Modern Computer Gaming

I have been playing computer games for a long time, starting with Oregon Trail in first grade, SimFarm in 2nd grade, and then Civilization in 4th.  We didn't have a Nintendo growing up, so no 'video games' but we did play computer games.  Video games were frequently multiplayer, with multiple controllers attached to the system, while computer games were usually solo, until networking multiple systems together became more common, but then everything still had their own system.  My parents were opposed to violent computer games, so no first person shooters until college, and even then I am far more attracted to the teamwork aspects of those games than the actual shooting.  That is why I like Battlefield, and not Half-Life.  I do remember when my dad sat me down to talk about the realities of war in 8th grade, before allowing me to buy Command and Conquer.  Age of Empires was set in history, so the death of those units was not as concerning to my parents as modern warfare games.

I got into first person shooters due to LAN parties that my high school friends were having after I graduated, and was home from college on the holidays.  I got into Battlefield 1942, and bought my own copy, playing it at school, but only against computer opponents, because my school blocked access to the multiplayer servers.  When BattleField 2 came out, I bought it on release day, and played out the limited single player options for two weeks, before I happened to click on the multiplayer menu.  When that server list populated with options, it was like witnessing a miracle, and many hours that summer were spent becoming one of the top 1% of helicopter pilots, out of a million active players.  I still played that game until recently, in it iteration as Project Reality.  I am not very good at shooting people, just trying to keep a positive kill to death ratio, but I am good at leading a squad of 6-8 other people across the world, to accomplish objectives and win games.  And I still play Age of Empires II, now in its third iteration, with my own son now.  But these are all very old games, over 20 years old.  I haven't played hardly any modern games, besides spending a couple hours in the mess that is Fortnight, for the purposes of a graphics card technology review.

I don't even know what initially attracted my attention to WarDogs last month, probably some online article, but I decided to give it a try.  In certain ways, it is similar to the games I have liked in the past, but with some significant differences.  Battlefield offered a couple of unlockable weapons, but that was it in the way of progression.  And that progress was never reset in the form of 'seasons' as a way of leveling the playing field. (Although AoE2 does offer limited time special scenarios, that disappear after a few months, so you have to play them while they are available if you want to try them.  Similarly they have limited time rewards, to encourage playing more within certain time frames.  But this new games has hundreds of levels of gear to unlock, and that progress is reset to zero on a monthly-ish basis.  That levels to playing field, to keep people who have earned extra powerful weapons from maintaining that edge forever.  But it also means that players who have barely escaped the challenging first couple of hours with limited options are right back in there again, struggling to get to a decent place that full time players got back to within a day of the reset.  It is also a three way battle, and for some reason, one team always loses.  This might be influenced by factors like uniform visibility, but is also influenced by the online culture that develops around the game.  If I never check out online discussions, I would never have noticed that 'blue never wins.'  But now that I have, and recognized that it is usually true, I am further perpetuating the trend.  The season reset was the perfect opportunity for a giant social experiment, to rotate the consistent team starting positions, to see how much of that phenomena was based on the culture compared to the game programming.  The creators did a bit of that, but took a different route to rectifying that issue, in the form of discounts and bonuses for that team.

I also had a strange interaction with a teammate last time I played that has really stuck with me.  I group of teammates showed up at a position I had been defending for a while, and one of them had an extra gear bag next to them.  I didn't know (and still don't) how it got there, since players can only hold one gear back, but they can swap with one on the ground, left by a dead player, which can be looted.  So I came over to see what was in it, and hear what I thought was an argument between two other players on the local voice channel.  The bag had good stuff in it, but the only thing I had room to carry was a med kit, to heal teammates.  Suddenly one on them team kills me, and tells me that he is going revive me, and that I am going to put what I took out of his bag back into it.  And he was very much a jerk about it.  So when I recovered, I replaced the med kit and moved on, but it really bothered me, and I am not even sure why I did that.  Possibly because of an innate respect for the concept of ownership, or just to avoid conflict.  But I literally found it on the ground, and there are clearly no 'rules' about that in a sandbox game.  Just the impulses involved are interesting.  And there is a new mechanism to punish team killing, which I forgot about until I saw the message that the 90sec window for me to do that had expired.  Next time.  And I would assess that the player involved was also cheating, at least in some form, because he ended the round with 62 kills, and the 2nd place player had 15.  And I saw his kills while he was near me, and we was banging away at the sky with a sniper rifle, and shooting people out of overflying helicopters and such, which is clearly impossible.  The creators post highlight videos online that show similar accomplishments, and I am confident that it is impossible for a human to have that level of mouse accuracy, even in a game, so gamepad users apparently have some form of auto aiming assistance, which is far too powerful compared to mouse and keyboard.  It really challenges one's concept of fairness, or what exactly comprises cheating.  But it has been interesting and enlightening to play a modern game, to see what functionality has been added to new games, to increase the level of engagement and addiction.  I also find this surprising since it is a one time purchase, not an ongoing subscription, so the incentive for the creators to keep their players coming back with that level of frequently seems limited, without micro-transactions as an ongoing source of income.  But knowing what is happening in that regard will help me be a better parent, and guide my son, if he finds himself playing games like that.  Because it is very different from when I was a kid.

Charlie Kirk

Charlie Kirk was shot and killed during a public speaking event in Utah last Wednesday.  I am familiar with his work, and have loosely followed his career, via sporadic viral videos of his debates and conversations with people who disagreed with him.  I recently listened to a two hour interview he did on Jordan Peterson's podcast, and liked what he had to say.  My impression of him was that he was eloquently and lovingly sharing hard truths that many people didn't want to hear.  In ten years of speaking in public, he has apparently accumulated a number of 'troubling quotes' in the eyes of some, but that seems forgivable by those who generally agree with him, and not so much by those who find his overall views offensive.  The video I pulled, basically at random, to show my wife what he was known for, was a less graceful example of his style, based on the hostility of the people he was engaging with in that moment.  I have since found other videos that did fit the impression I had originally felt about him, recorded in slightly more respectful environments.  In that case he was having a well thought out and articulated conversation about his moral concerns with the IVF process, with twins who had been conceived via IVF, and I thought he did a fantastic job of balancing truth and love, and I believe they did too at the end of the talk.

The reactions to his death have been interesting.  Many people, likely in the hundreds now, have lost their job based on their public reactions to his killing, namely celebrating his death on social media.  Some might be concerned that this is an assault on free speech, which Charlie stood for, but it clearly is not.  Speech does need to be policed, and people should be held accountable for what they say.  It is just that the government, should not be policing that speech; we the people should be.  People who say inappropriate things, or promote harmful ideas should be held accountable by those around them, whether that is their boss, their friend, or family member.  I saw it very concisely communicated in an FB meme: if you think it is acceptable for someone to be shot for an opinion they hold, you shouldn't have a problem with being fired for an opinion you hold.  But it does seem to have brought a new level of divisiveness to conversations online, or further highlighted the existing problem.

I am curious to see how his memorial service goes this weekend, and if he is given a military style send off.  Some would argue that it would be offensive to those in uniform, since he didn't serve in that way, but an argument could be made that he died defending the freedoms of our nation, and in a fashion with known physical risks.  I think the large spectacle that his memorial is likely to become, is well deserved for one who was uncompromising in his stand for truth, while also loving those around him, even when they didn't agree with him.

His death has seemed to effect people more strongly than most celebrity passings, and on one sense that is logical, based purely on the facts.  He was killed very publicly, in front of a large crowd and a lot of cameras.  And it was obvious to anyone who was aware of the situation 'why' it happened.  Because those who believe that 'words are violence' can easily convince themselves that saying the 'wrong' thing can justify a physically violent response in 'self defense.'  But in another sense there was also a view to the future.  He was only 31, so who knows what else he could have done in the future.  He was probably the youngest serious advisor to the current president, and maybe could have been president himself someday.  But that view of the future is also why he was a target.  He was a minimal threat at this moment, how much real trouble can he cause spending his time arguing with college students?  But he was an inspiration to stand up for truth in the face of evil, and that was what his death represented a strike against.  And he was clearly just getting started.  He was also, in retrospect, one of the strongest Christians in the public sphere, probably surpassing most pastors in his outspoken promotion of the gospel and his faith in Jesus.  And in one sense, outspoken Christians like that are killed on a a daily basis around the world.  But not in America, so this is is concerning, at least from a selfish perspective, of a Christian, currently living in America.

As for who killed him.  I was surprised that it took over 24hours for them to even identify who it was, but he is now in custody.  I have my doubts that we will see much justice in that case, due to me belief in the principle that 'justice delayed is justice denied."  This is clearly premeditated murder without excuse.  We need to take the time to confirm that he isn't being framed, or that some other issue is not a play, but he should be tried within a month, which should only take a couple of days, and as long as 12 people agree that he is clearly guilty, he should be dead a month later, after his appeal is reviewed by a higher court or judge.  Instead, it seems likely that he will still be living in prison 20 years from now, waiting for various unnecessary legal processes to take place, profiting a bunch of lawyers on both sides, at taxpayer expense.  But at least they appear to have gotten his killer, both so he is off the streets, and so that his family can have some level of closure, instead of forever wondering what exactly happened.

You-Said

 This is intended to be a reminder of how things look in the moment, compared to how we may view them later.  Hindsight can be (but isn't always) 20/20, but it can also be distorted by time, and people forget what things were really like.

We are currently three weeks into the second Trump administration, and there have been all sorts of changes, from decreeing that the federal government only recognizes two genders, to cracking down on illegal immigration.  On the foreign policy side, there have been proposals to take control of Greenland, the Panama Canal, and even Gaza.  On the domestic side, Elon Musk has been set loose on the federal bureaucracy, in the form of DOGE.  The biggest news there has been the dismantling of USAID, the US Agency for International Development.  It looks like that process may get repeated at the CFPB (Consumer Finance Protection Bureau) and the Dept of Education, and who knows where next, but the USAID is the first iteration of that process, the one farthest along in the present day, and the one with the most backlash, as far as I can tell.

Now Republicans have been trying to scale back USAID for years, so this is not coming from left field, but it was probably not on the average American's radar.  As an organization that spends hundreds of billions of dollars, mostly to benefit non-Americans, it is easy to see how it would fall victim to an "America First" priority set.  But beyond the staggering spending on foreign needs, there appears to be high levels of corruption and waste in the organization itself.  Now Democrats are painting the attack on USAID as a catastrophe that will destabilize the planet, and that it is not within Trump's power to dismantle it.

But USAID was established by executive order by Kennedy in 1961, and while Congress eventually codified its existence into law, that isn't what created it.  It was started by the President, and Congress caught up to that change later, and there is no reason for that not to work in reverse.  Also, the House of Representatives controls the 'purse-strings,' but that is limited to allocating money to things to fund the government.  It obviously doesn't work in reverse, in that the president is in charge of executing the act of governing based on the specifications legislated by Congress, but either side can cut funding for something.  And there is enormous precedent for the president to shift funding for expenses Congress never even approved. (See Ukraine assistance)  So I see no legal reason that Trump can't get rid of USAID.

Then there are the moral implications.  The richest man in the world implementing the dismantling an organization ostensibly devoted to aiding the development of those who are poverty stricken in third world countries doesn't have good optics.  USAID is probably doing some beneficial things in certain parts of the world, although Democrats have come up with few compelling examples of that during this conflict.  But most of those would fall under the umbrella of charity related endeavors.  And a strong argument could be made that A: the government should not be involved in charity in any form, especially the federal government, and that B: it may be impossible for the government to 'do' charity, because 'charity' is a spiritual activity, that involves voluntarily sharing ones time or resources.  Everything the government does is inherently by compulsion, and the government is not a spiritual entity, (although the people who make up the government are, similar to corporations) so both those issues prevent true charity from taking place in that capacity.  Instead, all you have is the redistribution of wealth.  And in this case, due to the current federal deficit and debt load, anything in that vein, is stealing from our children, to buy goodwill in the present, in what must be the worst form of virtue signaling.  So it would be hard to come up with a moral objection to shutting it all down, even if the "good" didn't outweigh the bad.

But the bad clearly appears to outweigh any true benefit from the organization, and they aren't doing anything good that a true charity couldn't do better, and with voluntary funding, therefore making it actual charity, instead of a further extension of state power, which is what Democrats openly admit it is.  One of their biggest objections to eliminating it is that it is a valuable tool to influence (manipulate) other countries.  I don't want the US to be manipulating other countries, unless they are a threat to us, at which point I want the Defense Department to be our response.  It is hard to imagine how 'soft power' could be anything less than evil, working in secret, even if for America's selfish benefit.  And if not for America's benefit, then why be part of the US government?  Anyhow, I can imagine there being some negative consequences of eliminating most of USAID, but it looks at the moment like that action is worth it.  This what America voted for, to reform a government which has gotten out of hand, and lost touch with the people, as all oversized organizations do.

The Life of a Servant

The entire concept of servants, or being a servant, is looked down upon in Western society, even though it is widely acknowledged that service is important, and even that we all serve something.  But a servant is literally 'one who serves.'  While a server provides a particular service, a servant is a more general role, usually to a specific person or family.  So being a server is socially acceptable, but being a servant is not.

But Jesus's followers refer to themselves as servants throughout the New Testament, and while an alternate word could be used in the translation, the idea of serving a particular subject (God) as opposed to a particular task, makes servant an appropriate word choice.  Jesus also told numerous parables about servants, and their roles stewarding the affairs of their master.  And while there are many hidden meanings to the parables, it is fairly clear that the master is God, and the servants are us, his followers.  So we are called to be servants, which is an idea that can intuitively rub us the wrong way from our contemporary perspective.  But that role didn't always have that connotation, and we have similar dynamics with different labels.

A king used to have all sorts of servants, and there was a very explicit hierarchy, with some serving the king directly, and others in lower roles.  But having any role in the king's household held some level of honor or prestige, compared to serving a family of lower status.  But there were three main routes to finding oneself in that position.  Being born that way/blind luck, being promoted to that position from elsewhere, or serving a household before it ascended to that position of prominence.  One could choose to serve someone, for a variety of potential motivations, but out of belief in them, and desire to support them.

This happens in politics all the time, with different labels.  A candidate's campaign manager becomes their chief of staff once they are elected.  Maybe they were serving that campaign because they believed in the policies and values that the candidate was espousing.  Maybe they just applied to work for the candidate they thought had the best choice of winning.  Regardless of their motivation, serving someone successful have potential benefits.  Similar to choosing to work for a company that becomes successful has it's rewards.

It seems less offensive or cynical when we talk about it in terms of a corporation.  One becomes a servant (employee) of a corporate startup, and if it folds, they are unemployed.  But if it succeeds, they rise in stature with the company, with growing financial rewards, and potential increases in position and responsibility.  But you are still a servant (employee) unless you rise to the very top.  It is hard to see the President or CEO as a servant, but they are responsible to a board, and the best ones serve their customers and their employees.  A king is responsible only to God, but in another sense should be a servant of the people.  This seems to be more explicit in European monarchies over the last century, while before that, it was rarely openly recognized.  So in a sense, we are all meant to be servants.

I serve at church in a couple capacities, I serve various camps, and I serve my family.  I have one primary employer or client I have worked with over the past two decades, among a wider variety of projects.  I have worked with that person across multiple projects and companies, and prioritize those projects in how I structure my work and schedule.  One could say that I serve him.  I did not deliberately pick him, I deliberately picked other things that led to us working together, and those other things I had picked eventually fell away, leaving me with him.  At first I was satisfied with serving with him, because I was proud of the work we were doing, and the projects I was involved in creating.  As those projects have changed over time, I have found what we are working on together to be less meaningful, and there has been on objective decrease in overall volume of work as well.  But that is who I was used to working with or serving.  I did discover someone else who was doing work that I found far more meaningful and inspiring, and I did attempt to connect with them, to serve there, but did not get anywhere with that.  That change likely (but not certainly) would have required ceasing service to the one I had been with for years, and probably would have led to greater personal success, had I made that transition early.  But if that opportunity was ever truly available, I did not move quickly enough to capitalize on it.

I do have trouble seeing myself as a servant, but I don't have an aversion using my skills and talents to help implement someone else's vision.  I have led my own projects, specifically a web series, but I usually avoid positions of ultimate responsibility, (which is a whole other topic to delve into soon) instead preferring to be second in command.  I like to come up with innovative solutions to problems, but don't necessarily want to be responsible for implementing them.  I have no problem letting someone else be in charge, to be the one responsible if anything goes wrong.  But that person needs to be someone I trust and respect.  There isn't much worse than being stuck serving a bad leader.  I have the good fortune of having some degree of control over who I serve in a workplace capacity, purely because I have the financial flexibility to quit, or pass up jobs that don't look promising in that regard.  

Other people may have fewer choices or options available to them in that regard.  But we can all choose 'what' God' we serve.  And ultimately, that is who we are serving to some degree throughout our life.  And presumably we will continue to serve him after we die, if we choose wisely.  And I don't mind the idea of serving God forever, that was the 'new idea' that prompted this post in the first place.  If God 'has a place' for me in heaven, I look forward to the role.  Presumably he made me for it, or vice versa, so it should be a good fit.  And I will be in the service of a good leader.  That is as much as most servants could ever hope for.  And Happy New Year '25!

Voluntarily Taking on Responsibility

Jordan Peterson argues that voluntarily taking on responsibility as the main source of meaning in life.  It is an interesting proposition, and is probably at least somewhat true.  That has drawn my attention to the fact that I seem to have been avoiding unnecessary responsibility for a long time.  At work I am (intentionally) the second in command in most positions I take, or a consultant, which involves even less responsibility.  I avoid the responsibility of a full time job to keep open the potential of working for Scott, or other movie projects.  At church, I help out where ever I can, without committing to do so (besides leading home group).  My main ministry to camps entails responsibility for the safety of the people who use what I build, but beyond that, I am a volunteer who takes on little further responsibility compared to a camp staff member.  But I use that ministry as an excuse to avoid other ongoing responsibilities locally, since I travel so much for that and work.  I obviously parent my own kid, but avoiding further responsibility is one reason we haven't further pursued fostering or adopting. (That also might require a larger house, which would cost more, which would require even more responsibility on the career front, etc.)

I handle the responsibilities that I have just fine (Family, Scott, Apple, Ropes Courses, Home Group) but I rarely voluntarily take on more or new responsibilities.  This is likely because no one taught me that principle growing up, and instead I associated responsibility with stress.  And stress was a bad thing to be avoided, so I have structured my whole life to minimize stress, relatively successfully, but possibly to my detriment.  Stress can strain relationships, which can already be challenging for me, and can harm one's health.  So I might live longer, but I would be living less during that time, if I wholly committed to avoiding stress.  So I need to make changes there, but I have 40 years of habits and inclinations pushing me in the wrong direction.  Small steps might be more responsibilities at church, instead of just 'helping out' when I happen to be available.  Then maybe some changes at the job level, since some things have been shifting in that realm for awhile, and the current trajectory isn't sustainable for long.   But one step at a time, and church seems like the initial move.

Assassinations, Elections, and the Media

 Apparently someone shot Trump in Pennsylvania tonight.  I am in Pennsylvania at the moment, but a different part.  The initial news stories about the incident were all over the place.  It is reasonable for some level of confusion during an incident, until the details are confirmed, but the media made fools of themselves in their initial reports of Trump falling on stage, and Secret Service interrupting his speech.

It is reported that he was shot from a few hundred yards away, and it hit him in the ear, narrowly missing the rest of his head, which would have surely killed (or at least incapacitated) him.  The difference of a couple inches at that range is a God thing.  Good marksmen can reliably hit targets at farther ranges, but ballistics has some level of incalculable variation.  If God is an interventionalist in national politics, and he wanted to remove Trump from the equation, Trump would be dead.  This doesn't necessarily mean that God wants Trump to be president again, just that he is still alive by the grace of God.  God apparently has further plans for him, or is at least just letting things play out, if that is how you view his role.  I believe God is sovereign over all things, but lets us deal with the results of freewill.  That bullet trajectory was not a free will issue.

I have expected major incidents to take place in the runup to this election, both domestically and internationally.  (China might invade Taiwan, the Russia-Ukraine conflict might expand, etc.)  I still think there is a 25% chance that one of the two main candidates might pass away before the election, or before inauguration, and we would never know if it was from natural causes. (Which is quite possibly as they are both around 80 years old.)  Today was close to that, and still shocking in a certain sense, but also comforting in another sense in that "we" (the American people) survived the incident. Trump is still alive, there aren't riots in the street, and this might actually strengthen his campaign.

Why would that be a good thing?  I believe having a clear winner is probably the best outcome for the upcoming election, compared to a 50/50 split with fights over every detail.  So we need a landslide, in one way or the other, where there is no question that 'the people' have spoken.  It is hard to imagine Trump doing something to alienate his base that badly, but easy to imagine Biden doing so.  Therefore from my perspective at the moment, a clear Trump victory seems like the best outcome for the country, at least in the short term, and the outcome of this event seems to be making that more likely.

So that begs the question: could it have been staged?  I think that is a perfectly reasonable inquiry in this day and age.  In one sense, in the video I saw, you hear some pops, Trump grabs the side of his head ducks behind the podium.  He eventually comes up with blood on him, and is rushed off stage to 'safety' after a triumphant fist pump.  He comes off (relatively) strong in the video and the story (Trump survives being shot in attempted assassination).  The claim is that the shooter was killed by the Secret Service immediately. (Presumably by over-watch snipers responding with high-tech shot-detection gear.)  It is just like the setup in the Mark Wahlberg movie Shooter.

My first reaction was that him being shot in the edge of the head would be too risky of plan. (No one wants to be killed in their own staged assassination.)  But what if he wasn't really shot, and just rubbed some blood on his face or nicked his ear when he ducked?  You would only need one or two body guards in on that part.  But then there is the shooter to be staged, which is more challenging, but an option is presented in that movie.  But in this case, tragically other people were hit by the stray bullets, and at least one was killed.  That becomes a little harder to justify as collateral for a publicity stunt, and even with only ten people involved, you'd never keep it a secret.  So based on the reports I have seen so far, it is just big enough of an incident to be undeniably real, without being big enough to tear apart the country immediately.  It will be interesting to see the further details as they are revealed, and what effect this has on the election.

But it won't increase trust in the media, and it is hard to imagine people trusting them any less at this point.  And if something bigger does happen, how will we know what 'really' happened, or if it even happened at all?

Politically Incorrect Implications of Evolution

The idea that all life on earth evolved from single celled organisms is the prevailing scientific view.  Asking where that first single cellular life form originated is where it gets more entertaining, but let's set that issue aside for the moment.  There are various levels to which this idea of evolution is seen to conflict with the biblical worldview, in regards to time spans and divine intervention, but the 'theory of natural selection,' or 'survival of the fittest' is a fairly agreed upon idea, regardless of what degree you might believe it might have impacted the resulting life forms we currently find on earth.  But if you believe that that principle is responsible for 'all order and advanced life on the planet,' that should only strengthen the value that you have for the principle.

But the logical conclusions of any belief that 'survival of the fittest' has been the primary mechanism that drove development of all life on earth are in stark contrast to the values that most people who hold that belief espouse.  Just to be clear, I am not necessarily in support of any of these ideas, I am just pointing out that they are the logical conclusions of the idea that the theory of natural selection is responsible for the undirected development of life on the planet, and therefore all biological order.

First off, the endangered species list should be hugely offensive to anyone who believes that advanced life developed by the less suitable variants dying off.  By protecting less well adapted animals (or plants) we are weakening the entire ecosystem and planet.  If they can adapt to survive in the changing conditions, great.  If not, the planet is apparently better of without them.  But to try to modify the environment to better suit their needs, would be the height of sabotage of the evolutionary development process.

Regarding humans, healthcare should be relatively minimal if it existed at all.  It is imperative that the weak and sick die off, ideally before they have the opportunity to reproduce.  This strengthens the species as a whole.  So the logical course of action would be to refuse to date or sleep with anyone with any identifiable defect of any sort.  This would be especially important for females as they have fewer reproduction opportunities, while males aren't as negatively impacted if one of their offspring is from a genetically inferior partner.  I hesitate to point this out, as we are seeing this beginning to actually happen in Europe with the increasing popularity of euthanasia, but it needs to be discussed in its most extreme forms to highlight what we are really dealing with.  Any form of mercy stands in opposition to the cold ruthless process of natural selection.

And then there is the issue of race.  Among humans, the theory of natural selection is basically a justification for 'might makes right.'  If you have the strength to dominate someone else, you can justify doing so for the good of the planet.  If one culture is particularly dominant, then it must be the stronger option, and the propagation of those ideas and values at the expense of other cultures is for the good of the planet.  It appears historically that over the past 500 years, white Caucasian cultures have developed the technology and means to colonize and subjugate most of the rest of the world, specifically Africa, Asia, and the Americas.  It each of these places, the existing inhabitants were marginalized by the stronger newcomers, and their land and resources shifted to be exploited in new and more effective ways.  In America the native peoples were nearly wiped out, and have been nearly entirely replaced with decedents of the Europeans.  The peoples of Africa and Asia are still numerous, but have largely adopted European methods of achieving success.  Colonization was by no means perfect, but it is today viewed as an unpardonable sin, while 'natural selection' would indicate that it is a moral good.  It cleanses the planet of less effective and efficient cultures and civilizations, and assimilates what is left into the 'superior' system.

It would be more logical for Christians to have a more mercy-based social justice and environmental view, and for atheistic evolutionists to want to see natural selection run its course without intervention.  But that is not what we see, in regards to the strongest supporters of protecting endangered species being biologists.  And the view that evangelizing to foreign peoples is a form of erasing their culture is primarily held by atheists who should see the process of dominant ideas replacing weaker ones as a positive step in the process of strengthening civilization as a whole.  Artificially propping up weaker species or cultures would weaken the entire planet and hinder further development and progress.

The converse proposition is not necessarily as hypocritical, because if you don't believe natural selection is the primary mechanism driving the development of life on earth, you are free to hold all sorts of different values about life, and various Christians do.

Interesting Implications of Chess

Chess is an interesting game that has been around for hundreds of years.  Unlike modern games with stylized artwork and backstory, chess feels very plain, with a few key identifiers in piece design on an otherwise plain board. It is all strategy and no luck via random chance, but complex enough to have nearly limitless possibilities. (There is no single approach to winning that can't be overcome with the correct response.)  In one sense it is a very straightforward game of strictly defined logic and planning, but it is actually thematically skinned.

The pieces all represent members of a royal court, with of course the king and queen in the most important roles, surrounded by bishops and knights to help them, and a bunch of little pawns arrayed before them.  The king is the most important piece, but he doesn't actually do much himself.  Keeping him alive is the point of the entire game, and you lose if he dies.  The queen is an important piece, that can move in unpredictable ways (relative to the other pieces which are more restricted) and run circle around the king and other pieces.  It is the most effective solution for trapping the opponents king, but if the queen is lost, the game goes on.  It is even possible to replace the queen, you just promote one of the pawns.  Which pawn?  Any one that can survive the gauntlet, and make it to the other side of the board.  Heck, you don't even need to lose your first queen before you can promote another piece to the position, resulting in having more than one queen simultaneously.  But not the king; you can't get a second king, and you can't promote a pawn to a king at all.  That is actually the only role they can't be promoted to.

Checkers appears to have been created purely as a rebellious response to these limitations, where any piece can become a king by reaching the end of the board, you can have multiple kings simultaneously, and they have the fewest movement restrictions.  But these characteristics do not reflect historical realities in the same ways that chess does.  Its interesting to think about the messages implicit in the game of chess: most people are just pawns, and if you work hard and with a little luck, you could be promoted to a bishop or knight, or even become a queen, but you will never be king.  And if you do become queen, watch out, some other pawn behind you might be striving for your new role as well.  That is actually a lot of cultural context and messaging overlaid on a game that otherwise seems very straightforward and logical.

Stress vs Responsibility

 I have been listening to a number of Jordan Peterson's podcasts, and he usually repeats a number of the same principles throughout those varying conversations.  Some of those ideas I remember from his books, but one I do not, which is: fulfillment in life is found through taking on responsibility.  This is not something that I was every taught growing up, and didn't even appear intuitive or self evident when I heard it.  But if it is true, it might explain a big about certain things I find myself dealing with.

I have not shirked responsibility in the realms of relationship and family.  I am married and have son, I provide for my family, and I am a reasonably good father.  But career wise, it could be argued, that I HAVE avoided taking on responsibility.  And similarly in my ministry and volunteer work.  Growing up, especially in college and shortly thereafter, I was acutely aware that stress led to problems: strained relationships, general business, and lower quality of life.  This is true when taken to the extreme, but stress is really, in many cases, a different perspective on responsibility.  I have definitely avoided being responsible for large undertakings, preferring to be second in command, advising those making the decisions, but not responsible for the outcomes of those choices.  This was true at Bandito Brothers, and in my role at Apple, head of technology, or workflow, but not the one in charge of the entire project.  In general, that has allowed me to better balance work with the rest of life, which I otherwise would have struggled with more.  I have had time to invest in my marriage and family, I built my own house, and spend months on ministry trips.  But I have probably leaned too far away from stress (responsibility) career-wise at the moment.

This is more obvious when looking at my ministry endeavors.  I wisely avoid liability for my ropes course projects by doing all of that as a volunteer, but prior to that, my roles at camp had little official responsibility beyond being a counselor for a cabin of kids.  I worked hard, and pretty much ran the camp from an operational perspective, but if anything went wrong, most of that was technically someone else's responsibility.  With the church garden and food closet, I help out on a frequent basis, but I am not "on the schedule," responsible for any particular task or day.  This is partially because of my inconsistent travel schedule, but mostly because I don't want to have to be locked into anything, or find people to cover for me if things change.  Those changes have been pretty rare recently, so I definitely could have been doing more.

The result is that at the moment I find myself with too little that I am responsible for.  Things have slowed down at both of my paying jobs, in that they don't have many tasks for me.  And I don't have the initiative to start up larger projects like my freedom series to more fully utilize my time.  So much of my time is currently piddled away on little tasks around the house, or worse, just wasted on various activities.  I spend a lot of time playing with my son, which is great, but when he is in school, I don't maximize my use of that opportunity for more productive activities.  And I have little outside of my own family that I am responsible for, and interestingly enough, I don't feel very fulfilled.  My family is fulfilling in a certain way, which I expected.  But I didn't anticipate that I would feel a need for more than that.  But it makes sense, because God created us to do more than just that.  And while you can't let things get out of balance the other direction and ignore your family, there is more to be done out in the world.  I just have to figure out exactly what.

Body vs. Soul

I have been thinking a lot about the difference between our bodies and our souls recently.  Partially because of a friend's exploration of theological views of hell, with the resulting conversations, and partially due to the will and trust process, which involves indicating plans for what should be done with my body after I die.  In one sense, it doesn't matter what happens to my body after I die, as I will be gone, or no longer using it.  But it is also an important part of me in the present, and so it feels like it should be in the future, or it is in some way intrinsically tied to our identity.

In reality I believe that our soul (and spirit) are the more significant parts of our identity once we die (our physical bodies die).  But intuitively it is hard to disconnect our identity from our body.  I know little about the details of exactly what happens to our souls or spirits when we die, but I have a reasonable understanding of the options for our body.  The two most common options are burial or cremation.  Burial used to be far more common in western culture, which is why there are large cemeteries found in any area that has been inhabited for a long period of time.  That has become more expensive in recent times, leading to increased popularity of cremation.  Burning the body decreases its mass, for cheaper long term storage and memorialize, or the ashes can be spread, removing all identifiable traces of the body, but making it one with the area it is spread in.

My grandfather is my only recent ancestor to be buried, with the rest of my grandparents, and my mother, opting to be cremated, and in most cases have their remains stored in a niche in a wall at the cemetery.  It is much closer than my grandfather's veteran's cemetery, but I have still only visited once since they were interred there.

I didn't really have a strong preference on the matter, as neither seemed appealing: rotting in a box, or being consumed by flames.  But I read an article by John Piper that was fairly opposed to cremation for Christians based on the idea that burning bodies is too similar to hell from the flames and death sense, and that it showed less respect for the hope of resurrection at the end of the age.  Now no one is claiming that God is not powerful enough to re-constitute a cremated body, and we might be getting brand new bodies anyway, but it is still a powerful metaphor for the living who are seeing the results of the practice.

That article is enough to swing me in favor, at least for the moment, of being buried.  But beyond that, I have few specific wishes for what should happen in the event of my unexpected passing, besides that I want my family taken care of, and preparations have been made for that.  I believe I should be much more concerned about what happens to my soul when I die, than I am of my body, and I am.  But it is less clear precisely who one influences that outcome, compared to how we navigate the body issue.  I have trouble wrapping my mind around the difference between our soul and our spirit in most cases.

One recent explanation I have heard is that our spirit doesn't even exist until we are "born again," just like our body doesn't really exist as a freestanding entity until we are born of our mothers.  So people who have not been born again have a soul, but not a spirit.  And that soul can be utterly destroyed in the fires of hell, but a spirit can not.  If this is actually the case, I am not sure the functional difference between the soul and the spirit if we do have both after being born again.  And are there people who do have both that don't make it into heaven?  Jesus has some harsh words for Judas's situation, and Paul talks a lot about persisting in faith until the end.  I being born again the ticket into heaven, or is that just the initial qualification?  An important question to be more fully explored later.

Go Forward

 I signed up for a new health service earlier this year.  It is a subscription to doctor access, outside of the insurance system.  I did it because I was having trouble finding a doctor who would see me, and while I still haven't had an in-person examination, I have had a battery of blood tests done, as well as a full genetic sequencing, as part of my initial onboarding process.  The health issues that I was experiencing mostly dissipated by the time I got started with them, having been caused by lactose in vitamins I was taking.  So my urgent issue was solved, but it has been interesting to observe the process of being a member of this organization.  My first and only in-person interaction, when I went to get my blood drawn, was quite the story.

I had been waiting for the Sacramento location to open, and signed up for an appointment as soon as they became available, so in hindsight I may have been their first or second customer at that facility.  The office was in east Sacramento that didn't have a direct route from my house, making it an hour long journey to get there.  When I arrived, there was basically no reference to the fact that I was in the right spot.  I found an office door with the right logo on it, and upon opening it, and found myself looking into an empty lobby with a single stanchion with a sign on top that said "Welcome, Please proceed to the next room."  I could see through an open doorway, another larger room, with a single Conex sized object in the middle, on a raised platform.

So, feeling like I was in some sort of sci-fi movie, I approached at and saw a single doorway in the side, with a screen and keypad next to it.  I stepped up onto the pedestal, and saw that is said to enter my phone number.  Once I keyed it in, it told me to enter the code I had just been texted.  My phone buzzed, and once I had entered the code, the door unlocked, and slid open to the side.  I stepped inside, and the door slid shut behind me.  Inside was a larger screen in a wall that obscured my view of the rest of the room, but when I peeked around it to the left, I saw a large chair facing a much larger screen.  A voice told me to press anywhere on the screen to continue.  I walked up to the large screen and touched it with my finger.  No response.  The voice continued to prompt me to touch anywhere on the screen.  I pushed harder, but no luck.  Great, I am locked in a computer controlled box that is erroring out.  How do I even get out of here?  I went back to examine the door, and noticed the screen I stepped around when I came it.  In a moment of inspiration, I touched it. "Welcome Michael..."  Finally, we are getting somewhere.  I was worried for a minute there, but maybe this will be fine.  "...and place them on the hooks to your left.  When you are ready, step onto the circle in front of the chair, to prepare for the body scanning process."  Wait, did it just tell me to take my clothes off?  "Repeat!"  Nope, not voice activated.  I think it just wanted me to take my jacket off.  I'm not sure, but I am going to error on the side of less embarrassing misunderstanding.  So I took off my jacket, placed it on the hook, and stepped onto the circle.

I was prompted to spread my arms, and unexpectedly, the circle I was standing on rotated either direction as cameras, created a 3D model of my body on screen.  It was definitely lumpy and "clothed" but that ship had sailed.  I was then instructed to sit down and watched a presentation about what was possible to do with the health information they were gathering.  I knew that a blood draw was coming, and was very conscious that there was a panel in the wall to my left, and I was just waiting to see if some robotic arm came out of it to work on me.  It is a bit of a blur, but the chair may have taken my blood pressure, which would have been artificially elevated at the thought of what may be to come.

Eventually I was told that is was time for the blood draw, and that "Maxine" would be assisting me.  As a GTC attendee, I am aware that is the name for one of NVidia's AI assistance technologies, so this didn't settle the question of whether a real live person would be involved.  It then warned me that Maxine would be entering from the left.  A door in the wall opened, and thank goodness a human being stepped through.  After introducing herself, she began to prepare me for the blood draw using gear from a drawer that had extended from the wall next to me, where I was anticipating a robotic arm potentially appearing.  I told her I was relieved to see another person in this isolated little chamber, and confirmed that I was in fact supposed to keep most of my clothes on for the body scan.  "It is probably less accurate that way, but my job would be much different if the patients were all naked."  She asked me about the camp on my T-Shirt, and chatted, presumably to distract me, as she proceeded to get the sample she needed.  She told me there would be a couple more things to do on screen before she left, and then I was once again alone in this chamber.  The system presented a few more pieces of information, and then prompted me to collect my belongings and depart through the sliding door I had entered through.

I glanced around on my way out, without being too nosy.  There was nothing else in the room besides me and this big chamber, so either "Maxine" had exited through a rear door and headed to another part of the building, or she must still be in there, in a smaller compartment in the back of the box, waiting for the next patient.  Either way, it was kind of weird to think about.  On the drive home I concluded that, as an introvert, I could get used to that form of healthcare, but that that would be very unhealthy, from a psychological perspective.  Anyhow, that is still my primary healthcare provider, but everything else has been done with real people, via remote telehealth.  But I am considering moving a more local and in-person solution, even if it costs more.  At least I got a good story out of it.

God Save the Queen

 In international news, the Queen of England passed away last week after 70 years on the throne.  Her official role seemed fairly minimal to me, but she apparently had a greater impact on Britain and it's culture than I was aware.  I did see the Queen a decade ago, within 6 hours of my arrival in London.  I was staying at a hotel across the street from Buckingham Palace, and they were throwing a full ceremony for a visit of the Prime minister of Indonesia that day.  So I saw the Queen and many other dignitaries going by in royal carriages, with hundreds of Cavalry on horseback riding behind them, and thousands of Red Coats in the tall furry hats, with modern assault rifles.  It was quite the spectacle, but that appears to be one of the main points of having royalty, a country showing off.  But they may also serve a purpose beyond that, and we are about to see more about their impact during this transition.

My initial impression of her was negative, based on my original introduction to the idea of her existence during Princess Diana's death and ensuing the publicity.  Similar to Ford pardoning Nixon, her responses at the time were not popular, but in hindsight appear to be wise in the long term.

She also appears to have been a good 'ruler' by most measures, especially compared to others in her role.  It will be interesting to see how her much less popular and respected son Charles handles the throne, and if the position survives to pass to his descendants.  Which raises the question: should that position continue to exist in the modern world?  My initial reaction is 'no,' based on my values for freedom and assumed equality.  I am fairly opposed to nobility and royalty being determined by birth, instead of everyone starting out equal and moving from there.  But they may serve some useful purpose, when compared to the polarized politics in America, royalty appears to have a unifying effect.  The UK's royal family may have a stabilizing effect on the country and culture, and I have one friend who believes the queen's influence has been restraining the effects of "wokeness" on British culture, compared to the rest of Europe.  They exist outside of the political party structure, and have just enough power to be relevant, but not enough to be in danger of becoming tyrannical.

The one aspect I think may need to be adjusted, is the level of ostentatious excess involved.  Charles' 100 staff members may be laid off as he inherits the queen's 541 household staff.  Couldn't that be cut by 90%, and they make due with 50 staff members?  And not everything in sight needs to be made of gold, and inlaid with jewels.  An austere royalty would be an interesting concept, vested with power but not wealth, in the service of leadership.  But then we find ourselves with the question of how are these austere leaders selected?  The one benefit of the current hereditary system is that they have been groomed from birth for the position.  Another option would be a pool of high achievers, who are then chosen from at random, once meeting a certain qualification. (Maybe military service, an advanced degree, and a few other specific accomplishments to apply)  America did something similar for choosing astronauts, why not leaders?  But to be clear, they would only be vested with a limited power within a divided government, maybe a fourth branch.  The UK basically has a symbolic branch of government.  But much of the benefit should be achievable without the same level of expense and waste.

And that extravagant wealth is relevant to the question of what is next for the UK.  If they were to abolish the monarchy, what would happen to all of those assets?  What would be a fair way of handling the billions of dollars currently controlled by the royal family, outside of the British tax system.  The palaces can continue to be museums and tourist attractions, but the other assets and holdings would need to be dealt with.  And while the surviving members of the house of Windsor should not be dumped on the street, it would be hard to justify their current wealth.  It will be interesting to see if the new monarch is worth the expense.

Large Organizations

I have always preferred smaller organizations over larger ones.  I chose the smaller boy scout troop in my home town, the smaller high school in the area, a small college instead of a large university, and deliberately sought work at a smaller company instead of a large corporation.  One of the reasons I dislike the government is that it is an excessively large organization.  Part of this is because I don't like larger organization is that I don't like dealing with strangers.  It's not that I don't like people who are strangers to me, its that I don't like the awkward process of interacting with them before I know them.  And there is less of that in smaller organizations.

If I go work somewhere with 10 employees, I will likely know them all by the end of the first day, and importantly, they will know who I am.  If I go work at a company or facility with thousands of employees, I will likely be interacting with people I don't know, on a regular basis throughout my work day.  There is also the aspect of excelling in one's environment, and while I have been the top student of every school I attended, I was not as confident that would have been true if I had reached higher and bigger.  There is nothing wrong with not being the absolutely top performer, but I have been told that likely would still have been true in a larger university, and at the very least I could have benefited from having real peers.  But maybe I lacked the ambition to take on the larger challenge, and was stressed about all of the strangers I would have to deal with.

While most of my professional work has been with small teams, I have done work for large companies on a number of occasions, but it was always more stressful than smaller environments.  Same with working onset, which always involves large numbers of people.  But having just successfully completed my second project with the world's largest company, an having found that to have been a largely positive experience, I have been re-examining that idea.

The first time I ever applied for a job in a large company was a couple months ago, and while I did not envision taking the position if it was offered to me, I was at least considering the idea, and wanted to explore the process.  I didn't get past the first round of interviews, which was bit surprising to me, but it was a good reality check.  I recently discovered that I (loosely) know the guy who got that job, and he more closely fits the corporate mold, and has held similar positions in the past, while I have not.  It was interesting to come upon that piece of information, and process the various implications.  If I had gotten (and accepted) the position, it would have been a huge boost career wise, but would have likely come at the cost of my variety of other ongoing roles.  It would have been challenging to adapt to certain responsibilities in that role, but I believe I could have done that very successfully.  But more importantly, it presumably would have provided me with a steady stream of technical problems to solve, which would be fulfilling in its own way.  And it probably would have connected me with a lot of other things that are going on in the world of media and workflows.

Maybe having that job would have turned me into a corporate guy, with a very different perspective on things.  While it would have boosted my career path, that is never something I have been overly concerned with.  And it seems at odds with other changes I am looking at making in life.  My current flexibility allows me to do a variety of different things, take summer off for ropes course trips, and volunteer to help various ministries.  That flexibility doesn't matter if I don't take advantage of it to help others when I can, but I have been getting better at that, and feel called to lean farther into that process.  Working for a large company would remove a lot of my current distractions, but would put some solid boundaries around what I could be doing in other faucets of life.

So while I would be willing to make some major sacrifices to accommodate working on The Chosen or something similar, because I believe God is calling me in the direction, that doesn't mean I need to be willing to make those sacrifices to fill another role.  But I also need to learn not to discount the idea of being part of a larger organization out of hand, because maybe that is what God will be leading my towards at some point in the future,

The Supreme Court

I have rarely been a huge fan of contemporary Supreme Court decisions.  I suppose the Bush election one was positive, but a bit sketchy, and the Hobby Lobby win was great, but it has mostly been bad news coming from the court as far back as I can recall.  But there have been a string of positive developments, and nearly a daily basis recently, that are worth noting.

It started with the decision against New York's overly restrictive gun laws, which had been rescinded in an attempt to prevent a ruling against them, but the Supreme Court acted anyway, to strengthen protections for the 2nd Amendment.  While this seems very tone deaf given the media's current narrative about gun violence, I am confident that it will be positive in the long run,  If the statistics about 10K gun related homicides annually are accurate, it would still take 1000s of years to at that rate to see the number of deaths we see in China in the 50s or Russia in the 40s, after they disarmed their populations.  While each of those deaths is a tragedy, I would choose the current hundreds or thousands of deaths over millions of deaths at the hands of tyrannical governments every time I have the opportunity.

Next came the historic overturning of Roe vs Wade.  Now while many would act like this decision was a ban on abortion, all it did was remove a previous ban on legislation limiting or restricting abortion.  And trigger laws that did go into effect as a result of that decision were the result of the legislative process, which is how laws and rules are supposed to be made.  The existing "rules" were not laws, just legal precedent set by previous cases, which had been determined not be interpreting existing laws, but creating new rules from scratch.  The Gay Marriage decision was similar, not base on any existing legislation, just making up something new.  The court is charged with "interpreting" law, and the one thing an interpreter can not do, is change the definition of a word.  (Imagine how that would affect a financial negotiation taking place across a language barrier.  To 'interpret' is to accurately translate and communicate the speaker or author's intent into a different context or language.)

Lastly, there is the case of the coach who was fired for praying on the field after a game.  I have read some theological views again the value of public prayer, which I can get behind.  But that doesn't negate the "freedom" to do so in a free country.  I would truly be opposed to the coach requiring his players to join him, but even his opponents don't accuse him of that.  Their closest claim is basically that peer pressure encourages the players to get on that bandwagon, which might be true.  But no one had a constitutional right to be protected from peer pressure, each is still free to make their own decision in those situations, and be judged by their "peers" as a consequence of their actions.  And that also leads us into the question of what constitutes religion?  Is basic theism religion?  If so, "In God we trust" would be unconstitutional.  But, if so, logically it would also follow that atheism must be treated as a religion, and that would prevent government, and therefore public schools, from teaching or promoting atheism, or anything that stems from it.  Which is a change I believe many liberals would be opposed to.  So they might be better off accepting a narrower view of what constitutes "religion."

Anyhow, seeing positive news coming from the Supreme Court is a nice change of pace, but it will be interesting to see the long term results of those decisions.  But I will take the good news while I can get it.

Discerning God's Will

I have never been one to feel particularly confident in hearing the voice of God.  I recognize after the fact, because hindsight is 20/20, but in the moment, I hear him, but wonder which part of the message is from him, and which parts my mind may have added.  When he provides solutions to complex problems, all at once, after I have been puzzling over them for a long time, it is easier for me to see.  The two examples that come to mind are my return to summer camp in 2007, and the recent surprise party for my wife.  In both cases, I had been pondering a variety of options, to fairly open ended questions, without much progress, when a wild idea occurred to me that allowed everything I needed to fit into place nicely, if it all went according to plan.  And then it did, hence the 20/20 hindsight again.  Similarly, I felt led to reach out to the people at The Chosen last year, specifically about supporting the technology for Theatrical releases.  I thought I must have heard God wrong, because the only way I could envision them doing a theatrical release would be a condensed version of the show once it was farther along, similar to Son of Man being a trimmed down version of History Channel's The Bible mini-series.  So I made my communications more open ended and generic, offering support with technical issues and workflow, which landed me on their "resource list" and nothing else.  At the time I figured I had done my part, if that had really been God's prompting, but when Christmas with The Chosen hit theaters at the end of the year, it confirmed my interpretation of what God was asking of me, even though I may not have obeyed exactly as he intended.

Sometimes it is easier to discern God at work situationally, by the opportunities he provides us, and the doors that get opened.  My career has primarily been navigated by stepping through doors I find opening in front of me, instead of following some master plan that I had from the beginning.  That is true of my multimedia classes and high school and college, my internships, and my first jobs.  I did pursue them, once they were in front of me, but didn't necessarily go seeking them out, and didn't envision them before they were right in front of me.  In a sense, I have been leaving my career growth on the back burner for the last few years, trying to make money as efficiently as possible, to need to spend the least amount of time on paid work, to focus more on family and ministry.  But recently I have been feeling led to use my media and technology talents in much more directly ministry applicable ways, and the Chosen, or similar Christian productions seems like the best way to do that.  But the how isn't as clear.

I spent my 20's focused on getting married and starting a family.  I have accomplished that, and it didn't come about in quite the way that I expected.  Most of the things I did on my own towards that end did not work out, and things I initiated always failed.  Knocking on doors has rarely gotten me anywhere.  My marriage only came about because God opened certain doors in front of me, and I was willing to step through them.  But I have been coasting a bit in my 30's since then, and now I feel God prompting me to do something, that I do not see doors opening for.  So maybe I am supposed to start knocking on doors.  But it is not clear which ones, how hard, or when.  And my previous experiences probably give me an unconscious hesitation to do so.  I believe it isn't that I fear rejection so much as I am afraid of doing it wrong, and spoiling a good opportunity.  I suppose if I had stronger faith that this is what God wanted me to do, I would have less concern about that, and if I was better at listening to God, maybe I would have a better idea how he wants me to go about doing it.  But for the moment, I just intend to keep trying, one way or another, and we will see what God is trying to teach me.  Similar to the getting married thing, if it doesn't work out, it won't be from lack of trying.

Following The Conflict in Ukraine

Many people were surprised by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, to the point of apologizing for discounting the idea, including the Secretary General of the UN.  I am not surprised they actually did it, and can't figure out why so many people didn't see it coming.  But I, and most of the rest of the world, have been surprised at how strong and effective Ukraine's resistance has been against a much better armed Russian military.  Supposedly they have destroyed hundreds of armored vehicles, shot down planes full of paratroopers, and killed hundreds or thousands of the invaders.  They have clearly not only slowed the advance, but even taken back ground in certain areas.  It certainly bodes well for the 2nd Amendment supporters here at home, making their case for the value of an armed populace.  Because this is nearly all being done with handheld weapons, against modern tanks, fighter jets, and attack helicopters.

While I would love for this to be a humiliating defeat for the Russians, I fear that it may provoke them to use stronger weapons to destroy Ukrainian cities instead of capture them, killing thousands of civilians.  I think the use of nuclear weapons is unlikely, but should require a Nuclear response from the US.  (The Budapest Memorandum in pretty clear on that point, even Russia agrees.)  But there are lots of non-nuclear weapons that can cause significant damage, carpet bombing cities, or burning them to the ground.  Hopefully that would elicit a response from the rest of the world, even from China, distancing itself from that travesty which would be broadcast in real-time as Russians repeated it in different locations.  And it might even generate a response within Russia, turning the tides of power against Putin, as many of his allies in Moscow would not stand for it.  But even if it let to a change in power in Russia, it would be an unspeakable tragedy for the Ukrainians.  And while cities were bombed in WWII, weapons are so much more powerful now, that much more damage could be done in a shorter period of time, and with less risk to the aggressor.

I do wonder what the US would do if it detected that Russia was launching nuclear missiles at Ukrainian cities.  Would we attempt to shoot down the missiles?  If not, why?  What would there be to lose at that point?  I also think it would be interesting to use submarines to engage ships in the Black Sea, as there should be some level of deniability there.  If Putin turned around and his Black Sea fleet was gone, that would be fitting.  We don't know what happened, sorry, war is hell.

It will be interesting to see what happens.  I am impressed by, and rooting for, the Ukrainians, but they definitely need our prayers.  And our support in any way we can help them.

Ukraine

I once again find myself writing about major international events as they are unfolding.  This time it is Russia's attack on Ukraine that appears to be in the opening stages tonight, with airstrikes of some sort taking place in large cities there early Thursday.  After that amount of buildup, it seemed unlikely to me that Russia wouldn't follow through.  I can't envision even the intended endgame, but I suppose a new "independent" government loyal to the Kremlin is the most likely outcome Russia is looking for, although they may try to just absorb Ukraine entirely, after Putin's "Ukraine isn't even a real country" quotes over the years.

While it seems likely Ukraine will fall quickly in the face of a full scale assault, I believe that it is possible that Ukrainians could mount a a reasonable level of resistance in the form of an insurgency, but Russia may have counters to that.  In Afghanistan, the helicopters were Soviets strength against the locals, and once they were neutralized, the fight went the other direction.  We need to determine what that factor is in this conflict, and figure out how to counter it.  I expect that factor will be electronic in some form, but I am not sure exactly what, either information warfare, or cyber attacks to infrastructure, or disrupting communications.  The Russians will probably fair better than Americans have against an insurgency, because they are less concerned about the collateral damage they cause.

Obviously one of the main concerns, is that the violence would escalate beyond the borders of Ukraine, and spill into the surrounding countries.  I don't think this is the beginning or WW3, but it is possible.  If the Russians inflict casualties on US forces in the region, even is inadvertently, it could lead to a larger conflict.  I also don't think it is the beginning of another 50 year Cold War, like people were proposing this morning, but I think those misconceptions will have been put to bed in the next 48 hours.

This seems pretty clearly an issue that there is nothing I can personally do about, so I am less stressed about it than some of the other current events, like Australia and Canada's slide into authoritarianism, the general Covid craziness, and the rest of the US government's debacle of everything it undertakes, under its own incredible weight.  But it is disturbing none less, and having a great deal more impact on a large number of people, and nearly none of that impact will be positive.  Clearly something to be praying about.

Afghanistan

While I have loosely followed the Afghanistan conflict for the last twenty years, most of the details usually came out in books years after the specific events transpired.  But as that American intervention comes to an end, it is getting more attention than it ever got while it was happening.  It is hard to imagine a worse outcome after all of the time, money, and blood that has been invested in that process.  It is now apparent that we should have left a long time ago, or never left.  Either would have been preferable to the current mess.  Probably a combination, drawing down to smaller numbers long ago, and leaving a persistent force to stabilize the area in the long term, and give us options in the future.  We have been in Korea for over 70 years, and we don't see any pressure to bring soldiers home from there.  And having an airbase between Iran and China would be a significant strategic benefit in any future conflict.

Hindsight is 20/20, but some of these things should have been foreseeable.  If we were set on leaving, the biggest single mistake, as I see it, was giving up Bagram Air Base a couple weeks ago.  That should have been the final point to withdraw from, as the last soldiers left the country.  That way if something unexpected happened, like the Taliban taking over the country over a weekend, we would still have some level of control over the situation, and some options available to us.  That would have avoided the stampedes at the civilian airport, and allowed evacuations to be conducted in a dignified fashion.  It is close enough to the capital to allow extractions by vehicle or helicopter, and outside the city far enough to allow extractions from other areas.  It would also have given us the option to delay the withdrawal when things went south.  We can't stay in the airport forever, but we could have held Bagram for months.  We could supply it by air if needed, like the Berlin Airlift, and use it as a base for whatever operations the situation dictated.

As it is, I have no idea how it will play out.  Either we will leave anyone who hasn't made it out by the 31st behind, which seems the most likely outcome, or any number of other things could happen, depending on how extreme the Taliban's response is to the situation.  We also need to destroy as much of the gear and weapons we left there as we can.  But I don't envision that happening anytime soon.  It will be interesting to see the political fallout of this fiasco.  It is obviously the crisis of the moment, but the big question is, will it blow over in a week, or will it linger long enough to motivate actual changes?  If there are a lot of people left when the military pulls out, and the Taliban takes a violent approach, it could have a significant impact.  And will those changes be enacted by Republicans, or Democrats?  Or the media could move onto something else, and all of this will be forgotten about by mid September.  Only time will tell.

Forcing People to get Vaccinated

I am in the middle of producing an episode about vaccinations for my online web series.  I wrote the script over a year ago, before COVID or a potential vaccine for it were even on the horizon.  Fortunately the principles I convey in the script are universal enough that they are just as applicable to a pandemic as they are to longstanding childhood diseases.  But there is no getting around the fact that the current situation have upped the stakes of the ongoing conflict over vaccinations.

I personally feel that this is a cut and dry issue, that has little do with science or the quantifiable effectiveness of vaccines.  It is either ethical to forcibly inject people with chemicals against their will, for the potential benefit of others, or its not.  If we want more people to get vaccinated, we need to have a strong case for why they should do so, which is not always true.  By my measure, you are more likely to die from the measles vaccine than you are to die of measles.  MMR vaccine that was given to my son listed a 1/450K chance of death as a side effect, (among other risks) so with 3.6Million births in the US, that would lead to about 8 deaths annually from the vaccine, before we even factor in that 2 doses are recommended.  The last person to die of measles in the US was in 2015, and I believe the total measles deaths since 2000 is in the single digits.  So it appears that statistically my son is more likely to die from the MMR vaccine than from measles, but neither is a likely outcome.  Now if there was a significant decrease in the number of people being vaccinated for measles, it is likely that eventually more people would start dying from measles, increasing the risk of not being vaccinated.  And this would motivate more people to get vaccinated, until an equilibrium was found.

COVID is a little different, due to the extreme variations in peoples reactions to the illness, and the unknown long term effects of both the disease and the potential vaccines.  Both sides can make all sorts of claims that can't yet be verified, and the stakes are much higher based on what has been sacrificed to combat the disease so far.  And because it has been so long since a disease of this severity has come around, that most people have nothing to compare it to, and have no reasonable sense of risk tolerance.

And since people also have trouble comprehending large numbers, the fact that hundreds of thousands of people have died from it can't be properly put into the context of hundreds of millions of people in your sample set.  All of this leads to a highly emotionally charge environment where we will soon have a debate between two already polarized factions, about whether or not to force people to get vaccinated.  While forcing people to get vaccinated is completely antithetical to the idea of being a free country, if the battle over masks is any indication, the media will be pushing it "for the greater good" because "it is not just about you."

Is it the end of the world to be forced to get a vaccine?  Hopefully not, although currently the side effects appear worse than the virus symptoms in younger people.  But it is a terrible precedent to set, against the principles of personal liberty, and according to those who fought the Revolutionary War, the principles of personal liberty are worth dying for.  So we shouldn't abandon them for a slight possibility that it might decrease our changes of getting a disease that has only the remotest chance of killing us.

Election Night

 I am deliberately writing this post before looking into the results of today's election.  I dropped off my absentee ballot yesterday, so I don't have any direct involvement in "election day."  I have been working outside all day and have heard nothing of the news.  All elections are times of uncertainty, but this one more than most.  It seems likely that the outcome will be contested, probably more-so than the issues in Florida in 2000, so it one sense, it seems preferable that one side wins decisively.  But after polling failures in the 2016 race, not predicting the winner with any degree of accuracy, it is even harder than usual to know what to expect.

I would prefer Trump winning, as I see nothing overwhelmingly bad resulting from that, especially if the Democrats control the House, and possibly the Senate.  If Biden wins, it is likely that the Democrats will control Congress as well, leading to few restraints on their publicly promised abuses of Federal power, to attempt to control the pandemic, the climate, the economy, and the culture.  I for one, do not want to see America "transformed."  It is possible that nothing terrible would happen under Biden, but it is also possible that Harris would end up in power, which is not a pretty picture.  The Democrats could pack the court, ignore or overturn the 2nd amendment, control people's healthcare, surrender sovereignty to the UN, and a host of other terrible things for American freedom.  Trump may be far from perfect, but he has limited government growth in the face of the biggest crisis of a generation, which is more than can be said of George W Bush's department of Homeland Security after 9/11.

At the present, both sides appear to expect their candidate to win, and fully expect the other party to riot in the streets when they lose.  I suppose it is possible, and we will only discover the truth of one side of those claims.  If Trump is declared the winner, we will never fine out how his supporters would have reacted to his loss.  Same goes for Antifa, BLM, and others if Biden wins.  I don't really want to find out either way.  But it is is sign of the unstableness of our society.  I haven't been stocking up on food and ammo like some people I know, but I will be less anxious once the result is settled.  Even if the result doesn't go my way, then we can deal with those potentially stressful repercussions as they come.