If I gave you my number.

I've been putting off this blog post for several months. The time wasn't right until now. I couldn't write this until I could use it constructively.

Many years ago, a good friend pulled me back from the abyss. I've held onto her words like a mantra:

"As long as you're alive, you have a future."

Since then, I've had three additional close calls. In 2000, I lost a girlfriend and an internship in the same week. In 2008, I lost a job and my grandmother within two days. In 2010, my wife came out to me and I started my final year at PSU.

Each time, I held onto that mantra like a life raft in a storm. I changed but I survived.

I learned very quickly that divorce is nothing like a normal breakup. It's far more difficult. Divorcing a gay spouse adds additional complication. Whenever I thought I was okay, I would return a stage of grief that I was certain was over with.

When I moved out in April, I set ground rules. I refused to use alcohol as a crutch, I refused to be childish, and I refused to hate. I restricted drinking to the weekends and concentrated on learning to be a bachelor again.

Eventually I accepted that this wasn't done to me. I had no control over it and it wasn't anyone's fault. I was bitter over the timing of the whole thing, but I can't change what has already happened.

Once the worst of it was over, I began rebuilding myself. If I had to go through this, I wanted a better version of myself to be the result.

My attitude was first. Negativity had to go. It was a waste of energy and was hindering my survival.

My body was second. Until this year, I ate badly and avoided working out. The week the divorce papers were filed, I turned 30 and joined a gym. I've been working out and eating better for three months.

So far, I've dropped 10 pounds and a majority of my bad eating habits. I allow myself one "cheat day" per week to eat junk food and pasta.

My spiritual health is third. I'm starting with writing and meditation, but it's still early days.

I haven't made it this far alone. My family and my roommate have helped me tremendously.

If you're overwhelmed and if you feel as if you're losing faith, don't suffer alone. Talk to someone, ask for help, and remember that it will get better.

As long as you're alive, you have a future.

A Book That You'll Never Forget

"From a Name to a Number" is a book that you'll never forget. It is the story of a Jewish teenager who received his education in five concentration camps. After he was liberated, he found himself without a home, country, or immediate family. Most of "From a Name to a Number" is the story of where he went and how he lived after his liberation.

Alters story is tragic and inspirational. He refuses to hate the German people for the violence and cruelty that the Nazis inflicted on him and his family. If Alter can refuse to hate, we have no excuse.

The immensity and deliberate, industrialized cruelty of the Holocaust are difficult to comprehend. We know it happened because the Nazis kept meticulous records. These death camp balance sheets are evidence of an inhuman cruelty that should never be allowed to happen again.

Despite the historical evidence (films, mass graves, pictures, balance sheets, and historical sites), holocaust deniers tell others that it didn't happen. They do this to justify their own racist beliefs or because they despise the attention that society gives to victims. As the Holocaust's survivors succumb to old age, the number of Holocaust deniers is increasing.

An increasing number of media personalities will routinely blame victims or refer to minorities as racists or Nazis. They do this because they perceive victimhood as power, which they crave. If we allow hate mongers to call themselves victims, we do a disservice to past, present, and future victims of violence.

Repeated use of the word "Nazi" on political television shows is a deliberate attempt to change its meaning. If we allow this word to be watered down until it is becomes slang for "nationalization" or "jerk", the Holocaust will be harder for future generations to understand.

Survivors of genocides such as the Holocaust or the Khmer Rouge retell their stories even though it hurts them to do so. They show us their physical and emotional scars to teach us that hatred and genocide can happen anywhere.

United We Stand, Divided We Fall

I was hoping that my next personal blog post would not be a followup to "Playground Behavior".

I was an Arizonan for 16 years. I still have friends who live there. We may disagree on political issues, but we can do so without being disagreeable.

I want to start by making three things perfectly clear:

• Conservatives are not bad people and neither are Liberals.
• Each of these political persuasions has its share of mentally unstable supporters.
• Several people, including a little girl, died as a result of this tragedy.

I know people on both ends of the political spectrum who want to raise families, own homes, and live without the constant threat of violence.

I have no problem whatsoever with a constructive debate on political issues.

I have a big problem with rhetoric that implies violence against other human beings, but I don't believe that Sarah Palin or any other political speaker murdered people in Tuscon. The mentally ill man with the gun murdered people in Tuscon.

The remainder of this post is about the political climate. If you don't want to hear about it, you don't have to read any further. Please support the victims and their families and pray that it never happens again.

When a person disagrees with you, it is never okay to threaten them with violence or to imply violence towards them.

As I pointed out in "Playground Behavior", supporters on both sides of the political spectrum have displayed increasingly violent and hateful behavior. Comments like this one make the situation worse.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." is a great quote, but it's lesson is too quickly forgotten. When injustice is allowed to thrive anywhere it spreads like a cancer.

When politicians and commentators speak without thinking or refrain from speaking when their supporters engage in violent or hateful behavior, they allow the political climate to devolve.

When political supporters physically harm each other during rallies or outside of town hall meetings, something is wrong. The video below this paragraph is from 2009. We should have talked about this back then instead of right now.



When American political supporters engage in this type of behavior, it hurts our status as a nation. How can we advocate democracy in other countries when we act this way?



I also have a problem with commentators who invite advocates of violence on their shows. For example:

Jared Loughner acted alone when he pulled the trigger, but he did so in a political climate that had already become violent.

In his deranged mind, the things he read and saw may have convinced him that firing into a crowd of people was okay.

Political rhetoric that implies violence isn't just immature, it's dangerous. Many of us recognize rhetorical speech and dismiss it because we're used to seeing negative political ads and comments. We should always be aware that some people take political rhetoric literally.

Politicians, political commentators and thought leaders need to be responsible for their words. Those who recklessly imply violence toward other human beings should not be listened to.

What can you do to make things better?

• If you are religious, pray for the families of the dead and wounded. If you aren't religious, please send them your condolences and positive thoughts.
• Don't put your head in the sand. Ignoring this situation isn't going to make it go away.
• Recognize that people from the "opposing party" are also Americans.
• Stop referring to other states as "Red States" and "Blue States".
• Stop using hurtful names when you refer to people who disagree with you.
• If a commentator uses violent rhetoric, contact the companies who sponsor them.
• If a politician uses violent rhetoric, call them out on it. Many of them have Facebook pages and Twitter accounts. If you have a video of their offensive speech, post the entire video on YouTube.

I'll end the post with this video. I am not a viewer of Olbermann's show, but I believe that he makes several relevant points in this video, regardless of his political affiliation. He also apologizes for his own uses of hurtful language.

Playground behavior

After I watched this video, I realized that I needed some context. The best article I could find was from the Charlottesville Daily Progress. I used that article to construct a rough timeline of the events that led up to the video.

1. Jon Taylor RSPV'd to Cantor's event on the senators website.
2. He parked his car, which contained a campaign poster for Cantor's opponent Rick Waugh, at a meter in front of the coffee shop.
3. Taylor then entered the coffee shop with three other Democrats.
4. The coffee shop owner asked Taylor and his friends to leave and they refused.
5. Police officers arrived and asked the men to leave. They refused.
6. The police officers threatened to arrest them for trespassing.
7. The police chief quoted Taylor as saying "Then arrest me."
8. What happened afterwards was caught on video by Taylor's son.

Cantor won't comment on the incident, but one of his campaign consultants called Taylor a thug. I think that this campaign consultant is not helping the situation.

In this incident, it appears that poor planning by Cantor's staff gave Taylor the impression that he could attend the event. Taylor says that he decided to attend the Cantor event because he wanted to debate him. His belligerent behavior implies that his actions may not have been that peaceful.

I've been watching members of both major parties demonize each other since 2004. This is dangerous behavior because it eventually leads to acts of violence. One side will antagonize and the other will respond badly with violence. Both types of behavior are immature.

The man who taught me not to demonize the opposing party was Congressman Dennis Kucinich. I did some local videography and canvassing for his 2004 presidential campaign.

Sadly, Kucinich and other politicians who can "agree to disagree" seem to be in the minority.

Daily Progress Article

Movie Mashups and Jailbreaking Are Legal.

The Library of Congress doesn't usually make news. I don't usually yell "Yes!" repeatedly after reading a news story. Especially one about the Library of Congress.

On July 23rd, the LOC made it legal to circumnavigate technological restrictions on Motion picture DVDs, wireless handsets, video games, computer programs, and e-books.

What it all means:

Breaking CSS encryption on DVDs is allowed if the individual is using the content to create a documentary film, a non-commercial video, an educational compilation, or criticism.

"Jailbreaking" a smart phone is allowed if the user wants to enable a lawfully obtained application. It is also allowed if a user wants to connect their smart phone to a different wireless network.

Videogame DRM can be bypassed if the user wants to perform security testing.

Computer program DRM can be bypassed if access is being restricted by an obsolete "dongle". A dongle is a piece of hardware that restricts usage for a piece of computer software. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dongle)

E-book access controls that prevent read-aloud function can be bypassed if all other editions have similar access controls.

Two examples of CSS breaking that are no longer illegal:

During a recent film studies class, the teacher informed us that watching the YouTube video of "Schwarzfahrer" in class was technically illegal. Since she had no other way to obtain the film, we watched the YouTube version.

During another film studies class, I wanted to perform a shot by shot analysis of a scene from Casablanca. To obtain the screenshots for my analysis, I had to bypass the CSS encryption on my Casablanca DVD.

What this means for the future of cinema:

I was yelling "Yes!" repeatedly because filmmakers like Craig Baldwin cannot be criminalized for making "found footage" movies. I took one of Mr. Baldwin's workshops in 2008 and I learned a great deal. I learned more about culture jamming and image appropriation when I watched "Sonic Outlaws", his documentary about Negativland.

The official LOC ruling

Schwarzfahrer

Craig Baldwin on image appropriation

Some of the Phil Patiris television mashups that appear in the "Sonic Outlaws" DVD extras

Sonic Outlaws Trailer

Printed books for everyone

I just read "The premature obituary of the book." by Mario Vargas Llosa and I completely agree with him.


I often refer to my house as my library. Every room has at least one bookshelf and almost every room has piles of books that won't fit on the existing shelves.


Literature has always been my gateway to the world. The bookless utopia proposed by Bill Gates (in 2001) is a nightmare.


I think it would look like "The Obsolete Man" (one of my favorite Twilight Zone episodes).

If printed books are abolished (fat chance), I'll change my last name to Wordsworth.

The Obsolete Man Part 1

"The Premature Obituary of the Book" by Mario Vargas Llosa

NASA and privatization

My current opinion is that NASA should be slowly transformed into a regulatory agency as the space industry emerges. 

I have this opinion for several reasons.

1. NASA is extremely expensive. The tax dollars that are currently used for NASA might be better used for infrastructure improvements (highways, dams, etc.)
2. Businesses have flexible organizational structures, the ability to attract talented scientists, and external funding (stocks and bonds). These factors allow businesses to innovate at a much faster rate than government agencies.
3. NASA is using outdated technology for many of its larger projects. This is due to its dependence on bureaucracy and tax dollars. The Space Transportation System (which ends this year) received presidential approval in 1969 and was designed in the 1970s. The launch of the Hubble Space Telescope was originally planned for 1983, but was delayed until 1990. A design flaw prevented the Hubble Space Telescope from achieving its full potential until 1994.
4. Manned spaceflights haven't moved beyond low Earth orbit since 1972 (Apollo 17). This fact is particularly important because a new lunar spaceflight would allow the placement of a lunar observatory.

Placing an optical or radio observatory on the lunar surface should be NASA’s primary objective. The scientific advances allowed by a lunar observatory are too important to ignore.

NASA does not appear capable of achieving new milestones such as a lunar observatory. Full or partial privatization might allow new achievements in manned exploration and deep space astronomy.

I've included links to 2 articles on this subject.

The Viability of a Lunar Observatory 
A Concept for a Simple Radio Observatory at the South Lunar Pole