to thinking. My daughter tweeted that she refused to watch television tomorrow as there was a vast difference between remembering the past and wallowing in it (brings a tear to my eye – my little girl done grown up). Two of my favorite magazines (“Foreign Affairs” and “The Economist”) and undoubtedly every other English language periodical dedicated substantial page space to the remembrance and analysis of September 11, 2001 and its effects, as did various  programs on PBS and NPR. But a surprisingly non-9-11 event kind of brought it all home. A fellow gaming enthusiast in the UK asked if he could use content from my Elder Scrolls guides in a wiki project. For the record, my response was, as I have always maintained, “of course – just be sure to attribute me”.

The significance of the latter event required an almost complete reread of my earlier work, mostly checking its accuracy, but with a surprise. I’m pleased to report that 15 years later, a few minor inaccuracies aside,  the work remains dead-on without access to the development teams. What caught my eye, though, was the vast difference in the “voice”, if you will, of the works. Pre-9-11 (my last review/revision was in 2000), my writing was very upbeat, light, conversational, and accessible. Post, though, is much darker, more cynical, much more snide and not nearly as enjoyable to read. I doubt very much that 9-11 had much to do with that change in voice. After all, what relation could a terrorist attack have on a fantasy RPG game guide? The short answer would have to be “not much”. Games is games and real life is real life “and ne’er the twain shall meet” as the saying goes.

So what could possibly have caused such a shift? Several things, and I believe they’re all tied back to the events of 9-11 either directly or indirectly. Probably the most obvious (to me, anyway) was the change in attitude of our government. While always a subject of various jibes and satires, the U.S. government has always been (or appeared to be) accessible to the people who elected them. Post-9-11, though, the U.S. government seems to live in fear of everyone. A couple pieces of anecdotal evidence should suffice, although I caution that anecdotal evidence does not prove existence; it merely points to the possibility of existence.

My wife is an immigrant. She has been a U.S. citizen for a while now, but in order to get to that point, we had substantial dealings with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (now U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, under the Homeland Security Administration). At one of our last visits to the nearest INS office, I noticed signs prominently posted around the waiting room to the effect of “no cameras or other electronic recording devices permitted”. One might immediately jump to the conclusion that something shady might be happening where no record should exist, but I suspect that the truth of the matter is that they did not want anyone to have the layout of the building. Why? Because they are afraid that the people coming through the door might want to harm them.

While this may or may not be the case, the fact that government workers (or at least their bosses)apparently live in fear of their constituency gives serious pause for consideration of the ramifications of that sentiment. This is something that I would not have been surprised to see in the USSR, the PRC or especially the DPRK (North Korea) where the government really does see the people as something resembling an enemy or at least someone of which to be extremely wary. But in the USA? Something is seriously wrong.

And why “Homeland Security”? Why not something more accurately descriptive? How about “Central Search Authority” or perhaps the “Keeping an Eye on Suspicious Characters Administration”? KAESCA has a nice ring to it in a Kafka-esque kind of way, doesn’t it? Maybe “National Security Administration”? Wait, I think we already have that. Can’t have duplication. As soon as President Bush said it (yes, I watched the speech), shivers and ideas of “1984” hit me. The name had to have been chosen for public impact. I won’t swear to focus group testing, but it wouldn’t surprise me, and I doubt that the majority of adult Americans have even read “1984”, but “scary” came awfully close. Yes, I am suspicious of anyone who says, “I am from the government and I am here to help you.”

And let’s nor forget the added security at our airports, train stations, bus terminals, courthouses, city halls and the like. Since 9-11, I have used airlines for long-distance travel a couple of times because it was absolutely necessary. The rest of the time I drive because I detest the extremes to which airport security has gone. I’ve often wondered how many terrorists have been foiled because of these “security” measures. I put security in quotes because I’m not sure wither it’s security for us or security for them. I go to the courthouse only when summoned for jury duty or for some other business where I cannot avoid it because I horribly resent the “guilty until proven innocent” attitude.

While there are many conspiracy buffs out there who might attribute 9-11 to some massive government plot, I’m not among them. But I do see 9-11 as the justification for a grab for more power at the sacrifice of the people’s civil liberties. It is axiomatic in the IT world that security always comes at the cost of accessibility. As technologies have improved, accessibility becomes easier, but it’s still a trade-off; more of one will almost always mean less of the other. We Americans tend to view security a bit differently than the rest of the world. They whip it out for a while and then put it away; we tend to institutionalize it.

On a separate tack, there are innumerable examples of how domestic politics have changed. Some of it is attributable to 9-11, but I suspect that most of it is attributable to the heightened sense of power and authority which the federal government has assumed in the aftermath. Consider Reps. Paul Ryan, Ben Quayle, Chip Cravaack, and probably others that I overlooked who have decided that their constituents must pay to be able to ask them questions. Since when has this been the case in the USA? I have always been under the impression that elected representatives have been responsible to their constituencies, period. Not “responsive as long as you pay the cover charge.” This attitude should be the subject of an entirely separate rant, so I’ll cut it off quickly. And don’t even get me started on “No Child Left Behind,” one of the major post-9-11 domestic policies.

The past 10 years have seen a widening gulf between Democrats and Republicans. I DO NOT attribute this to 9-11 except insofar as each party seems to have competed to see who could wrap themselves in the flag more tightly than the other. I believe the Democrats came to their senses a bit earlier than the Republicans (some of whom still seem to be smothering themselves in it), but they’re both equally guilty.

For those who can remember Ken Burns’ remarkable documentary on the Civil War, the late Shelby Foote made what I think was a very astute observation in the first episode. I wish I could quote verbatim, but I can’t and will have to settle for the gist of it. We Americans see ourselves as being a very uncompromising people when, in fact, nothing could be farther from the truth. Our entire system of government and way of life is built on compromise. And in this, especially in the last ten to twenty years, we have failed miserably.

To perhaps overly simplify G.W.F. Hegel, two opposites clash, producing something which contains some of each, but is uniquely different than either (thesis + antithesis = synthesis). Our judicial system works on a similar system – each side presents its version of the truth while the actual truth lies somewhere in between and it is the job of the judge/jury to find that middle. Both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of polarizing and failing to recognize that the vast majority of Americans are not with either of them. How much has this delusion cost us?

Time was, not so long past, that the rest of the world viewed Americans as the big children on the international playground. Naïve, boisterous, immature, optimistic, quick to anger, quicker to forgive and always surprised that everyone else didn’t see the world through the same rose-colored glasses that we did. 9-11 changed all of that. As a nation, I think we’re more jaded than we were 10 years ago. More cynical. More willing to accept “the end justifies the means” as an instrument of policy. I do not see this as a good thing and only see continued Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt as a result. My experience has shown that FUD never works as an effective instrument of policy, but works exceptionally well at gaining and maintaining power.

Perhaps I do not see as much as I think I do; perhaps I see too little. Only time will tell, but they’re my colored glasses, rose or otherwise. To steal a line from Joe Straczynski, “The past tempts us, the present confuses us, and the future frightens us. And our lives slip by, moment by moment, in that vast, terrible in-between.” While I am not overly fond of what we have become over the past 10 years, I am even more afraid of what we could become if we do not stop buying the bullshit.

Posted in Politics, Musings and Thoughts, Philosophy, Whatever | No Comments »

Sunday, 4 September 2011 by Marcus Aquinas.

For some odd reason I had to go digging through a drawer that is not one of my usual stash sites. In the process I discovered tons of old receipts, business cards, lapel pins, string, shoelaces and the other assorted detritus that we manage to unintentionally collect. At the time, hanging onto it seemed like a good idea, but after the space of more than a decade in some cases, they just didn’t seem so important anymore. R.I.P. in the local landfill.

This set me to thinking about how we often do the same thing to ourselves. Little bits and pieces of daily life that we treasure or nurse but, when viewed through the lens of time, seem trivial and petty. Perhaps we should make a point of occasionally rummaging through all of those little mental drawers in which we stash such things and send them to our own mental landfills.

Posted in Musings and Thoughts, Philosophy, Whatever | No Comments »

Saturday, 27 August 2011 by Marcus Aquinas.

The new school year is in session and promises to be interesting (as in, “may you live in interesting times”). My school participates in the national free and reduced-price lunch and breakfast programs administered by the USDA.

In simple terms, the USDA will reimburse the school up to a certain amount per student who qualifies for the program. Since the vast majority of our students qualify, our whole district receives the maximum reimbursement from the USDA. If memory works as a guide, that comes out to about $2 per student for breakfast and about $3 per student for lunch, or about $5 per student per day. In order to reduce staffing costs in the cafeteria, breakfast is delivered and served in the classroom, but lunch is served cafeteria style in the cafeteria.

I had forgotten something important in my car the other morning, so I took advantage of an assembly to pop out and retrieve it. This just happened to be right after we finished clearing away the breakfast stuff and I was shocked at what was going into the dumpsters. Hundreds of dollars of unopened/unused food items just headed for the local landfill.

This was done for food safety reasons, as far as I can tell. Not being anything even remotely resembling a certified nutritionist, chef or food service manager, my take on this is decidedly uninformed, so keep that in mind. If I understand correctly, those little 8-oz. milk cartons have to be kept at or below a certain temperature until they are served. Once they are pulled out of the refrigerator, of course, they begin to warm up to whatever the ambient temperature is (at this time of year, that would be “hot”, air conditioning notwithstanding). If they cross that temperature threshold, they must be thrown out. I suspect that the same is true of fresh fruit and most especially true for hot food such as pancakes, sausage and the rest. No one wants recycled breakfast burritos, I’m sure.

The USDA requirement is that in order to qualify for reimbursement under the program, the meal must be served to the student. My students are required to take one of each item. If they don’t want the item after it has been given to them, they are welcome to give it to another student and I’ll snag the occasional uneaten apple or something before it hits the trashcan. But unwanted items typically just go into the trash and from there to the local landfill. So take that $2 (for breakfast), multiply it by several hundred students, times 180 school days and we’re talking close to $100,000 per year going to the landfill. And that’s just from my school. According to the USDA, 11.1 million students were being served in this program in the 2009-2010 school year, at a cost of $2.9 billion. It’s undoubted near or higher than that number for this school year. You can roughly triple those numbers for the school lunch program.

I am not faulting the USDA for this waste. Whether the program is necessary on this scale is probably the subject of much debate and I don’t have enough information to have an informed opinion one way or the other. For the time being, I’ll simply accept that it is necessary and proceed from there.

I am not faulting the school or the district. They are doing precisely what is required by the USDA and I’m relatively sure that our cafeteria could not operate without the program. Lizards, rattlesnakes, tumbleweeds and cacti aren’t real good about paying their property taxes, so local revenue sources are pretty slim and we’ll take any help we can get to defray any expense we can.

I am not even faulting the students. If they don’t want something, it’s not my place to shove it down their throats. If childhood obesity is the problem that everyone claims it is, then forcing a child to take in calories that they don’t want seems counter-productive.

But there is something out of kilter when every piece of the government is screaming about not having enough money to <insert function here> and we’re literally sending billions per year to the landfill. Some of it is inevitable. There honestly isn’t much else you can do with half of a burrito or a third of a salad. But we might start with a bit of common sense. Anyone in your household suffered from food poisoning due to an apple or banana being at room temperature for a couple of days or the milk warming a little on its way home from the grocery store? And while you’re thinking about that, consider what else your local school could do with the money that they’re having to send to the dump.

Posted in Education, Carthago delenda est, Whatever | No Comments »

Tuesday, 16 August 2011 by Marcus Aquinas.

Note: I began this posting at the time that Gibbs wrote his column in November 2010, but it got buried in an out-of-the-way “Drafts” folder and did not see the light of day until now. The question is still relevant, so here it is, for what it’s worth. The link was still good, though. Glad to see that someone is better than me about keeping track of these things.

In this week’s “Backspin” column at “Network World,” Mark Gibbs tackled some very good questions regarding the relationship between being good citizens in the real world and being good citizens in the virtual world. I think his assessment comes very close to the central problem: “…the issue is about people and not technology.”

Someone wiser than me once observed that if you want to see a person’s true character, watch what they do when they don’t think anyone is watching. In the case of online behavior, perhaps that could be tweaked to something along the lines of “watch what they do when they think they’re anonymous or think that something cannot be traced back to them”.

In a person-to-person engagement, there can be immediate (and possibly painful) repercussions to anything that you say or do. In an online engagement, however, you’re dealing with people who are somewhat removed from the conversation or action and perhaps reveal more of their true selves than they would in a person-to-person encounter. I’m immediately reminded of Billy Joel’s “The Stranger” as raising relevant points. (digressive question: are there really online actions or is it all just different forms of conversation?) I’m sure that people can come up with a variety of reasons for this behavior and there are undoubtedly dissertations galore addressing or touching the topic. But I think it boils down to many people, especially among the younger generation, who frankly have no idea of how to carry on a meaningful dialog with someone who does not share their viewpoint.

Perhaps I am influenced by some of that Southern gentility in my view of the issue. We tend to use a lot of euphemistic expressions to convey meaning, but which aren’t overtly offensive. One of my favorites is “bless his heart”, which pretty much translates to “he’s dumber’n dirt, so make allowances”. I don’t see much of that in online conversation. Instead, people pretty much say what they’re thinking (or sometimes not thinking) because the recipient is either not immediately present or perhaps they figure that if it’s really offensive a moderator will quash it first. I note that on the discussion boards where I participate, these folks are among the loudest screamers when something does get quashed, so maybe that observation is off-target.

At any rate, I might advise that a good approach could be to treat each online conversation or action as if it were person-to-person. While that won’t fix all of these problems (frankly, there are a lot of people out there who exhibit no manners, even face-to-face), it should fix most of them.

To be honest, I do hide behind my “Marcus Aquinas” handle, but not for anonymity reasons. It’s a nickname given by a dear friend many moons back, I believe it captures my approach to questions, and it does not directly reflect back on my family or employer. On the other hand, I’m not prone to saying things online that I wouldn’t say to someone’s face. Or in the words of Sheriff Bufford T. Justice, “…you can think about it…but don’t do it.”

Posted in tech, External, Whatever | No Comments »