Musings After Midnight - September 2004 to Janury 2005

A Morning of Crying (September 9)

What counts as sufficient crying? I'm at the house of my college roommate and his wife. Their child, Corinne, has been crying for at least 12 minutes now. (I was wakened 12 minutes ago.) It feels almost exponential. Do I step in? If so, when? They must know by know. I'm amazed. How does anyone, let alone someone ten days less than one year old, carry on for so long? Is it because it's all she can do? That's such a physical feat. My natural - base - human instinct is to open the door. How can it be anything but pain? But I forgot to ask.

Does God see us as children that cry so much. I've cried for that long, though not with the screaming. 24 minutes now. I'm imagining scenes of neglect, getting called back - "But I didn't know the difference between trouble and almost dead!" The shame, the turning away of everyone, the loss of my friends, the internal suffering. Forever. Though I doubt that.

If there is a God, the omniscient, good, all-powerful God, how does he (or she) survive this, times billions, every night? I can barely take 30 minutes of one child.

To Corinne, there must be some anger. Where are the faces to hold her and fix her? Where are the faces that hold and fix me? It was that suffering, not as loud, not as intense, but for months, that's been this year. I wanted to be held, and let the pain go away. I want to hold Corinne, make the feeling go away. And I'm reminded of someone who needs the anxiety to go away, and how I wish I had that power. I'm so very close to just grabbing that someone the next time and telling her that. Instead, I offer a brief prayer, for my friends, me, and Corinne.

36 minutes now. There are brief pauses. Is it shameful to be so tired that I wish for silence and sleep? Back in April and May, I wrote this backstory for a superhero with that power. My desired power. Anodyne Man! Take away pain! [Corinne restarts.] But what if suffering was merely transferred, not destroyed? What would happen to that person? Maybe I'll finish that. Right now, I'm reminded of an Emily Dickinson poem.

45 minutes - maybe she stopped? Sort of. So long, so sad. 65 minutes, she is done. To bed.

Postscript: Corinne had just a dirty diaper. Her parents did not hear, and thought she had slept through the night, until I told them. I should have stepped in after about 5 minutes. The miscommunication didn't happen again.

A Moment of Peace (September 12, 5:30 am)

It's cold, and I see stars.

Both of these are strange. I'm here at the Mather Campground, Grand Canyon, camping with Mike, my college roommate, up here at 7000 feet near the South Rim. I can't say it's completely tranquil; we're fairly close to the main road, what happens when you don't make reservations. And the number of stars is decreasing, as the sun gains height - it was maybe 15 when I got up to go to the bathroom 20 minutes ago, now it's just two and a crescent moon. I've been in the city for so long that I don't even know if the moon is waxing or waning.

The sunrise isn't that awe inspiring; it's not like we were camping down on the Colorado or something. And unlike some other groups, I won't go overboard on wilderness as the superior natural versus the city's artificial. For one thing, I like mattresses and box springs and radios and hot showers and towels. For another, I'm less than a mile from high-speed Internet access.

What I'm really writing to say is that I'm at peace, with myself, for the first time in a while. On Tuesday I fly back to Chicago. Then I have about a week to get a thesis chapter together. Quite stressful, eh? I mean that I'm not teetering towards destroying myself - by lack of sleep, lack of food, constant despair, other self-harm behaviors. I don't think I could have said that since early February. Maybe my relationships with others will even reach some sort of normal status ....

It's not to say that things will succeed automatically, like say any Disney movie. There's a good chance my thesis will fail. Plus, as much as I'd like to think otherwise, the depression recidivism rates are not low. What's the choice, though? Like this morning, the sun arises each time - and unless somebody knows about the Rapture and isn't telling, still will for a while. All I can do is rise and meet it. Though not always literally, like today, I hope it'll be peaceful for a while.

Tears (October 12)

And Jesus wept.

When did we forget that? Maybe because it's so short. Even the "longer" version of John 11:35 above, with the conjunction, is still two characters less than 1 Chronicles 1:25.

Maybe because it doesn't match with what leaders want. In this election season, I read about bishops and cardinals advising about voting. I checked my Bible, then to be safe I checked a online source. Only two of the 23 translations contained the word "abortion", and in both cases a person was describing himself. In case you're wondering, they are Job 3:16 in Young's Literal Translation, and 1 Corinthians 15:8 in The Darby Translation. The word "democracy" never appears. Homosexuality appears once in the New Testament, in a list of sexual sins in 1 Corinthians 6. If I counted correctly, the word "wept" appears 53 times in the NIV. Of course, "slave" appears over 100 times, so counting's not the best metric.

Maybe because American society is conditioned to abhor emotions, particularly weakness. I photographed this poster at the Heard Museum in an exhibit on Indian Schools. As part of the civilization process of the Indian, they were taught proper white manners. The good Puritans decided that emotion was wrong, and since America still runs on Puritan emotions, very little has changed. I saw a little story in the Chicago Tribune about crying. According to the article, women average 5.3 cries per month, while men slide in at 1.4. That's not very much. Apparently the poster was quite effective. English professor Tom Lutz wrote a history of tears, and he noted that tears are often a sign of submission. "Since women are conditioned to be more subservient than men, they are `allowed' to cry more often." That sentence is miserable on so many levels.

Maybe because we don't know how to respond. The gospel writer gives a balanced account; some of the Jews remark on the relationship and passion, while others critique him for not doing anything. Many people, particularly men, look at tears with shame. Crying's OK in a very small set of situations: having a broken leg, losing the Super Bowl, and a parent's funeral. Beyond that, it's embarassment and weakness. A lot of other people just freeze up, since crying is not a very common sight in public or semipublic company. That's usually not deer in headlights bad, but definitely disturbing and confusing. Moving up, a small group wants to become mechanics, finding the source of the pain then eliminating it to stop the tears. It's very few that can console, the right combination of emotion and words and touch to aid and heal.

Ten years ago, I was working my school job, inserting security strips into library books and magazines. One of the full-time workers was crying; the prior evening had been a bad meeting between her and her ex [husband, I think.] The other office worker that day was trying to be consoling. I had the frozen look, so I just piled up books. At one point, the crier looked up and asked something like "I must look really pathetic, huh?" I failed. I managed to say something decent, but wound up going back to filing and organizing. That led to a search. I studied; I read; I queried those who listened; I tried to learn to feel and console. I've shown sympathetic tears, and have been called a good listener. Am I good enough?

About a week ago, I was walking with someone who had some bad days, between autumn allergies and the constant drain and depression of this university. (It doesn't surprise me that recruiters constantly say University of Chicago students don't smile.) When she started crying, I knew what the response should be, but I wasn't aggressive enough; I should have jumped in with kindness and maybe held her, but instead I mumbled platitudes and kept conversational distance. She said goodbye and turned down the street. Again I failed.

I can't call this a catastrophic mistake; I made a real attempt, and certainly did better than the time at 19. Yet it's still not enough. I claim to give compassion and mercy, to try to understand the emotion. To try to understand tears and suffering. To not forget that Jesus wept.

Time for Regime Change (October 14)

In three weeks, I will be voting for the Democratic candidate for President, John Kerry. I've been asked about this by several people. The pithy answer I've given is that "I'd rather vote for a bad man than an evil one." To work through my thoughts on this important issue, and provide some ideas for other people who may be making their decisions, I thought I'd journalize a little.

In my mind, there are three factors when considering a candidate: policy statements, credibility of statements, and personal honor. The first one is usually easy to determine. The second is important and straightforward; while one might make statements on this or that, what probability exists of followup? What does the record say? The third is a little trickier. One theory of government suggests that a representative is solely an instrument of voting, and personal qualities don't matter. This seems strange. Lots of issues arise in a House or Senate not in a position paper, and the general principles of a person guide these situations. For an executive, there are also qualities of leadership: Does he motivate well? Does he represent my company, the USA, appropriately? Do we follow him?

Let's start with the last, because a lot of the hatred in the country arises from this area. There are differences. As young men about my age, Kerry served his country in harm's way. Bush maneuvered into a comfy assignment, then performed at most the minimum requirements of that duty, with a puzzling gap. Kerry came back and became a well-spoken advocate, including the famous line "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" Bush has a hazy history of never-denied drug use and a drunken driving arrest. Given my stance on alcohol, DUI is a really big thing. Kerry served as a public prosecutor. Bush served as a baseball owner, a job acquired suspiciously, and hung around with oil barons. In character, I prefer the Northerner.

As little as I like the Texan, character is not sufficient to overcome big policy differences. Let's move to issues. I'll begin with the most talked about set, life issues, abortion (with euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research). Several bishops have stated that my vote for Kerry puts me outside the state of grace necessary for Communion. This is a very interesting and innovative doctrine, in the sense that it contradicts a whole lot of tradition. For instance, the current Pope personally gave communion to a leader of the Italian pro-abortion movement three years ago, and I doubt the Pope is supportive of abortion rights. Cardinal Ratzinger, another person not known for liberalism, provided background in a note reprinted in L'espresso. Ratzinger concludes, "When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons."

There are three critical points here. First, life issues are very important. Ratzinger notes that they are more important than the general issue of war, or the death penalty. Second, I do not support abortion. I'm trying to assist in bringing speakers to illuminate the Catholic position, and hold a large prayer service on the anniversary of Roe v Wade. That decision was two years less one day before I was born. Third, the standard of "Proportionate Reasons" is fairly difficult to meet. Proportionate Reasons are an Objective (or intrinsic) moral evil of equivalent gravity. Both size and badness are important.

For instance, the application of the death penalty by Bush while he was Governor is not sufficient. State-sanctioned cold-blooded murder is not uniformly prohibited by Catholic thought (although it is in mine); in the case where such tactics are needed to protect society, the action is permissible. Nevertheless, the application in Texas does not meet this standard. Jails are quite sufficient; were there really over 150 needs to protect society? Furthermore, the Texas judicial system applies the penalty in a capricious and unfair manner. The evil might be objective, even. But the sheer count is not equivalent to over a million a year. Instead, let's look at three real reasons.

1. Voting for Bush is not fully pro-life with the Church position. The President has repeatedly suggested an exception for force or health. CNN's Voter Guide explicitly states this, which also came up in a 2000 primary debate and the NARAL guide for 2000. His decision on stem cell research can best be described as Solomonic. Despite Republican control of the House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court, very little progress has been made. It is difficult to take abolition statements credibly. In last Friday's debate, the President resorted to code words about Dred Scott instead of outright elimination when he had the chance. Tonight, Bush refused to directly answer the question about Roe v Wade, twice. Voting for the Texan is proportionate reasons anyway, making the debate impure from the start.
2. The occupation of Iraq. Saddam Hussein did many evil things, including the use of chemical weapons in the 1980s and the invasion of Kuwait. The world is better with him not in power. Nevertheless, the justification and methods were both highly improper. The administration's justifications have fallen like dominoes. Material cooperation with al-Qaeda? False. Weapons of Mass Destruction? False. What is it now, corruption in the oil-for-food program? If I recall, false witness is one of those commandment things, and thus objective moral evil. Torture is intrinsic moral evil, too. Most importantly, failing to provide adequate support and protection for the Iraq population is objective moral evil. Iraq has over 20 million people, and right now one cannot say they have a functioning government or adequate safety. That's clear moral evil. It's of proportionate scale. If not, how big a country would we need to ravage? Iran? Italy? Indonesia? India?
3. Market fundamentalism. Over a century of Catholic moral teaching has explicitly talked about the evils inherent in some types of business practice. Practices that reduce humans to units of production, the "economic man" hypothesis, are inherently evil. They deny faith by collapsing everything to rationality. To me, the preface to Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad may have caused more damage than Roe v Wade. (Go look it up.) The multinational corporation, acting without personal responsibility, is incredibly dangerous. Treating money numerically, without considering the lives of those behind the decisions, denies humanity. We've seen the problems of Asian currency destruction, Long Term Capital Management, Enron, and Arthur Andersen. World economics is a large enough scale to be proportionate.
   It's very easy to ignore these problems, because they don't necessarily affect daily life. The supporters even appear benign, since they make no direct challenge to religion. I speak out against the economists, and the Kapitalists, which the Bush administration supports. Market fundamentalism is agnostic, since it doesn't care about God or reduces the Lord to cost-benefit analysis. I consider that objective moral evil. How is that Christian?

Quick blogs from the third debate

• I'm typing in comments while watching on TiVo. Pause breaks are mandatory. Both candidates are on message. 98 times sounds suspiciously like Ferris Bueller and his "9 times". Or maybe it's one short of 99 problems, and Bush secretly enjoys Jay-Z. Bush is speaking better, without relying on the secret box or screaming like the town hall. Kerry is good as usual.
• Kerry unfortunately hasn't changed his mind on abortion. But he does quote James, which is tres progressive Catholic. Bush ducks a direct comment about changing Roe v Wade, again. Proportionate reasons.
• Bush takes a potshot on Kerry's record in the Senate. He becomes more manic when he talks about those things. 5 bills sounded really low to anyone.
• Kerry does not do well on not lowering Social Security benefits, and leaves an opening. Bush instead takes it and defends his tax cuts. He should have attacked the lack of plan, but instead he returns to message about tax cuts. Will the allure of tax relief or the problem of huge deficits reign supreme?
• Bush's immigration answer is good. I think Kerry went backwards intentionally there.
• Bob Schieffer goes for the abortion followup, and Bush ducks again. Kerry nails him. This is happy, because Bush looks like an idiot, but mostly sad, because of constitutionality and Roe v Wade.
• The faith question is quite interesting, and I'm glad it came up. Bush goes personal, typically Protestant. He's stunned, but recovers. Kerry goes progressive Catholic with James again. The tone question and wife questions are nice personal finishers.
• Bob Schieffer asked longer questions this time, which had a few opinions attached. On the good side, he did keep better control than others. Unlike the first debate, there was no obvious winner. Kerry sounded better, but he always does. I appreciate the factual approach. The reporters did not, because they prefer conflict. Both candidates laid out their proposals.

In summary, voting for Kerry is not sinful, and I'm at peace with my decision. I was talking at Statistics department tea with two students from China, and they asked what I thought would happen on 2 November. I said that I expected Bush to win, because the Republicans cheat better. Sure, corruption is lower in America than other places, but in a close election like this (or 2000 and having a candidate's brother control the voting process, or 1960 and Chicago and Texas) even one percent matters. International election monitors in Cleveland and Jacksonville and Minneapolis would not be a bad idea. We'll see in the chaos of that day.

I started what was to be a journal entry, but it sort of grew into a full writing on Romanticism and thus I moved it to its own page.

Daisy Day (November 2 and 26)

Daisy Day is a frontal assault. On a couple of fronts.

Wait, you don't know what Daisy Day is? Oh yeah. Friday night, I placed an order for a hundred stems of flowers. A hundred flowers blooming. White, red, pink, and yellow daisies. Then Monday, I picked them up, and gave them away. (Ok, if you want to be precise, I kept five stems, which brightened my apartment for two weeks.) Gave them to people in church, filled a couple of vases, handed them to budding statisticians, made a couple displays in Eckhart and Ryerson, and the computer lab, even offered them to my students.

Why November 1st? A convergence of several events. First, 1 November is All Saints Day, a Catholic holy day. We celebrate the day of all people in heaven, all our role models. Thus the many colors. Second, on the University calendar, it was Monday of sixth week. In the winter quarter, there's this weird day, officially labeled Undergraduate Winter Break. Just one day, and only for undergrads. No support, or kindness, or activities. Unofficially, it's called Suicide Prevention Day. I decided that every quarter needed something. The weather assisted in mood-setting, with a cold November rain.

• Why daisies? Daisies traditionally represent peace, hope, and innocence. I greater favor peace and tranquility, show alarming innocence in a lot of matters, and need as many reminders of hope as possible. Plus, I can draw them. They're my flower.
• What's the obvious front? An attack on dreariness. The environment where I work is very colorless. Literally, most of the buildings are grey. Flowers are reminders of spring in a place of perpetual winter. I heard the most accurate description of my university recently: Mordor Tech. Tolkien took great care to make Mordor ugly and other parts pretty. While that's not uniform - look at the nastiness of many beautiful people - appearance does matter. Whatever I can do to improve the physical appearance helps everyone, and helps me.
• What about people? Daisy Day is also an attack on indifference. A few years ago, I heard of the Hyde Park greeting. The Hyde Park greeting is where you see someone you sort of know, but instead of a word or wave or even head nod, you turn your head down and to the side to avoid any contact. It's not unique to this neighborhood, but far more common here. People even recognize this, by chalking announcements on the ground. This is unacceptable anywhere, let alone a campus full of 18-29 year olds without commitment that should explore. Giving out stuff increases interaction, and so that's great.
• Why you, personally? An attack on despair. As I continue to reorder and recover from my latest bout of depression, I realized that I should do nice things. Not because that's how I'm tolerated, but because my natural personality is sweet and nice. It's potentially habitual; by doing nice actions, and getting good thoughts, I encourage the development of those in other times.
• Anything else? Charity and Statement. Charity demands no less than actual concern for those who I talk to and pray for. That means conversation, questioning, and support. But occasionally it needs a signal, too. It's a signal of my attitude, in pink and white and yellow and red.

So, did it work? I think so. People were cheerier; the campus was prettier; I was happier. It's not something I can do or afford every day, but it made a difference. And that's wonderful. Not many of these musings end with truly happy endings, so hey! Let's make note of it.

Death Matches (November 9)

This topic is much less serious than most of the articles on this site. Sometimes it's time for silliness. Those of you that prefer personal introspection, or argument, will be happy with the other pieces coming later this month.

As promised, here are my answers to some Deathmatch questions given by Tucker, one of my CCG friends on Team Steak-n-Shake. For those of you not familiar with the rules for Deathmatch, or use the South African Variations, I'll summarize the rules I'm using. The two foes get rigged in full Virtual Reality suits (so this doesn't require real killing; I'm basically a pacifist.) The arena is enclosed, about the size of a basketball court, with a little cover. They can bring any weapons appropriate for their time and place, and any other equipment they can carry, except ranged weapons. Because let's face it, standing fifty feet from each other and firing guns is not interesting. The winner is the champion in hand to hand combat.

1. Guy Montag vs. Lucca: Montag. The rules are unfair to Lucca here. Lucca's the inventor, and usually uses a laser gun. But guns have too much range. On the other hand, the Committee on Permitted Weapons of the International Deathmatch Federation has decreed that the flamethrower is acceptable. That's a huge advantage. While Lucca would rely on her scientific brilliance to develop an equivalent weapon, it comes down to experience. Also, I don't think Lucca's cruel enough to attack Montag's weakness, Clarisse. "Are you happy?" "Did you enjoy the chestnuts?" Like the video games, this lets Kid avenge her foster mother.
2. Esther vs. Yugi: Esther, in an upset. Well, we've got a Bible figure here, and a cartoon character. Of course, Yugi gets to bring his very cool wrist-mounted card shuffler. I'm envious; I want one! Unfortunately for Yugi, he's a CCG player, and so he's not familiar with that weird subspecies: Pretty Girl. As the book says, "she glowed with the perfection of beauty." When Esther enters the arena, Yugi becomes slack-jawed and his arms drop to his sides. That gawkiness is his downfall; the Power of the Deck doesn't work if he doesn't draw. We've all seen what happens, so I don't need to describe the process; it ends with Yugi's first and only kiss, and a knife, a true kiss of death.

3. Mimiru vs. the entire U of C statistics department: The Department. A big assumption here is that I get to control the planning and attack. While the department has about 60 people, maybe 10 have actual fighting ability. So our plan would be to give sticks to everyone else, and send in a mass attack with 45 or so statisticians. (This has eerie similarities to most of World War I.) Mimiru, from dot hack, would easily dispatch most of them, since they're basically 1 strength like Goblins. But 45 is a lot, and since we'd be smart enough not to attack black ninja style, she'd get overwhelmed by sheer beatdown. Then we'd send in the athletic people for the finishing blows.
4. Jeff vs. Condoleeza Rice: Jeff. This is the easiest of the five, really. Not only does Jeff (2nd at dot hack worlds, and inventor of the deck I borrowed to play) have a size advantage over our National Security Advisor, Jeff also has the ability to rage. Let's pick a more interesting national figure. Bush? Never used a military weapon. Cheney? Lots of anger, but the health issue gives Jeff too much advantage. I know! Ralph Reed. He's still pretty young, and clearly has a deal with some demonic power. Jeff would use a sword, and his size advantage, to corner the "Christian" Man. But then some words of Gehenna would be said, a blue fire would shoot from Ralph's fingers, and Jeff would start convulsing on the ground.
5. Spike vs. Sam: Spike, though this depends on motivation. On a straight physical basis, Spike has hundreds of years of vampire training, vampire abilities, and normal size. Sam's a hobbit. This is a bigger mismatch than Jeff vs the fantasy of Luke on Joan of Arcadia. But, throw in the protection of Frodo, Sam's true love (in a philia way), and Sam manages to find a way to win, probably by stabbing from below and getting the heart. Spike has a counter, however. If it's Dawn vs Frodo, Spike's got enough human spark left to just barely spin so that the attack hits his chest. Then, with the wood in his body, he comes down on Sean Astin's head and knocks him out.

Asian Women in Lab Coats! (January 29)

No, I did not run out of money and take ads from "adult sites" for twelvefruits.com. I was talking with someone this weekend, who wondered why American computer science and mathematics (and related stuff like physics and statistics) men seem to date and marry Asian women in much higher proportions than the general population. The answer is pretty straightforward, though it takes a little explanation. Please note that this answer deals with GENERAL TRENDS, not specific cases. I am also not implying that everyone thinks this way, though there is at least one other comment on this subject.

• Geeky American males go through the American high school system, where intelligence is at best a neutral social factor. More often, it's a social negative. Who stands at the top of the social chain? Athletes and rich kids and "bad boys". One bitter perspective can be found at Ladder Theory (which uses profanity, be warned). Money and Power 50%, Attractiveness (Looks and Indifference) 40%, So-called Qualities 10%. The author is bitter, but there is at least some truth in the MTV age bracket, more than many would like to admit.
• A lot of the women in computer science and math are from China and Korea and Taiwan. Their social networks contain other Asian women. To find a partner, one has to meet or be introduced to a suitable match. Even if one doesn't date within the program (not a bad idea), the women available in the sociogram are going to be friends of coworkers.
• Asian women have greater respect for intelligence and gentleness. I'm not sure if this is generally true, but compared to the American girls of high schools it definitely is. It seems to be true from my conversations with women in statistics, a small but representative sample. Additionally, compared to the traditional submissive expectations in large parts of Asia, United States society and US men are a big step up.

There you have it. A large part of marriage is like and respect of the partner. For both American mathy men, and Asian women in America, the opposite group is a good fit. So they come together. Problem solved. Now, I wish my dissertation was this easy.