Gorilla Warfare

There are some things an ape-themed blog can't let pass.

If you reject the doctrine of original sin and adopt a theory of progress, you reject the idea that "shit happens." If the world isn't inherently broken, bad things that happen have to be someone's fault. That person is standing on the way of Utopia, they must pay!

Pirate Freedom - What is Chris's Last Name?

I'm just putting this out here, because I don't know where else to ask... Slight spoiler if you haven't read Pirate Freedom by Gene Wolfe.

You've been warned!

Here comes...

Is Chris's name actually a serial number? He says it's too long to reasonably spell or pronounce, but doesn't (as far as I can tell) give any other hints.

We can guess that's he's some sort of clone or test-tube baby. His father never seems to particularly care for him, so it's possible he was never given a family name. 

I'm not sure there's any other evidence for this, but I can't think why else he keeps mentioning that he isn't going to tell his name.

Some Drink Recipes

I'm putting these on the internet because I believe I am the first to name the following cocktails.

Whiskey Walrus

 • Vanilla ice cream

 • Root beer (your choice of brand; what am I, your mother?)

 • American Whiskey (I like Seagram's here but again, it's no skin off my nose)

In a tall glass, place 2 scoops of ice cream. Pour two ounces of whiskey into the glass. Fill the glass with however much root beer that takes. Drink/eat, as you would an ice cream float.

Tipsy Walrus 

 • Vanilla ice cream

 • Not Your Father's alcoholic root beer

In a tall glass, pour alcoholic root beer over two scoops of ice cream.

Other Derivatives

Brandy Walrus: substitute brandy for whiskey

Mountie Walrus: substitute Canadian whiskey

Kentucky Walrus: substitute bourbon

Groovy Walrus: substitute rainbow sherbet for ice cream, 7-Up for root beer, vodka for whiskey, a muddy field at a music festival for clothing

 

I am Reading Dayn Perry

"I am reading Dayn Perry."

One says this loosely, with non-chalance. Syllables cost nothing.

Yet something packs itself into the back of your brain, like the sodden lump of chaw that is fusing with your rear molars. It becomes a part of you so gradually you don't even notice – until the surgeon is administering ether and reminding the nurse which section of your jaw will have to go.

This prose, this eddy of words, seems not so much written by the man as emanating from him. Does the flickering streetlight in the back alley "compose" photons?

Let us, together you and I, picture the man who gives us these words. Does he speak slowly, resting his sun-battered face on a grizzled paw, dispensing bad advice through refills of cheap rye? Is he on too-good terms with an ill-intentioned barkeep?

No, there is a gleam in his words. This is no dingy public house. It is the room at the horse track closest to the betting window. His relentless gob unloads one barrel at a time, a scattershot of speech to anyone within his firing radius, and some without. His tight fists are clutching thesauruses and losing tickets, but this does not prevent gesticulation. His phrases are peppered with "haberdashers" and "indigents" and he has consorted with both, comfortably. His vocabulary is that of a mid-century tobacco advertisement. He knows "catarrh" from first-hand experience.

There's a wink in the direction of his empty highball glass, and without speech you know he's offering you better odds. The vig is an Old Fashioned. What was that bookie thinking with 7/2 on Captain's Favorite, anyway?

I am reading Dayn Perry. I will die one day, but today I am reading Dayn Perry.

Found on Wikipedia: Crack Police Work

From the Wilipedia article on bearer bonds.

Updating my Linux Machine

This post is as much for my own reference as anyone else's use. Hopefully I can at least point people in the direction of what has helped me.

Network Card

I have a RealTek network card, which doesn't play nice with Linux by default. This site solved it: http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=80757#p469071

In case that link dies, the relevant portion is: 

If you are using kernel 3.0 you'll notice that the /src/Makefile has a bug that causes it to install the r8168.o file instead of the r8168.ko file

The solution is simple:

After the autorun.sh finishes, just do the following:

sudo cp src/r8168.ko   /lib/modules/3.0.0-1-amd64/kernel/drivers/net/
sudo depmod
sudo modprobe r8168

I'm not one to encourage people to leave the Church if they don't like it. To tell people to get out is to misunderstand what the Church is. No one gets kicked out of the hospital for disbelieving germ theory. The doctors just keep giving them the penicillin anyway. If you find that your relationship to the Catholic Church inside-looking-out, stick it out. I think you'll find that the grass is greener in the reflection of the stained glass windows.

That said, here's what not to do: don't tell the Church what it's supposed to be. They didn't ordain women to the priesthood in the days when powerful abbesses controlled convents and monasteries, they aren't going to start just because a woman ran the Department of State. They didn't claim two men could could marry when the emperor was doing it, they won't change their minds because Elton John is doing it.

A Totally Amazing Mind

Hey, reader(s)!

I haven't updated in a while, and this one isn't going to be very good. If there's only one universal law in the universe, it's not entropy or gravity. It's "no one cares about that weird dream you had." But, hey, this is my blog. I didn't force you at gunpoint to read it (note to self, consider this option in the future).

So anyway, I had this dream the other night that the popes came to stay at my house for the weekend. Benedict and Francis must have been doing some kind of cross country road trip or something. When the pope(s) want to crash at your place, you don't ask questions. I had been out for the evening, so when I got home they were already set up. They had brought two identical twin beds and set them up a next to each other with a nightstand in between, like Bert and Ernie. They had their night caps on and were  tucked in with the sheets up to their shoulders. I didn't know the exact protocol for saying goodnight to a pope, so I tried to kiss Benedict's ring. He wasn't wearing one so we stood there awkwardly for a minute until Francis finally said "Hey, over here!" When I went to kiss his ring he pulled it back.

We all had a good laugh.

Look Out Below

I'm clearing out a bunch of drafts that I've been meaning to publish. Don't say you weren't warned.

Some Advice

If you're confused by what Pope Francis says, read the full context.

If you're confused by the context, ignore informal papal comments entirely and read the Catechism.

Breakfast Serial

I'm just about to listen to the last episode of Serial and I have a prediction: I'm going to end up feeling dirty.

It looks like this is going from "investigating an interesting mystery and maybe learning something new about the case" to "let's talk about ME and MY FEELINGS" and forgetting the fact that a family of real people have had to have their daughter's murder dredged up again for no real benefit.

I hope I'm wrong, but here goes...

The Value of Definitions

Today's Wall Street Journal has an editorial titled "Misunderestimating Vladimir" by Bret Stephens.

Ignoring its main content, it includes an aside that interests me. Stephens mentions "the notion that geography no longer matters, the high ground, the warm water ports and everything else that nations have fought over since time immemorial are superfluous in our 21st century world."

As I do with most problems in the world today, I think this notion is rooted in bad philosophy. Outside of talk about borders ("how can we really say where one country starts and the other country ends?"), this comes up in plenty of other contexts. Think extreme linguistic descriptivism: "Languages are defined by their users, how can we say that any particular grammatical usage is an error?" Think of the definition of personhood: "We can't pin down exactly when two gametes have reached 'conception,' so let's just say an embryo can't be a person."

It's positivism mutating into nominalism. It's the lazy idea that, since we can't absolutely define something with absolutely no grey area, there's no point in trying to define it at all.

It's despair, ultimately rooted in a lack of faith. If there's no God (even in the Aristotelian, if not the full Christian conception), there's no final arbiter of truth. There's no standard to conform to. We all make up our own definitions, or we decide that definitions don't matter anyway. And once there are no definitions, reason goes out the window, leaving will and power. You don't have to know a lot about history to know that doesn't end well.

I Don't Believe in Global Warming

I don't not believe in global warming.

A friend posted an article on Facebook earlier today that claimed Tim Cook of Apple told investors who didn't believe in global warming to get rid of their Apple stock. "Screw him," I posted. "I'm holding."

I object to being told to treat a scientific theory as dogma.

Yes, I know what theory means in scientific parlance. It doesn't mean a wild guess. A theory is an interpretation of the data observed. It may be useful, it may fit the data well. But it's always going to be open to refinement, and possibly being overturned. It's never going to graduate to "fact", especially not on the basis of popularity or consensus. I don't care to put my faith in any particular theory.

But anyway, it turns out that's not what Tim Cook said (in spite of what a million internets worth of linkbait headlines insisted). What actually happened was that an investor group was unhappy with some of the environmental initiatives Apple has been working on (including reducing carbon emissions, which is where the tie to global warming comes in). He asked Cook to promise to only make company decisions based on return on investment. That's when he responded "If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock."

I apologize, Mr. Cook. You're absolutely right on that one. If an investor wants to absolutely maximize monetary profits, no matter the cost to the rest of the world, maybe they should get out of Apple stock. Maybe they should get out of the economy in general because they're part of the problem.

My "Contempt for Journalism" Tour Continues

This one's about the White House Correspondant's Dinner!

I don't have a problem with the dinner, per se. It's nice that wealthy, famous and influential people can finally have a night that's all about them for a change.

What I don't like is how self-important reporters get when reporting about reporters going to dinner. Tom Brokaw, probably rightly, worries that the Correspondant's Dinner makes journalists too chummy with the people they are supposed to be covering objectively. The defense is, basically, "but it's so much fun!" Isn't that also the accusation?

The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

I Love to Say "I Told You So"

In case you thought my previous post about the sorry state of journalism was overblown, I offer some evidence.

There's a trope in political commentary that I don't know of an established term for. I call the "F.E.B.",  since I can't otherwise say the phrase out loud without offending people. Let me explain that the acronym is in the format of adjective-adjective-noun and the middle word is "Evil."

When this trope is deployed, Editorialist A describes a situation his Political Opponent Z is bringing about. He lists all of the bad things that will happen because of Z's actions. Then he concludes that doing this is A Very Bad Thing. Note what he does not do: he doesn't do is address the reason Z wants to do this, or the potential good effects of the action. The implication is that Z is just an evil mustache twirler who likes seeing orphans starving in the streets while puppies are thrown alive into furnaces to provide cheap energy. I'm not saying A needs to make all of Z's arguments for him. But he ought to at least acknowledge that Z has a reason for what he does, and maybe try to address why those reasons are wrong, or the good effects are outweighed by the bad.

This rant is brought on today by a report I heard on NPR over my lunch break. They were reporting on Margaret Thatcher's legacy. The particular story I heard was about the miners' strikes of the 1980's. I admit I knew next to nothing about the strikes when the story came on. Thanks to their reporting, I didn't know any more once it ended.

I did learn that the guest being interviewed disapproved of Thatcher's handling of the strikes, which he characterized as "going to war against her own people" (as though she were Saddam Hussein gassing the Kurds). What were the overriding issues? What was the strike about? Why did Thatcher's government want to end the strike? What were the government's tactics? In what ways did it resemble a war? How could it have been resolved differently? Is the mining industry in decline today because of what happened? Are the connections correlated but not causal? Are we reversing cause and effect? I don't know any of those answers.* But my point is I didn't learn them from the source whose very purpose is allegedly to educate listeners on those issues.

I understand that politicians will deploy the F.E.B. strategy. They want to make their opponent appear unelectable. But it's unacceptable for a journalist to broadcast an F.E.B. attack, or allow it to stand unchallenged. In fact, the host of the show thanked the reporter for his contribution and concluded that there were "mixed feelings on Margaret Thatcher's death." Not her "legacy", not her "influence on modern politics"… on her death. Because she is a F.E.B. and she deserves no better.

* Remember: No Research Zone.

Where is your God Now?

Those of you who know me will surely realize that tomorrow marks an important day, not only for myself but for many of my friends and family. That's right, my alma mater Marquette is playing in the Elite 8.

Of course, there's also the fact that tomorrow is Holy Saturday, the final day of the Triduum, the day Christ spent in the tomb. While not technically a part of Lent, the Triduum is one of the most solemn periods on the Church calendar. I'll be in a bar getting a nice afternoon buzz, watching basketball.

I spent some time today considering whether that would be appropriate use of my day. The realization came to me that, rather than being sacrilegious, it's more or less in the liturgical spirit of the season.

"God is dead," Nietzche said and, like a stopped clock, he's right once a year.* What else is there to do? Do like the late-Republic Romans, I guess, when they stopped believing in their gods. Drink wine, watch gladiator contests and try to ignore the fact that the country is transforming before our eyes into an imperial military state. For a few hours, we Christians enter into the state the pre-Christian world found itself in. Take a moment to read Phillip Larkin's poem Aubade. (No seriously, read it!) How else is there to live with the unescapable inevitability of our own demise?

Fortunately, we have the advantage of knowing how the story ends. Death is no longer the last word. Jesus (showing His humanity) enters into death, like Bruce Banner slipping on an ill-fated white shirt in the morning. But by the end of the day His divinity bursts forth in Hulk-mode, destroying the power of death in the process.

Within a couple of centuries, Roman culture went from the the fading worship of gods they didn't totally believe in, to killing the God who was sent to them, to being ruled by that God-man's followers. Yet, their culture wasn't extinguished. It was baptized. The very term "alma mater" comes from the language of Zeno and Marcus Aurelius, but was preserved by Catholics for use in the university system they created.**

Have hope, Christus Vincit!

(It's always disheartening to realize that someone else blogged about the same topic as you did, and better. After I finished drafting this post, I came across this article by David Warren. Mr. Warren's article is a lot like this blog post, except it's insightful and well-written. And when you're done, read his whole archive. I burned through it in a couple of days and I'm smarter for it, if only in the sense that I know what a real writer sounds like.)

---

* Imagine this is some kind of calendar clock, with 365 positions on the dial, corresponding to days of the year. Or imagine that I'm not good with similes.

** Every week, my parish's confirmation class has Little Caesar's pizza for lunch. Each pizza comes topped with pepperoni, sausage and the delicious irony that Catholicism continues to be believed and passed on, while our 2nd century oppressor is now a cartoon image used to sell fast food.

And a Third Post, Just to Make Tom Nervous

Some of my more masochistic readers may wonder what it's like to be inside my head. Well, here's a little peek. The other day, a memory I hadn't even though of in years came back to me as a fully-formed (stupid) bilingual pun.

So, when I was in college I met a girl who was studying abroad from Germany. I speak ein bischen German (better than the average American, at least). She spoke a bit of English (probably better than the average American, as well), so we had that common. It seemed like we were kind of hitting it off [Ed.: probably not], but the semester came to an end and she heraus'ed back to Germany. Only then did I realize I hadn't gotten a home phone number, an email address, a Facebook friendship, any way to remain in contact.

"Well," my brain concluded as that old memory flickered past. "I guess she was the one that Goethe way."

---

Blog up, Patrowsky.

Something I Hadn't Considered

Savor .the ongoing silence about Obama’s ongoing Drone War against civilians, including children, in Pakistan right now, as opposed to what will be the incessant chatter about Cardinal Bergoglio’s imaginary role in the Dirty War in Argentina forty years ago. The Pope of Roman Catholics must be raked over coals, but their own God-Emperor Barack must be shielded from any kind of scrutiny at all.
(Source).

I've been pretty peeved* about both of those issues lately, but I hadn't considered them in conjuction. This is turning into a perfect storm of powerless righteous indignation.

---

* "Pretty peeved" is the proper response to a President's assertion that he can order me killed by drone strikes without due process, right?

All I Don't Know is What I Read in the Papers

We have a new pope! Not only that, but he's a Jesuit, the order that ran my alma mater. And he took the name Francis, my confirmation patron saint. So, I have a lot of reasons to like him already, which is good because I know next to nothing about him personally.

I realize this is uncharacteristic for a blog (particularly one run by your humble correspondant) but I don't know much more, so I'm going to shut up on this topic. If only others showed such discretion, particularly people who are actually paid to report the news.

I don't want to get into some kind of Poping contest, where I consider which one I like better than the others. That's not what this is about. I just loooooved Pope Benedict. He had a difficult act to follow, but he understood he wasn't John Paul II and didn't try to be. He wasn't wildly charismatic, he was a soft-spoken introvert. He seemed like someone who just wished everyone would pipe down for a minute so he could explain a thought was more than a 10 second soundbite snatched out of context. (I understand the feeling.*)

Sadly, he rarely got that opportunity. Instead, he was painted as Nazi (even though he was forcibly enlisted, and deserted as soon as he could escape). He was called an enabler of pedophiles (even though he was the one who took action against Fr. Maciel, essentially the moment he became pope). He was called a hard-nosed dogmatist (even though a brief perusal of his writings showed a gentle man explaining himself with clear-headed logic). His most lasting impression upon pop culture will almost certainly be the fact that he was an old man with bags under his eyes, who drew comparisons to Emperor Palpatine.

All this goes to prove that what GK Chesterton wrote in Edwardian England is still true today. "It will not be necessary for anyone to fight again against the proposal of a censorship of the press.... We have a censorship by the press."

Nearly every report about Pope Francis in a major non-Catholic media outlet has come with a subtle barb, an implied "Given that the last guy was so terrible..." I think you're well aware by now that I don't do research for this blog, so this NPR Morning Edition story is the first that came to mind. (Also, this interview with Sr. Pat Farrell) Note the implication that comes with these questions and responses. "He doesn't wear red shoes," "I grumble a lot about my Church's teaching, but...," "We're all in wait and see mode," a "sincere hope" that he would condemn child abuse (Benedict's famous reference to "filth" and John Paul II's term "appalling sin" apparently were not harsh enough).

Particularly for the parishioner interviews, there's no point of reference. Were their opinions a majority view? Or just the view that the person writing the story decided to highlight? Do these people have any particular competency to back up their opinions?

You'll notice that the implications are just that – implied. If the accusation were directly stated, it would be open to obvious refutation. Instead, it hovers in the background as something "everyone knows".

I think I have some insight into how this kind of things happens. I shudder to bring this shame upon myself and my family, but I must be honest here: I originally declared myself as a journalism major in college. For a semester and a half, I wrote for the school's official paper.** We had two editions a week. I wrote one or two articles per edition, for the princely sum of $7 per story. The stories were denominated in inches and I don't recall the exact conversion rates, but they were generally in the area 500-700 words. Any news story required at least three quoted sources. That part especially sucked. No one had an interesting opinion about that student government hearing you just sat through. And even if they did, it probably didn't coincide with the angle you were told to write about. Stories were assigned Monday and published Tuesday or assigned Tuesday and published Thursday

Tight deadlines, little pay, stories chosen for headline value by the editors instead of news value by the reporters. That's no way to run a news outlet. Yet, everything I hear about professional media outlets (with real alleged honest-to-goodness adults!) suggests it's not so different out there in the real world.

I only have two real areas of expertise: Computers and Catholic theology. And it seems like every time I read a news article about either of those subjects, I'm driven by the urge to take a red pen to the thing. "Common misconception, not true." "That's not what that word means." "That 'source' is actually a nut who doesn't represent mainstream thinking in the area."

Yet, I read about everything else and absorb it with the assumption it must be true. I'm stuck in Donald Rumsfeld's ultimate nightmare: unknown unknowns. I have no idea what I've absorbed that's just hanging around in the back of my head and is flat out not true. I don't know anything about the Higgs Boson or or Portugese austerity measures or Libyan rebel groups, except what I see in the papers. What else do I not know I don't know?

---

* Any comparisons between myself and Pope Benedict are purely a matter of kind and not degree. I might be excessively full of myself, but even my pride has limits.
** To avoid an libel suits, I will state upfront that all facts from here to the end of the paragraph are based on my fuzzy memory. I'm pretty sure I'm in the ballpark, but exact amounts are probably wrong.
** Part b, I later ran the website for their competition, the apparently now-defunct independent paper.

Bells!

Ahhhhhhhhhh!