Movie Review: Avatar

(This article contains spoilers, but they don't matter too much.)

In the world of academia, scholars and scientists rarely achieve notoriety for original thoughts. It is usually those who present an idea built with the support of their predecessors who succeed in being recognized. For example, Benoit Mandelbrot's fractal model of natural mathematics would not be relevant if he had not corroborated the ideas of scholars before him to illustrate his point. The movie Avatar works along the same formula, by combining all of the ideas from the many movies than came before it into a single opus; the spectacular ultimate in "shame on us" movies. At 2 hours and 40 minutes, there is more than enough room for at least five allegorical plot devices, all working simultaneously in natural harmony to decisively proclaim that armies, corporations and human beings in general are heartless, cruel and unnecessary, while all life should be respected and preserved, and all humanoid species in the universe make it a point to cover their nipples and genitalia. Avatar will probably go down in history as the movie that made all those other movies relevant (and yet insignificant in its wake) because it amalgamates them into a presentation that represents a landmark in movie theater experiences.



Let me repeat that this movie is an experience and I encourage you to seek out the best way to view it; in IMAX 3D. A lot has been said about this movie's use of 3D and I find myself complicit in the notion that it sets a standard. While James Cameron's vision is probably more fully realized than 99% of the other directors out there, we can expect to see a boom of in-theater technology that seeks to expand the level of immersion that audiences have when they line up for a blockbuster. That is not to say that the dredge of romantic comedies can be improved by any means. However, I'm not in the business of making predictions, so I am going to focus on what I know already.

This movie is incredibly cool. It makes me sad to think that it will be bastardized for years to come with promotional campaigns for fast food and merchandise. There was a lot of work put into the culture of the alien (or native, depending on how you look at it) species called the Na'vi, which makes empathizing with them easy. They have their own language, lore, and customs, which provides a solid hold for geeks of all ages to emulate them at the expense of sexual exploration. It pains me that anatomically incorrect action figures will be produced, but I have to admit that I am looking forward to the cosplay. I concede that I found myself mildly aroused by the lithe, naked bodies of the Na'vi and I count it among the film's weaknesses that I did not ever see a large blue nipple or wang dangling out in the open. The perfectly shaped behinds and sideboobs will have to do.

The story, as mentioned, is not original. Many people have drawn parallels mainly to Dances With Wolves, while I see hints of almost every other epic movie in existence. I can't even take a stab to point out the "heart" of the movie because it uses so many themes at once. Whether it is an allegory for the displacement of Native Americans or if it is a plea to start being more "green" (blue?) is irrelevant to me. The point is that we've all seen this movie before, but it has never been as beautiful. No amount of spoilers can ruin this movie because by the time you get to the end battle where the bad guy is stopped right at the last moment before he can kill the hero, you've already been blown away by the fantastic visuals that make every other movie that came before it look like Gumby.

I'm not prepared to give the plot a complete pass, though. There are some subtleties, that I call anti-themes, that I paid attention to that bothered me. The first was the obvious projection of primitive humanity on a clearly alien race. The Na'vi are too human. I keep telling myself that this wouldn't be a story worth telling if they were any different, but at least District 9 attempted at least a partial departure and succeeded. The fact that the Na'vi resemble our romantic vision of a peaceful race more than a naturally occurring alien race with no connection to humanity allows the movie to be taken too bluntly as an indictment of the modern white man and his imperialistic urges.

Speaking of too much resemblance, I felt that the animal life of Pandora was also too similar to that of Earth. Owing to the randomness of evolution, I would have expected far more imaginative types of animals. Instead, we get 6-legged horses, oily-skinned dogs and hammerhead rhinos. Other thematic peeves I had were based on the treatment of spirituality and morals. The Na'vi are dogmatically monogamous, while the humans mock the Na'vi link with nature. To me, this represents more lazy storytelling, as the "mother nature" in this movie seems to be just as vindictive as the religious gods some of us worship on Earth. Except that this nature actually comes through when you need it.

While this movie was an amazing theater experience, I do not see it translating to home theater well. The shallow story may not hold up without the 3D effects and superb sound. It is with this worry that I humbly suggest that an unrated version be released for DVD. What home theaters lack in immersion, they can definitely make up for in private titillation. Give the Na'vi some nipples and don't pretend that their jewelry always conveniently covers them - not with all that running and jumping about that they do. Thank you.

Theory of Societal Evolution

My co-worker and I often find ourselves arguing with each other over our differing political ideologies. We generally agree on many issues of necessary liberties, but we disagree on the best way to achieve them. He is a hardline Libertarian, while I would easily opt for a benevolent dictatorship (assuming that I am the dictator, of course). I will, however, settle for democratic socialism. My co-worker argues that a law which restricts any freedom is unjust, while I argue that allowing others the freedom to exploit weaker individuals is unjust. He responds that a truly free society will keep itself in check by the naturally balancing forces of competition. This is a very hypothetical situation he is talking about, but I understand his point. I see it in the distance, obscured by the mists of unattainable utopias. It is because of my empathy for his argument that I've been looking forward to reading a book he's given me, "The Road to Serfdom," and to really contemplating its ideas.

My model of understanding society is moderately complicated: From an observable standpoint, we're always making new rules, laws and customs, seeing them as the solution to the problems of yesterday, today and tomorrow. When a new technology springs up, we create rules to govern it. When a human rights issue rears its ugly head, we slap on protocols to heal it. What we don't see is the multiplicative entropy that creates volatility under the surface of these patches. The more we streamline the surface, the wider the fissure when it ruptures. We make moderate rules under which to govern a diverse population, but the idealism present in human nature drives us away from the middle, polarizing us until we have a fundamental split. The question is not how to avoid this chaos, but how to minimize it.

I have what I call the Lazy Society Conjecture. It is fairly easy to explain: As society becomes more and more complex and diverse, default societal stability becomes only obtainable in absolute environments. There cannot be restful equilibrium within a government comprised of both liberties and restrictions. Going to extremes provides us with theoretical supports on which to lean, providing a standard judgment for any situation, thus making government basic and uncomplicated. Attempting to balance between the two poles of absolute freedom and absolute oppression provides too many theoretical opportunities to make lawful decisions to ever find a "happy medium." When you make a ruling on one front, you are opening yourself up for exploitation on other fronts. Combine this with the natural evolution of human rights, technology and spirituality and it adds up to a fantastic balancing act that a government must perform to keep from corruption. When I think about the goal of society, I consider this along with the concession that neither absolute is ideal. In other words, any utopia requires constant vigilance to balance the two sides.

There is another layer of complexity that I like to add to my conjecture, which is analyzing the steps necessary to convert our current society into the one I wish it were. Currently, our society is a lot like the bundle of wires that leads out from the back of my computer. If you try to disconnect one wire, you need to unravel all of them if you ever hope to completely extricate it from the tangled mess. In fact, the benefit of technology makes society so sensitive to incremental change that any single step in one direction will instantly spur a reactionary movement in the opposite direction. What I'm saying is that a society based on individualism (a democracy of any flavor) ain't goin' nowhere if it don't wanna.

In his lecture about the real difference between liberals and conservatives, Jonathan Haidt highlights 5 pillars of society: Caring, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity. In the end, the difference is simple: extreme liberals value caring and fairness in society way above the other aspects, while extreme conservatives favor all five equally high. Alas, society is filled with people who land all over the spectrum and this diversity is necessary for both the sustenance and the progression, despite the fact that both sides would sooner be rid of the other. Without liberals, conservatives will stagnate and be usurped. Without conservatives, liberals will combust through rapid expenditure of energy without foundation. The answer to the question of minimizing chaos is to embrace a moderate society. Then, once you embrace it, you must fight as hard as you can to keep it there.

More extreme government styles can work better in more homogeneous countries where there are fewer outsiders. I've stated before that nationalism is ridiculous, but from a practical standpoint, it can be utilized by governments to push a single-sided government plan. To bring it all together: a diverse society is naturally driven to a moderate government and both sides must fight to maintain this balance. Winner-take-all agendas from either side lead to structural volatility. As a society, we must embrace the challenge of appeasing both sides of the aisle, as this will reduce the chances and effects of otherwise cataclysmic events. Governmental elasticity must be seen as agility, not vulnerability.

Notice, though, that I do not mention how money plays into any of this. It is a different plane of argument that I will tackle when I visit this subject again soon.

The Year I Grew Up

The year began with me getting fired from my job. I didn't get laid off; I was terminated for bad behavior. Frankly, I was a pain in the ass because I was so unhappy with how I was being treated and how the company never seemed to learn from its mistakes. After almost 2 years at the job (and being the employee with the most seniority, to give you an idea of the turnover rate), I was glad to be released and also terrified because I had been searching for a new job for months already with no success. My wife, Jas, from whom I had already emotionally separated, had been unemployed for several months already. We had moved into a new apartment in Manhattan's very expensive Gramercy neighborhood 6 months prior, and with both of our incomes now reduced to our unemployment checks, we knew that hard times were coming. Our combined income did not even cover our monthly rent.

The previous year, I had received a little shock upon moving into the new apartment when I was handed the moving bill. It cost $1600 to move all my crap a few miles from Brooklyn to Manhattan. This was disconcerting, but not enough to quell my consumerism as I proceeded to acquire more goods to fill up all the extra space that I now had. Life was good when both Jas and I were employed, but when 2009 began with its opening act, the empty shell of success started cracking apart. We began the process of downsizing our lives. We prepared food at home, relied on our Netflix and World of Warcraft accounts for entertainment and rarely went out to socialize. Rather than be depressed about my situation, I embraced it as the break that I had been asking for while trudging through my day job the previous two years.

The first step for me was to reconcile my ambitions with my capabilities. I knew that I wanted to become a writer and that I wanted to start my own business, but you can't simply wish for these things to manifest themselves. After so many years of complaining that the world owed me a chance to prove myself, I set out to actually work on my ideas. I knew that I didn't have an unlimited amount of time to do this and by May, I was eating deep into my IRA account to stay afloat. I created this blog and made a concerted effort to regularly attend the writing group I had only periodically attended for several years. As far as my business ideas went, I knew that with no extra money, I could not get anything started, but I could use my extra time to do research. I began talking about my plans in conversations more, soliciting reactions from people who heard the concept for the first time, using their impressions to further refine my ideas.

May also brought a feeling of unrest that I was familiar with. I am not a slow burner. If I see my light slowly extinguishing as it burns off the last of its fuel, I would sooner use that last bit of fuel to send out a flare than to wait any longer to see it flicker out. So, with all I had left of my retirement savings, I purchased a trip to Lisbon, Portugal, adding in Paris, France as an intermediate destination. I had a friend I wanted to visit in Portugal and I had always wanted to see Paris. I figured that I could possibly stumble upon opportunities for a new life or maybe just find inspiration in Europe. My mind was open to anything, but I wanted mostly to just pretend that I wasn't going to be broke in a couple months.

The trip began in early June and I spent 4 days walking around Paris by myself. I didn't know anyone or anywhere, but I figured things out from guide books at my hotel and from online friends. The experience wasn't very fulfilling, but it was a huge confidence builder. I did things that I am proud of now that I didn't think were very great then. There was an aspect of Paris that just beat me down, like my internal compass was broken. I usually am a great instinctual navigator, but I got lost so many times that I was close to tears when I finally asked for help. But I learned, and I adapted. I also felt very saddened by the lack of originality in any of the restaurants I visited. Three days in, I had only found one good meal, but it was one that had been specifically suggested by a friend, not one I had found on my own. By my final day in Paris, I was able to walk around on instinct, finally happening upon a restaurant that looked out at the Bastille where I had a damn good meal at last. This is what I do, I told myself, I throw myself out there.

Portugal was enchanting, but I was let off easy. Every need I had was taken care of by my friend, who even became my lover. This turned a trip of exploration into more of a fairy tale. She introduced me to amazing, delicious food, beautiful scenery, and amusing customs. By the time my trip was up, I was considering staying for the hell of it. Alas, the only thing preventing me from making that decision was my oldest sister's wedding, which I was due to attend in just a few days. I said goodbye and returned to New York, where I gathered myself for a day before heading off to California.

My sister's wedding took me from Los Angeles, to Reno, to the middle of nowhere, and back. The experience was relaxing, but the return from the fairy tale of Poartugal had reality setting in on my conscience. The miles I traveled served only to get me closer to the end. I knew that when I got home, I would be nearly penniless with only a week to find a new apartment before my lease ended. There were a couple choices for me, but most of them included continuing to live with Jas. While survival would normally be anyone else's top priority, mine was independence. My decision was made easier by an incredible piece of luck that fell into my lap as I left from breakfast to the hotel room in Reno on my return trip from the wedding. My old boss called and offered me my job back, with a raise.

I wanted to feign disinterest, but who could turn that down being in the situation I had gotten myself in? I landed back in New York with much more confidence than I had before. Jas had been busy selling as many possessions as we could to make whatever transition that was to happen easier. Coming home to an empty apartment was a relief, as I felt that I did not miss any of the things that were gone. Their weight had been lifted off of my conscience and I could move anywhere I wanted without worrying about the crap that I never used anyways. Starting up my old job, however, took away precious time I needed to find a new home. I had only a couple hours each day to check out apartments, which only produced disappointing candidates. Then, a second flare of luck lit up my path clear enough for me to see.

My friend Jordan, who had been nothing but awesome to me since we met on my first day at this job I would be returning to (except that Jordan had actually been fired before I was), dug into his bag of magic tricks and produced an apartment for me. It was small, but in a great neighborhood and it was owned by his step-father. The apartment was being kept as a backup residence, so it had had no tenants for a couple years, so Jordan convinced his step-father to rent it to me, and cheaply. Stepping inside, shrugging off the layers of dust and dead water bugs scattered around, I knew I had found my next home. I also knew what I had to do with Jas.

I told Jas that I would be moving out, on my own. This left her without a job and no place to even squat. My parents, being the good people that they are, offered to take her in while she got back on her feet. The finality of the situation somehow changed the emotional indifference we had been feeling for a year. We spent the last few days of our lease solemnly talking about our fractured relationship, expressing remorse over the different directions our lives had taken that lead us to the point we were at. With these exchanges, I felt myself missing her. It seemed like the first instance in a long time that we had shared our feelings honestly and I suddenly felt like the previous year had been a waste of anger and frustration. We had been living in silence for a year, only to hear about each others hidden affections on the eve of our definitive separation.

There was a final night when we sat talking about our current affections for different people and how they made us happy. Hearing her talk about the enjoyment she felt with someone else that she didn't feel with me stung. When I heard it, I lost my breath and an intense anger seethed inside me. I tried to tell her about how happy I was with my own love, but I felt like I was trying to hurt her more than anything. It was such a deep sensation of lost opportunity that I wished for the last year to suddenly be reset so I could do everything over again. I wanted to right all my wrongs right there in that moment. I wanted to erase any need she could ever have for another man by being everything she ever expected of me that I had once failed to show. There was no way to express this though, and I left for my new apartment. As I bid her goodbye, standing outside the door, I leaned in and we kissed. It was the most delicious kiss I had ever felt. It thrilled me for a single moment. And we were over.

As I settled into my new apartment and my new-improved job, my life started fresh. Self-reliance and personal responsibility suddenly became tangible concepts to me. I discovered all the talents that I had never let emerge when I lived with someone, like cleaning up after myself and hanging stuff on my walls. I could see myself starting to round into a real, responsible person.

At work, my bosses worked hard to assure me that this time around would be different. It took me a while to buy into this, but I appreciated the second chance that they were giving me. This did not prevent me from butting heads with them on several occasions. I was like Steve Irwin teasing a crocodile, pushing back at them every time I felt like they were trying to take advantage of me. I was hired as an independent contractor, which comes with a set of rights apart from general employment, and I made sure to exercise those rights to their frustration. This was to both remind them that they were cheating me by not giving me the security of employment despite my utilization and also to squeeze as much freedom out of the all-encompassing responsibility that they asked of me without said security. Through repeated discussions with the CEO about the nature of business, my employment, and the proposition of mutual respect between an employee and an employer, I gradually cooled down and began to trust that they actually wanted to do right by me. I currently find myself slowly accepting more responsibility and being respected as an authority in my area of expertise. On one hand, I feel like I do not deserve the patience they have shown me through this process. On the other, I feel vindicated for sticking up for myself so adamantly when I felt like I was being mishandled.

Meanwhile, I began using Mint.com to track my monthly spending and my view of money has taken a complete turn from where it had been to start the year. My new rent check is 40% of what it used be, but it is my complete departure from mindless consumerism that is making the biggest difference in my bank account. I no longer find myself browsing for the latest gadget to appease my desire to have the biggest and best. I've decided to live with only what I need (to a civilized degree). I don't even have cable hooked up in my apartment, which makes a pretty useless ornament out of my 52" TV; a leftover from my old apartment that I couldn't bring myself to sell. The result is 40% of my monthly income that I am able to put into a savings account for use in starting that mythical business of mine.

Buried within my budget, I found the money to join a gym. I've always had issues with my body image because it has been very difficult to passively gain weight, and being a walking stick figure is not as wonderful as it may seem. My motivation to begin working out started early in the year, as I hid from Jas in my bedroom with nothing but the floor to do push-ups on and a single weight to lift. This continued once I got to my new apartment and I saw enough progress with my body development to be comfortable in a gym setting. I lucked out once more when I discovered that a gym only 4 blocks from my apartment had 2 basketball courts and a rock climbing wall. Basketball being my favorite sport to play and the wall representing a new activity that seemed fun, I was sold on a membership almost instantly. Now, my body is improving greatly and I am feeling extremely fit and healthy. Climbing is an amazing activity that works all of my muscles and makes me think and strategize while basketball keeps me lean, energized and lively. I don't think I've ever had more confidence than I do now.

As we near the end of this year, my head is clear and I am full of optimism. I might even dare to say that I'm happy. My reading habit has lead to an intellectual resurgence that I had felt missing in previous years. My writing has certainly become a rewarding venture as people sign up to follow my blog and offer their feedback. This all took a few bull-headed moves and a couple strokes of luck. It could have easily ended up much worse, but I find myself breathlessly grateful for taking the risks I have. There are many parts of my life that I am leaving out of this narrative, but they are much more private and still too much in their development to comment decisively now. All that needs to be said at this point is that I'm heading in the right direction.

Harnessing The Power of Uncertainty

The latest piece of wisdom that I read today has been clamoring around in my head for hours. It filled me with such hope and inspiration that I need to share it. First, a little background: my parents are always trying to get me to invest my money in mutual funds. They tell me it is safe and I will enjoy seeing the returns, which are far beyond what any savings account can offer me. I reply that I am not interested in that sort of risk, where I would wager my savings for a modest return and the lingering possibility of implosion. They insist that nothing bad will happen, they even offered to guarantee it for me, but I am too modest to accept. I am simply not comfortable with "certainty."

My particular mindset got a little vindication today when I read the words of Nassim Nicholas Taleb while riding on the subway. Now, while I may be falling victim to a confirmation bias, I can't help but appreciate his wisdom as appealing to my eccentricity. He begins by explaining that there are two types of randomness: positive and negative. Negative randomness is where the upside is modest and steady, but the downside leaves you vulnerable. Consider the practice of lending, where the best you can expect is a return on your money with interest. The worst, of course, is the complete loss of your investment. The downside is devastating in comparison to the modest gains you can get in the best conditions.

Positive randomness is the opposite, where a small investment has the potential to pay off big. Naturally, these situations do not pay off nearly as often, but one success can easily offset many losses. Think about the nature of writing: one could spend a lifetime of obscurity, producing endless works with no recognition. All it takes is one hit to render all of that obscurity into immaterial. In the realm of acting, Eddie Cantor said, "It takes twenty years to become an overnight success." The investment equivalent of this is venture capital, where the downside is a tangible value (your invested capital), while the upside is nearly limitless.

Another way to approach this concept is in terms of visibility. If your upside can be forecasted or has upper limits, like a restaurant's income, then it is more likely that the downside is far more volatile. In other words, even if you consistently gain and succeed, a single error can wipe you out completely. Apply the question, "What have you got to lose?" In a restaurant's case, there is not a single bad day that can cripple it, but rather an outlying circumstance (like a spiteful employee tainting food, leading to a lawsuit, or a new, better restaurant opening a block away) that can do you in.

This lesson can also be applied to the practice of trend chasing. When a trend hits it big, there are many followers, but few ever manage to be as successful as the trend setter. Instead, a ceiling is set for the expectations of the followers. While riding a wave can make a large momentary profit, there is no staying power. Would it not be more lucrative to be in the business of starting trends? For this business, there are no ceilings, only potential.

In terms of happiness potential, I must say that frequent gainful affirmations are far more pleasing than frequent losing ones. It takes a special kind of masochist to appreciate the beatdown of loss after loss, always in search of that one win that will make it all better. There is no promise that that win will ever come, so why not settle for smaller, easier victories? It really depends on the type of person that you are. There are also strategies to offset your frequent losses in one area with frequent, predictable gains in another.

I will demonstrate how I do this in my own life. My writing is very important to me, I enjoy it immensely and I hope to one day be something that I can refer to as "a writer" when asked. For this to happen, I would like a little success, but I know that there are many writers just like me and luck has just as much to do with my chances as perseverance. I have to prepare myself for the grind. I will write and write and write, but without feedback or appreciation, it can get tiring. My offset is a different activity in my life where I get frequent positive feedback and I observe daily progress: climbing. When I climb, I can see my strength and skill develop. I see progress every time I go and it is absolutely satisfying.

Whether you apply this idea to investment, business, career choices or hobbies, it is a very solid set of ideas to consider. Understanding the risks of any venture you get into is the ultimate key to success. The risks I am referring to are not the statistical chances of success - these are immaterial and never work out. Rather, the risks are measures of what you're willing to lose and how much you're looking to gain. Is life a journey or an adventure?

It's About Perspective

Arguing for or against the existence of god is funny. An atheist will say that the complexity of life is proof that there is no intelligence behind it, while a believer will use the same point to claim that there must be intelligence. I would like to make a quick point about arguments and how the same information can be used to back many different points of view. This can be a lesson in temperance, as evidence is convincing, but it is rarely as conclusive as we'd like think. Another way to look at it is as a lesson in uncertainty, as evidence only holds up as far as we can see, and no further. Consider this hastily prepared graph, which represents the evidence we have:

As you can see, the evidence clearly points to a logical, linear story that is very easy to understand. Also, it is very easy to draw conclusions from. Apply this to all the evidence you look for in, say, determining if your friend has a drug problem or if god exists. You can also think about it as your points in a debate. It all fits together so nicely.

Or does it?

I'd argue that this graph represents reality more than the one above it. With life taking many crazy turns, coincidences happen with regularity. More so if you're looking for them. Picking out the few points that appear to line up to aim in a certain direction seems like the wrong way to go about things. There is an entire body of silent evidence that is being ignored. It's like killing a whale for only its teeth. Then, another way that coincidental evidence plays with our heads is when we try to predict what comes next. We see these events all pointing in one direction and we mentally extend that line into the future... and then reality actually happens.

We have to be careful not to extrapolate too much information out of an empty scenario. On the other hand, what good is any knowledge if we cannot apply it and prepare? Many times, it is a futile exercise. Consider the sale of terrorism insurance after 9/11. Ignoring that life and property insurance already covers terrorism, the idea that terrorism would once again hit home, where even citizens were being scrutinized, was absurd. Rather, 9/11 fallout hit us where we were not looking at all; auto-related deaths increased as a result of fewer people using mass transportation. There is something about free will that those who possess it rarely grasp. It seems that the very act of predicting something almost guarantees that it will not happen. Is that god keeping us on our toes or is it simply an unadmitted lack of foresight? A cosmic carrot on a stick or a basic human imperfection?

This brings me to an idle curiosity that I hold about the authors that I read. I do not read about atheism, nor do I search for points that reinforce my current stance on the subject. I do, however, pause after each point I read and play with it in hypothetical scenarios. Most (perhaps all) of what I read seems to point toward the lack of an intelligent creator. My curiosity is if the authors I read share this idea or if they have taken the same points (that they themselves made) and use them to back their belief in a god. It could be that someone intelligent enough to write these books could at the least consider themselves agnostic - after all, science is about the search for knowledge, not the application of it (that's engineering). It might be safer to at least assume that the author was merely commenting on a small area of knowledge and is not comfortable with applying it to a broader concept. A knife used to cut metal should not be used to spread butter.

The Problem of Defining Atheism

A too-common detraction from the concept of atheism is that it is a belief system and thus a competitor to religion. This is why Christians get angry when they can't display nativity scenes or the ten commandments on public property; they think that some OTHER religion is winning out over theirs. When put in this light, the difference between atheism and religion is a delicate dance of logic in which semantics are extremely important to get right. The first declaration that must be made is that belief and religion are two different things to be considered. All religious people are believers, but not all believers are religious. This is probably best illustrated by a venn diagram in which "Believers" is a large circle with "Religious People" as a smaller circle entirely inside it. "Atheists," depending on your degree of pedantism, can either be a larger circle overtaking everything, or a circle that exists outside the "Believers." Some people say that a Christian is an atheist in relation to other gods, which would mean that all believers are atheists in some context. Personally, I think this reasoning is too punctilious and I prefer to view atheists as that outside circle.

The semantics of atheism are so specific that even many dictionaries have it wrong. (Hear me out) Merriam-Webster defines atheism as either a disbelief in the existence of deity, or the doctrine that there is no deity. The Random House Dictionary says that it is the doctrine or belief that there is no God, or it is disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. Both of these definitions are incorrect because they include language that insinuates denial and/or assumption. As an atheist, I'm thinking that either they are wrong or I need to come up with a new word because that is not what atheism is. Wikipedia gets it much more accurately, noting that in the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities. This is exactly the trouble with understanding atheism: even the authorities of our lexicon misunderstand it. I am here to wrest this important word from the clutches of authority, whose intentions we cannot assume.

One reason for atheism's skewed definition is the origin of the word, which we cannot escape from. Atheists have always been outcasts within society, suffering through periods of vilification and eradication. It is no wonder that the etymology is presented from a theist's perspective, as the survivor writes the book. We should at least be grateful that "atheist" is no longer synonymous with "heathen," as it used to be. However, this knowledge only means that even more progress has yet to be made. The problem is that pressure from all sides is always on the impartial observer to see a concept in a certain light. Believers (or, more adamantly, religious people) view atheism as a rejection of their beliefs while atheists see themselves not as anti-theists, but as realists. In other words, we cannot reject something that we cannot observe. Dictionary publishers would have to choose between these two perspectives for their definition. So far, they're siding with the theists.

If belief were to be expressed in mathematical terms, atheism would equal 0. The misconception is that it is more like -1, but this assumes that there is something tangible that is being denied. Atheism neither assumes nor denies anything. The only thing relevant to atheism is that no god has been proven to exist. If any god was proven to exist, then believing in them/it would be a no-brainer. Belief is a bridge between what there is and what we think there is. Atheism has no bridge. Faith is a word often used in place of belief, which is a lot more telling of its nature. Faith relies on trust and trust is a substitute for delivery. Atheism does not trust and requires delivery to be sustained. Without evidence, there is no basis on which to claim that god exists. This is why atheism is not a belief or set of beliefs, and thus, by extension, not a religion at all.

My proposed definition: Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of any supreme being.

Afterward: My hope is to settle on a single definition as a society, but there are always going to be a few fringe subsections who refuse to play along. Consider Conservapedia, which provides hilariously biased definitions of terms you never knew could have such insidious underbellies. Its definition of atheism is 100% focused on denial. Obviously, Conservapedia's goal is to filter as much information through the stereotype of a god-fearing neo-conservative nationalistic American. It is even afraid that the bible is too liberal (and I find it oh so ironic that it uses the MediaWiki platform, which was developed for Wikipedia, the antithesis). If the definition of "happy" is a positive thing and you want to make it negative, there is nothing I can do, is there?

Anecdotes About Expectations

I do relationship advice, too. This week, we tackle the dreaded "friend zone." Taking a break from the heavy mental lifting that is usually involved in writing these blog posts, I have a few stories to tell that center around expectations. I want to bring them up because it is an eternal trend to be demure or even disingenuous about intentions, like when a guy wants to escape the friend zone or when a girl expects the guy to stay put in that zone without telling him up front. People often feel like they can't have any fun or success if people are aware of their motives. The truth is that you will rarely succeed without the graces of your desired mate, so it is advantageous to make your intentions known from the start. The names in these stories have been changed to protect the innocent. The guilty retain their names.

Part 1: The Admin Killer

I run a large discussion forum that has been online for 8 years, so you can guess that there is plenty of history to tell. One of the more amusing stories revolves around a girl that I call "The Admin Killer" because of her propensity to get involved with the management of the site and subsequently drive them out of service. She is an unbelievably beautiful girl (I met her in person once, so trust me on this) from Finland and we shall call her Triple. Many years ago, she was introduced to the site and began making friends through our makeshift webcam feature. One of her first friends was a site administrator named Bear, who lived in Arizona. (Bear wasn't a big hairy guy, he just named his account after his dog.) Bear, seeing the friendship blossom, offered to fly Triple out to Arizona so she could hang out with him and see the wonderful state of Arizona. If that doesn't sound creepy, you must be a really beautiful girl from Finland.

Triple had complete trust in Bear's intentions as a friend who wanted nothing more than just company and the opportunity to be a tour guide in his own back yard. Things went well when she landed, and for the first few days, she was having a great time in a totally different climate than what she was used to. The mesa was amazing and the Grand Canyon was spectacular. I believe it was the night when he brought her to his mother's house for dinner when things started to fall apart. Imagine you are with someone who was nothing more than a friend to you and you are meeting their family for the first time in a strange land. Then this person announces that they are going to marry you. The world flips inside out right at the point in space where you are sitting.

Of course, Triple had to let the poor guy down in front of his mother and sister. The embarrassment resulted in Bear's immediate and complete absence from the forum. (And he was only the first Admin to leave the site because of Triple...)

Part 2: The Mystery Man

Another member of my forum, we'll call her Icky, had a misunderstanding of her own. She and I had a little friendship going ourselves, but when her fiance of 6 years broke up with her, I was too far away to offer any real comfort. I happened to have a trip planned (for other reasons) to her side of the country a couple weeks from then, where I was to stay with another member of my site. I wanted her to come and see me when I was out there, but she had plans in the meantime. Icky invited another friend of hers to keep her company while she got her mind off of her devastating heartbreak. This friend, who she called "Mystery Man" on her blog, was nothing more than a platonic buddy to her, but he obviously missed the memo. 

I read her nightly blog entries that described this Mystery Man as an embarrassing muscle-bound socially inept nerd who showed up at her door expecting sex. He treated her with growing impatience as their "friendly dates" led to nothing more than a hug and a good-bye each time. His humor was stale, referencing his "girlish figure" and war stories of winning a basketball game with an injured knee. He would climb trees to impress her and exhibited alarming anger with waitresses who forgot to leave out the ice from his Coke. Each time she opened her door to see his erection pressing against his too-tight jeans, she wanted to puke. By the final day Icky had had enough and she refused to see him. He stayed in his hotel room and drove back home.

The kicker of this story is of course the moment when Icky revealed to me that Mystery Man was the guy I was about to stay with on my trip. Understandably, she did not want to come see me and I had to suffer through a week with that guy as my host. (Can you say, "epic cock block?")

Part 3: The Lesson

If the men in the two stories had been prepared by their lady friends on what to expect, we probably would not be laughing at them now. Ladies, save yourself some grief and tell your male friends what they shouldn't be expecting. While it may sound a bit standoffish to lay the rules out up front, there is some serious pain in store for the person who is running out of bounds. In my experience, this actually helps to relax a situation and de-stresses a budding friendship. This doesn't mean that there is no room for romance; in fact a man who understands his role probably has a better shot in the long run than one who thinks he'll just surprise her with his affections

Movie Review: Up In The Air

On my way to the theater (2 blocks from my apartment) I was debating to myself if I really liked George Clooney. He's always a meta-parody of the role he's supposed to be playing, like he buys into his character a little too deeply. Up In The Air is no different, as it has Clooney playing a jet setter who is just a little TOO comfortable with his role in life; confining his circle to temporary relationships, finding comfort in fake customer service and corporate loyalty. Critics have said that this is a good movie to represent current times, but I find it hard to imagine that someone so well-adjusted yet detached from common humanity can actually exist. It is clear that Clooney's character, Ryan Bingham, is a product of brainstorming to create a construction of modern fake values as expressed through advertisement and not based on a real human. Alas, I concluded that I liked George Clooney because he pulls off self-deprecating goofiness with so much charm that it never gets old, even if you see it in every role he plays.

Up In The Air is a tale of Ryan Bingham (Clooney), a corporate axe man for hire who is in constant motion, flying city to city to perform layoffs with his own personal touch. Throughout his travels, he meets up with fellow jet setter Alex Goran (played by an incredibly attractive Vera Farmiga) who is caught up in the same temporary culture that he feels so at home with. The two compare schedules to arrange brief hotel room romps, but you can sense a deeper connection that will drive the story in its later stages. Ryan's perfect routine is interrupted when a newcomer to his firm, Natalie Keener (a not-so-attractive Anna Kendrick), proposes a new way to perform layoffs around the country without all that bothersome travel. When he complains, Ryan is saddled with Anna as his apprentice and he takes off to show her how his job works in real life. A lot of humor is made out of Natalie's ignorance, which leads to scenes that tend to escape from the story, including a guest appearance by Young MC.

If I had to give this movie a rating, it would be a 9 out of 10. That one point would be for the grievances listed above, which would normally count for more detraction, but I am not sold on my own criticism. I appreciate what a movie is; a fairy tale with a moral. Sometimes you need to exaggerate and polarize characters in order to entertain throughout the telling of a story. Kendrick's character, in the same way Clooney's is a hyperbole, is another meta-parody of the brilliant-but-realistically-clueless Ivy League grad. She experiences a number of meltdowns which are comical than they are emotional, but they also frame the growing story between Ryan and Alex nicely.

I appreciated Up In The Air for its bittersweet story that is more bitter than anything. Even if you take out all the brutal layoffs, there are still enough hard-to-swallow interactions that reflect more on reality than the plot setup. They are heavy punches that get heavier as the movie goes. I walked out of the theater feeling a little bewildered and introspective. To be honest, I'm not sure if many people will appreciate the way this movie attempts to dispense its morals. Up In The Air is a harsh mistress, standing above you with arms crossed, waiting for its whippings to sink in. This makes 3 really outstanding movies from director Jason Reitman (Thank You For Smoking and Juno being the other two) and it makes me excited to see his next work.

Knowing Can Lose the Battle

Imagine you're a turkey and you've lived the previous thousand days of your life all in the same fashion: the sun rises, you get fed. Taking into account all that you know about the past, you should be 100% certain that this, the 1001st day, will be no different than the rest. Now, if it just happened that day number 1001 was the 3rd Thursday of November, you'd be dead wrong. The expertise of a thousand samples is meaningless in the face of unconsidered variables, and it is the same expertise that narrows our visible range of probable outliers. Another way to visualize this concept: you're at a campfire, telling a horror story to a hyperactive 8 year old. You describe the scene with every ominous detail; the hero stepping through the dark doorway, about to flip on the light switch when... the kid interrupts, "The boogey man jumps out and the guy grabs a gun and shoots the boogey man!!" No! That is what is supposed to happen. This is your story. Or is it?

Our knowledge of things tends to make us arrogant about what we know. I fall victim to this every day at my job, where I blindly call out the most probable cause and solution to a number of technical problems based on a description from a non-technical person and many years of running into every issue imaginable (and just because I can't imagine it doesn't mean it can't happen). I am probably wrong half the time, but the other half of the time I look like a hotshot computer genius, so it's OK. At least that isn't what I really get paid for. There are people who we call experts who perform their most important duties using the same methods and bravado that I solve tech problems with. Market forecasters, school counselors, therapists, and financial advisers all use their ample expertise to take wild guesses. Advice is just a realm of business where you can get paid for simply appearing to know something without having to show results. The truth is that no matter how much you know, the future always knows more.

Arrogance of knowledge is not limited to the amply experienced either. In an experiment to judge the effect of incremental information, two groups of people were shown a very blurry picture of a fire hydrant. This picture was too blurry to identify, but incrementally un-blurred versions of the picture were revealed to each group until the image was a bit easier to see. The end image was the same for each group, but one group was subjected to 5 increments of de-blurring and the other was subjected to 10. The first group (with 5 increments) was more accurate in guessing that it was a picture of a fire hydrant than the second group. Why? People only need a few pieces of information to make a decision, and once that decision is made, they stick with it no matter what. To explain why the first group was more accurate, many of them had not made a decision before the final slide. Meanwhile, the group that was given more bits of information made their decisions midway and used each subsequent piece to justify it. Even if the later increments contradicted their guesses, they didn't revise their initial idea.

We treat our ideas like possessions and we do not like to let them go. Once they are created, they are ours and nobody can take them away from us. This was demonstrated in another experiment where students were given the option to take one of two tests. Test A was difficult, but came with generous bonus points. Test B was easy, but had no bonus. Admirably, 81% of the students chose Test A. Then came the big reveal! It turned out that Test A did not come with any bonus, but was still just as hard. The students were offered the chance to switch if they wanted. Stubbornly, 75% of the students who chose Test A stuck with their decision. You say, "That's stupid, I would have chosen Test A for the challenge anyhow." Well, a control group had 31% of the students choosing the harder test knowing there was no reward, so there are many people like you out there, but it took that initial deception to double that number.

Whether our choices are on what test we want to take or on the big political debate du jour, the amount of information we get in either direction rarely matters once we've decided. If we say we know "because..." then this is more arrogance we are using to shield our egos from alternative views. Then, this tower of information we build up only blinds us to the creeping contradictions. I've always said that I never wanted to learn what is already known. This made sense to me, but not to anyone else. I saw knowledge as this trap that we get stuck in because when we learn the rules, we also play by them. If I flipped a coin 99 times and it landed on heads each time, a statistician would say that the probability of tails on the next flip was still 50%. A thinker would say it was rigged.

How much we know, how learned we are or how long we've been doing something usually only serves to condition us to color within the lines. When a commenter on this blog bothered to insult me in the same breath he claimed to be a part of some Ivy League program, I laughed at the idea of someone taking themselves so seriously. Understanding a little bit of history may not help us predict the future, but it can help us understand radical ideas. History doesn't crawl, it jumps. Spurred by leaps in ideas, events and inventions, our world is driven by the extraordinary. Embracing commonly held boundaries does little to move us forward. Think thoughts that nobody has thought before. Don't be a turkey.

My Ideal America

If I could have it my way, I would reshape this country into something different. What once was the land of the free has become the home of the working slave. Freedom is intoxicating to whole who have it; it leads to corruption when there are not enough eyes watching. We live in a world where every corporation seems to be fingering the loopholes of the laws intended to make this a good place to live. This is a rant. This is a message to everyone, not just the government, but entire chunks of the population. This is my ideal America. In it, ...

... every one is treated with respect and equality.

I'm not asking for money or public services, I'm just asking for homosexuals, blacks, immigrants, atheists, believers, and all other classifications to be treated with dignity and allowed the same public freedoms as everyone else. It is no sweat off my back to accept these people into open arms, why is it so hard for everyone else? Because god says they're bad? Because a bunch of 'em beat up your neighbor? When you oppress a people, you turn them against you. By treating others as lesser beings, you are inducing the very systemic problems you complain about. My philosophy in life is to treat others to a good life so that my life will in turn be as good. Only a blind cynic can doubt that.

... taxes are seen as purchases of civilization, not tools of oppression.

For everything we ask of our government, we must pay in taxes. The platform of reducing taxes for the sake of lower and middle class relief is a false beacon. The focus should be on doing better with the taxes that are in place. I won't pretend to know how to do that down to the detail, but I do know that there is waste everywhere we look. From every war we wage on vacuous concepts (terror, drugs, profanity, etc) to the resources necessary to track every citizen; waste, waste, waste. Every precaution leads to an escalating arms race, but none of it is necessary if there is no problem to begin with. The immense amount of money that can be saved by the relaxation of control can be spent on the actual freedom that we were told we had while growing up. If you want to claim necessity in a large standing army, you must first make the country a place that its citizens are proud to defend. The paranoia is so great that my own tax money is used to spy on me. This is injustice and I am not proud.

... basic necessities are provided for.

As an individual without health care, I am disgusted that my only choice for medical attention is to feed an industry driven by profit. If the problem of wasted taxes is resolved, there should be no problem with providing health care for everyone. Having recently injured myself, the fact that I could not see a doctor because it would be a total hit to my bank account for no other reason than the irresponsibility of the for-profit health care industry was humiliating. I pay my taxes like everyone else, but I am self-employed and the only way to get insurance is to pay close to $400/mo (for my age and location) for it. No fucking way. Other countries have figured this out, why can't we?

... citizens actually care about each other.

Capitalism has killed our kind spirit. When someone begins to rant about their hard-earned money and how the less fortunate can't have any of it, it makes me want to massage my temples. This is economic isolation and it saddens me that people have adopted this competitive and mean-spirited mentality. We are a collective society. No matter how different you think we all are, everyone's well-being is related. A condo in Bel Air is worth more than an ivory tower in the wasteland of Detroit. The term Socialism has gotten some pretty nasty press, but it is too bad that people don't realize how much of our society already runs on its model. Socialism is a necessary part of any society that favors its citizens over corporations or the nation itself. Do not fear for the fate of your dollars if you and your neighbors are taken care of.

... the culture is not based on debt.

The Federal Reserve is a private bank. It is not a government institution. Our nation's entire currency is based off of debt to this bank. Think about that for a while. When you purchase things, you don't pay with money, you pay with debt, and then you spend years of your life repaying.Once you get into debt, your choices shrink. You can't quit your shitty job because you need to keep paying off your interest. You have become a slave to the things you own and to the banks that gave you permission to purchase them. Nobody is stopping the banks from working like this because everyone's in on it. This recession won't stop consumerism because all we've been told about escaping low economies requires us to spend, spend, spend.

... the foreign policy is "live and let live."

It is sad that the US has such a large role in so many atrocities these days. From Iraq, to Israel, it feels like there is some serious money to be made from the chaos. I wouldn't know though, I'm just a regular guy trying to do what is best. So, how can I rest knowing that my money and vote goes toward these wars, occupations and coups? I find no pride in imperialism. It would take a fraction of the budget that we spend on war to completely revamp the education system and fund innumerable technologies across the country. There is no sense in telling the young generation to stay in school while you turn around and send their older siblings to war.

... there is no nationalistic pride.

Nationalism is the most idiotic source of pride that I can imagine. If you were to tell me that I am better than an Iranian because I am American, I would call you a fucking moron. Actually, I have a lot of envy for the hearts of the Iranians who continue to protest, but I do not envy their current situation - which is far more responsible for said "heart" than the symbol stamped on their birth certificates. There is no special bond that you share with your countrymen that you can't get cheering for a sports team. Alas, sports are to war as porn is to sex. You're likely to have more commonalities with a foreign colleague than with a compatriot and the myths about national dispositions are laughably generalized. If this country allows so many people to be taken advantage of by old rich white men who don't give a shit, then there is no reason to have any pride at all.

I cannot imagine any sane consumer-friendly arguments against my concerns, only those that stick up for "the principle" or some submissive citizen mentality. I'll definitely hear them out, though. I think for myself, and I think we should all be thinking about each other. There is no god to say if anything we're doing is right or wrong, so we should probably just be trying to help everyone. Make the short time we have in this life the best experience possible.

Playing With Probability

The soul of a bar bet is a proposition that is easy to judge in its presentation, but has a hidden twist that completely distorts its probability. Take, for example, a wager to see if a patron can throw a flat paper match into the air and make it land on its thin side. Looking at the match, you would claim that it cannot be done, or at least the probability was so low that it is safe to bet against it. That is until the patron bends the match before tossing it in the air. Our grasp on life is like a big bar bet; we see the probabilities that are apparent, but we don't realize that we're missing all the evidence.

One of the starkly apparent weaknesses of human thought is the ability to perceive basic probability. Looking at the universe and our existence on a probability scale is a deceiving process. For you to exist, an immeasurable number of events had to have taken place, each helping to create the condition that allowed the next to occur. Explosions, star formations, collisions, entropy, nitrogen becoming life, organisms evolving, surviving cataclysms of weather, walking, running, hunting, fighting, winning, loving; all over the course of billions of years, just so you can be here to read this. There you sit, like a hand of cards dealt from the galactic deck; what are the odds? Consider the game of Bridge, where any hand of 13 cards has a less than 1 in 600 billion chance to end up in your possession. With odds like that, it is a wonder why every hand isn't a winner. Like any card game, some hands have more potential than others and no matter how the game is played, the losing hands are forgotten despite their equally probable existence. That is to say that you, my reader, were inevitable.

The active agents in our misconception of probabilities are the unseen manifestations of all the other possibilities. A praying crew saved from a sinking ship does not a miracle make. What of all the praying crews who drowned? Who tells their story? As for the probability of surviving, does it not make sense that eventually, there had to be at least one ship to make it? Throw enough ships into a storm and eventually one will stay afloat. Despite the odds that Las Vegas gives to a professional basketball team at the beginning of its season, there really is only a 1 in 30 chance that it will win the championship. The real point is that no matter who becomes the champion that year, there will always be a least (usually only) one. This dispassionate view grates against the epic struggle against adversity that the stories of sports commentary lead us to follow, but emotions are the enablers of misconceptions. There's no supreme luck in picking a single M&M out of a bag of 30. Of course, what about all the things that had to happen in order for the players to grow up with such height and skill to get noticed by professional scouts, drafted into the league and avoid injury well enough to take it to the top? If the Fight Club narrator understands that on a long enough timeline the survival rate for everything drops to zero, why not apply the same concept to success?

The same blindness that makes us think we're special also distorts the history that we found all of our understandings on. I've talked before about the narratives that we assign to history to help us give meanings to our present. What happens when we get those narratives wrong? Then we have to come up with new explanations. At what point do we realize that we're only seeing what we want to see? When do we realize that we just make up stories to fit what is apparent to us? The past that we see is filled with hidden contrary facts that make it a foolish proposition to form any real conclusions from it. The ancient Phoenicians, credited as being the inventors of the alphabet, are not known for any literature that came of it. Instead, historians believed they used it for bookkeeping purposes, dubbing them the "merchant" race. This was a fantastic rope to hang one's self with because in time it was eventually realized that the Phoenicians were a very artistic society with a large amount of literature. They just used biodegradable papyrus.

Basic evidence of our perception of probabilities being more emotionally driven than anything lies in our predictions of events based on hopes and fears. The same person who will play the lottery, may refuse to step on an airplane. Automobile fatalities shot up in the months following 9/11, but all we saw was an increase in airline security. Then, when probabilities for failure are highest, we use blinded history to placate our worries. To counter concerns about the fragile state of our economy, we look into the past and see a nation that survived the Great Depression. Surely, if we can brush that off, a recession is only a scratch. This is where we forget to see all the other nations who failed under even lighter circumstances. This is where we smugly turn our chin up, because we are obviously blessed.

Words That Sound Naughty, But Aren't.

I would like to celebrate words and dirty thoughts by posting a list that I have been maintaining for a while. Feel free to add your own:

dongle
fluctuate
gherkin
philatelist
cummerbund
volva
concoct
pianist
seminary
tipple
rear admiral
poop deck
booby
dike
penal
ballpeen
rectify
titmouse
assonance
uvula
castrato
diction
buttress
masticate
kumquat
shuttlecock
cumin
puss
perfunctory
mandate
boycott
subpoena
exacerbate
ascot
hoary
follicle
coxswain
stamen
rectory
frock
coccyx
dipthong
soda jerk
puissance
ramifications