Half-Gods, Changelings and Trans-whatevers

Half-Gods, Changelings and Trans-whatevers

Last week conservative voice, Ben Shapiro blatantly refused to refer to a male reporter as a female while seated next that reporter on a discussion panel. The male reporter leaned in and placed his hand on the back of Shapiro's next while threatening him with the words 'Now cut that out, or you'll go home in an ambulance.'

Here's some thoughts about the reporter, who goes by the name 'Zoey Tur', the recent publicity about Mr. Jenner and other people who are like him:

Imagine for a moment that I claimed to feel like I was an angel, a cherub, who fell to Earth and was mistaken for a human baby (never mind what happened to the human baby); Or imagine I felt as if I were a 'changeling' and that I was actually an elf prince who had been switched with a human baby; Or imagine I felt that my 'real father' was the Olympian god Zeus and that I was one of the godlings such as Achilles or Hercules. And further imagine that I demanded that everyone else go along with my feelings and that I would actually threaten anyone who blatantly refused to play along.

No one would hesitate to call me out for such behavior and no one would hesitate to call the authorities if and when I issued my threats. Most people would regard me as delusional, but most people would also allow me to continue in my choice of expressing how I felt--until such expressions became disruptive or threatening to others.

So it is with all people who chose to express how they feel inside, others will tolerate it as long as it is not too disruptive. But no one will (or should) tolerate it when it becomes threatening. And that applies whether the person is claiming to be the son of a god and demands you call him 'Lord' or whether the person is claiming to be female and demanding you call him 'her'.

A person can ask that others respect how the feel inside and that they play along-- if he wants to be responsible and polite. A person can demand others play along--if he wants to be childishly irresponsible and rude. But if a person threatens others to respect how they feel inside and play along--then he has crossed the line.

I hear Mr. Shapiro is pressing assault charges against the man who grabbed him and threatened him in public. Good.




for more essays and for short stories, check out http://www.MHHickey.com
for talk about books, swords, and nerd hobbies, check out http://www.Booksandswords.com

Road to Nowhere

Road to Nowhere

If you found yourself on a road to nowhere, how would you know it? Would you know it because you have been on it for so long without arriving? Would you know it because you aren't even sure where you're headed in the first place? Would you know it because you have no map, no odometer reading and no means of telling where you are at all? Would it be all of these things and more that tells you that you are on a Road to Nowhere?

This is about problem solving.

If you know where you are, and where you are going; if you have a compass and an odometer; if you have a map and a pencil and a car, then you have the means to solve the problem of getting from where you are to where you would like to be (geographically speaking). But if you are missing too many of these things, you will not be able to solve that problem, regardless of how much you say that you want to. And if, after a long while has passed, you are still not in possession of the means to solve your problem, it would be fair for others to question whether solving this problem is important to you at all.

Obviously, I'm not talking about making road trips. As I said, this is about solving problems—how it is done and how it is not done. And the reason I need to use analogies is that the problems I will be referring to do not immediately lend themselves to analysis. The problems that I would like to discuss here are those of Race, Poverty and Energy in America—though my criticisms of what is happening and what is not happening could just as easily apply to many other issues.

To start with; how do you solve a problem? First you need to identify exactly what the problem is and do so in a way that also shows what the problem is not. Second, your definition needs to be one that will allow you to orient the problem relative to the prevailing conditions (ie, measuring it)—if it does not, then you need to go back to step one and try again. A definition that you cannot use to help solve the problem is (unsurprisingly) useless. You will know that your definition is a useful one when you are able to measure the size and scope of the problem with it. Thirdly, with a definition of the problem and a way to measure it, you can now consider what you would like to do to solve it. Fourthly, with a definition, means to measure and attempted solution, you are now in a position to measure your results. From here on out it is a simple process of repeating steps three and four until you have solved the problem. Or you may need to reconsider your earlier steps, perhaps the way that you are measuring needs to be revisited, perhaps your definition of the problem needs to be different. The point is: you will actually be working on a means to solve the problem, and given enough time and resources you will either solve the problem or come to the realization that the problem is (at least for the present) unsolvable.

(While I would normally like to start with something less emotional and less controversial, as it happens, this is the best place to start, so I will start here)

Race

Let us examine the problem of Race in America. As I pointed out, the first thing we need to do is have a definition of the problem. So what is the definition of the problem? And right 'out of the gate', we stumble. Is the problem one that is defined by discrimination? Or is it defined by racism? Or is the 'problem of race' something else entirely? Is it about equality? Is it about justice? Is it about conflict? To be honest, I am not sure what the definition of the problem is myself, and it seems to me that 'the problem of race' could actually be several separate problems that are connected by race. If that is the case, then each of those things needs to be defined and addressed or else it is not possible to move on. Also, in defining the problem, you will be defining the solution—not the path to the solution, but what the solution looks. So what will the 'problem of race' look like when it has been solved ? Does anyone even know? Even if it were broken into separate parts, then what would the problem of discrimination look like when it has been solved? What would racism look like when it has been solved? Or equality? Or justice? I will suggest that like any other problem of human behavior, simplistically demanding that these problems be reduced to zero is likely a bit unrealistic. But you will need a clear definition of where you are and where you would like to go before you can move to step two.

Step two is measuring the size and scope of the problem, but without a functional definition, this is impossible. How does one measure discrimination? How can you tell if the discrimination in Detroit is better or worse than Minneapolis, or Tampa? How can you measure if the racism is better or worse for people of one color than another, or if it is better in one state than another? How to you measure equality or justice? Let me be clear, I am not saying that such things cannot be measured—not at all. I am saying that you need to be able to measure whatever your definition of the problem is if you are to be able to gauge if your attempts to solve it are working. So, if you say that 'racism' is the problem, then you must find a way to measure it so that you can see if what you try as a means to a solution actually works. And if you cannot measure the problem, then let us be honest—you know that you will never solve that problem.

Obviously, once the problem is defined and measurable, then progress towards a defined solution is possible, all that is needed is a plan and action. Then, progress can be measured to see if things are moving towards the stated goal or not. So...are thing progressing towards solving the 'problem of race' in America? Clearly, this issue has been examined, and time and money have been spent in earnest for the last 50 years, and if you look at the efforts of people like Booker T Washington, then you can see that efforts go back for 150 years. So how are we doing? Are we half way to solving the problem? A tenth of the way? Does anyone even know?

To spend 50 years working on a problem and yet have no evidence to show whether they are any closer to a solution is to beg the question: Is solving this problem actually important to the people involved? I cannot answer for them, only they truly know what their motivations are. But I can point out what behavior looks like when you actually want to solve a problem and leave the conclusions up to the reader.

Poverty

Now, let's look at the problem of Poverty in America. Again we start with a definition, which seems to be easily satisfied. Depending on whether one looks at income or overall wealth, with census and other demographic data it becomes easy to define poverty in a way that is measurable. Other definitions have focused on 'opportunity' and 'education' and (as we will see shortly) while there may be merit in considering such factors, defining poverty in terms of 'opportunity' makes for a much more difficult task of measuring.

So with a definition of poverty and a means to measure it, attempts at solutions must have been simple to employ—and they have been. Money. Starting more than a half-century ago, money has been thrown in the direction of those who were measured and determined to be in poverty. Alright, so a means to a solution has been tried for a while, we must be able to measure how that is doing. Are we any nearer to the solution? Aye, there's the rub.

What the solution to Poverty in America would look like has never been properly defined. Remember? A problem and a solution must be defined at the beginning of the process, or efforts to solve the problem will result in failure. Sure, a great deal of effort and money have been applied to the problem of poverty—but towards what end? What a solution to the problem of Proverty in America would look like, is unclear. And it shows. Measurements of poverty indicate that the situation hasn't changed much in America since efforts of the government to address it began during the Great Depression.

This begs the question: is solving poverty simply unattainable or is the real goal of government efforts in this sphere something else? If the real goal is to solve poverty, the then problem and solution may need to be redefined. Perhaps examining those other definitions of poverty would lend themselves to defining a solution. But defining poverty along lines of opportunity or education is going to make measuring it more difficult and the means to try and solve it much more nuanced that the current 'more money' efforts. Also—and this becomes fairly speculative—if the real goal of the government is something other than actually solving poverty(say: placating the masses, or buying votes), the the simple means employed are just fine for those in government, because solving the problem isn't really the goal anyway.

Regardless of whether the problem needs to be defined or the means and motives of those trying to solve the problem need to be examined more closely, the irrefutable evidence it that; after a very long time of trying to 'solve the problem', it hasn't been solved. Either the definition of the problem, or the definition of a solution, or the measurements of the problem or the means to a solution must be changed—perhaps all of them need to change. But continuing to blindly apply the same means again and again will not solve poverty and for those in power to continue to do so is disingenuous.

Energy

Alright, we've seen what trying to solve poorly defined problems looks like, and we've seen what poorly defined solutions looks like and what the result of those are. Now let's look at something that is clearly define as both problem and solution and yet remains unsolved: the problem of Energy in America.

The problem of Energy in America is childishly simple to define; America is too dependent on outside sources for energy. The solution is also simple; America needs to provide most or all of its energy domestically. Measuring this is very easy, one can look at the ways that energy is consumed and point out which are produced domestically and which are produced with imported gas, coal or oil. So that's it then. We've been working on solving this since the mid-70's, we must have solved it by now, right? But no, we haven't. Three possibilities present themselves to explain this. Either there is no real need to solve the problem or there is no will to solve the problem or there is no means to solve the problem.

If it is the case that there is no real need to solve the problem of Energy in America then that immediately explains the second possibility of why the is no will to solve it. And it would bring us to asking the question: why is this a problem at all? We are told that if America was energy independent, then our economy and our government would be less influenced from the outside. In the case of the economy, the price of electricity for home and manufacturing use would be less volatile, this would also be true for oil and gas used in transportation. In the case of our government, outside influences would be much less potent and our government would not be compromised by these influences. But what if that situation isn't entirely intolerable? Then, the 'problem' evaporates. Sure, it might be nice to be energy independent, but without the energy dependence creating an intolerable consequence, it isn't really a 'problem' at all.

Here I will pause for just a moment to suggest something for those who are concerned about our government being influenced from the outside and being unnecessarily involved in foreign aggression. If it is the case that America fights 'wars for oil', then it must be asked, why? Why would America be fighting 'wars for oil' when America has huge oil and gas reserves offshore and in Alaska? IF America is truly fighting 'wars for oil', then it is clearly the fault of those who would keep America from using those oil and gas reserves. Ironically enough, if America is fighting 'wars for oil', then it is the environmentalists who are making that happen by preventing America from using it's own oil, coal and gas. (notice, I kept using the word 'if', I did so because—while the logic is sound—the conclusion is suspect, which means the assumption “America fights wars for oil” is likely false. Something to think about)

So what if energy dependence does create what most people would consider an intolerable situation, what might interfere with the will to solve the problem? Well, obviously, if those outside influences has already made successful inroads into the organization that would be working on solving the problem and if those influences (say big oil or oil-rich countries) don't like what the solution would do to them, then they might be able to get our government to 'slow things down'. Or maybe there's money to be made just looking for a means to the solution and the people who benefit are trying to drag the process out as long as they can without actually reaching the solution (Solyndra, anyone?). Either way, there are plenty of suspects to examine as to why America hasn't moved very far towards solving the problem of Energy.

Lastly, there is the question of whether the problem can be solved. If America is not going to import energy and not going to tap the vast oil and gas reserves, then energy must come from alternatives. Without going into detail, it will suffice to say that each of those alternatives has nearly intractable problems of initial costs and scaling that do make it quite possible that solving the problem of Energy in America might actually be impossible (barring an unforeseen breakthrough in technology), or at least impossible in the next 50 years.

In conclusion

So there you have it, what real problem solving looks like and (more importantly) what it does not look like. But before I leave you with the notion that all big problems are unsolvable, let me point to one that was solved: smog. In the 70's and 80's the problem of smog in America was quite serious. And that seriousness spurred people to try and solve it. The problem was defined, as was the solution. The size and scope of the problem were measured and means were tried to solve it. Progress towards the solution was measurable and once the solution was achieved, it was easy to know it. Some defined the problem of smog as one of overall air quality and efforts are still being made in that direction, but the point is this: the pressing problem of smog in America was solved and it was solved in the way that any serious effort to solve a problem must be.

I am definitely not saying that the problems of Race, Poverty or Energy in America cannot be solved. I am saying that if they are approached correctly then they most certainly can be solved. And if it turns out that they cannot be solved, then with making the correct approach to solving them, it will be known why they problem cannot be solved.

Of perhaps even greater importance than being able to effectively work at solving a problem, by being able to look at problem solving correctly, you will be able to see who is actually working to solve the problem and who is merely trying to look like they are solving the problem. And sometimes, being able spotting the rat among the corn is a step in solving the problem.

for more essays and for short stories, check out http://www.MHHickey.com

for talk about books, swords, and nerd hobbies, check out http://www.Booksandswords.com

The Visions of Sister Mary--An 'Arkham Horror' story

The Visions of Sister Mary--An 'Arkham Horror' story

In light of recent events I though it best to leave a record of my previous notes on my evaluation of Sister Mary and what happened just after my evaluation. I shall be leaving my post here at Arkham Asylum and whichever member of the staff is assigned my duties ought to be fully informed. Though exactly what I am informing that person of, even I cannot say, and I was here.

Even though the days leading up to my actual involvement with Sister Mary were rather sensational with wild rumors, police-enforced curfews and a sudden surge in patients both here at the sanatorium and at the general hospital, it was on the morning of April 28^th, 1922, that I interviewed my first witness to the insanity that seemed to hold Arkham in it's grip.

Sister Mary was admitted early on the morning of the 27^th, though I cannot say by whom. I have thoroughly questioned the orderlies on staff and none of them can recall seeing her brought in, even though such an occurrence should be impossible as we keep the door between the general waiting area and the consultation room locked. Yet, it cannot be denied that she was first discovered in the consultation room, in a state of disheveled disarray, asleep on the couch.

Dr. Haskins was on duty at the time and had a impromptu consultation with Sister Mary—which I suspect was as much to learn how she gained entry to the Asylum as much as to calm her out of her agitated state. I only have his comments made to me in private to record here as Dr. Haskins destroyed his notes a few days later, but what he told me was that Sister Mary claimed to have been overwhelmed by a confrontation with some creature that had descended from the skies above Arkham and attacked her in the Rivertown Streets after having left the graveyard near there. Dr. Haskins checked her for signs of alcohol abuse but indicated to me that Sister Mary seemed of sound body, despite her obvious hallucinations. Finding nothing that he could use as evidence to commit her, he scheduled an emergency consultation for the next day with Sister Mary and let her go on her own recognizance.

I was called at home as my colleague was absent from her post—a matter that I shall revisit before concluding this narrative, and asked if I could come in on the morning of the 28^th to consult with Sister Mary. Dr. Haskins had a busy schedule and would be administering electro-shock therapy to another patient, who coincidentally enough also claimed to have seen a monster in the skies above Arkham.

When I arrived, I found Sister Mary eager to talk about her recent experiences, particularly what had happened in the graveyard and the Rivertown Streets. Not surprisingly, she claimed to have exorcised a ghost who had returned from the afterlife and was haunting the area. I will spare anyone reading this the details of the encounter she described, but it was about what one would expect such a tale to be.

The real interest in Sister Mary's case begins with what she described in the Rivertown Streets. There she said she came upon some kind of beast and what she called 'a cultist'. I had serious doubts about Dr. Haskins decision to release Sister Mary the previous day, as what she described to me might have been a hallucination-induced murder. Further questioning lead me to conclude that the entire incident was a hallucinatory episode brought on by... I don't know what. No person, cultist or not, could have done what Sister Mary described and every test that I could administer indicated that she was of sound mind and in full control of her faculties. There was simply no possibility that she was recalling an encounter with an actual person.

Her other hallucinations were, though described in vivid detail, clearly things that –like the cultist-- had never existed outside of Sister Mary's own mind. But what had caused these particular subjects? What would cause an otherwise sane woman to thing that a twelve-foot tall monster, with a human-like body and a head like a squid would be wandering the streets of Rivertown? I think I understand why she would think that holy water would defeat such a monster—being that she served in the only Catholic Church in all of Arkham, but what she described was hardly the typical descriptions of demons that we hear. I've only heard of a creature such as she described from our more severely disturbed patients after certain nights of the year.

And what would cause her to think that a winged creature that was part-insect and part-crustacean would dive down from the Arkham night and confront her? She explained that she had no holy water left, and had to rely on the revolver that a friend had loaned her—an item that I sincerely hope was not loaded. But she insisted that she had shot the nightmare dead in the streets where it landed, though I can say that later investigations but the authorities failed to find any evidence. I suppose it is worth mentioning that the authorities only checked on May 3^rd, which was a couple of days after the events of May 1^st, but I am getting ahead of myself.

The final hallucination, and the one that she claims was too much for her, was that of a gigantic floating nightmare that Sister Mary described as a writhing and hovering mass of bubbling gelatin, like enormous cow intestines that where alternatively convulsing and expanding and with terrible mouth's set unevenly along the elongated body of the beast. She said that she fainted just as the creature seemed to move towards her with open mouths—though with no eyes, she commented that she couldn't see how it knew she was even there. In all honestly, Sister Mary's description was so vivid and so detailed that I want to go and check for myself and see if there were any traces of what drooled from the creature's mouths, but of course, such a venture would be foolish. After all, it could only have been a hallucination. Besides, even if it had not been, no trace would have remained after May 1^st , but of course, it was just the imaginings of a stressed mind.

Try as I might, I could not uncover the real source of the stress that brought on Sister Mary's breakdown. She spoke of portals to other worlds—strange worlds—that had appeared all over Arkham and how she and a few others had been working to understand them and stop the monsters from coming through. She mentioned a drifter, and local professor visit Arkham University and Dr. Carolyn Fern. At the mention of Dr. Fern, I began to understand. Carolyn had always had an interest in the stranger patients that we had received and had detailed notes on their various hallucination, phobias and dementia. Sister Mary must be one of her contacts who had not yet fully succumbed to insanity. I consider it unprofessional that Dr. Fern does not take more precautions to prevent a person's psychoses from going too far.

With her bill for the consultation paid in full, Sister Mary took her leave of me, indicating that she needed to meet up with her friends and continue the fight against what she called 'The Lord of the Winds', Yetturiel, or as the indians called it, Ithaqua. Later, Dr. Fern would tell me that he was known to the natives of the Americas as a beast that roams the great northern waste, and takes lone people from where he finds them in the wilderness to accompany him as he rides the winds of the universe. Seldom are such people ever seen or found, but according to the legend, they are sometimes found frozen solid—even in the middle of summer. And always as if they had fallen from a great height. Normally I would dismiss such a legend, but after the events of the first of May, I'm not so sure.

I didn't see Sister Mary for many months after she left the Asylum, but when I did, she didn't speak of anything other than her work at the soup kitchen with their new cook, a drifter who the called Ashcan Pete who had decided to stay in Arkham for a while. I didn't see Sister Mary, but I did hear more about the hallucinations that she had described to me. Other people had also reported seeing the awful flying nightmare she had described, and things had gotten so bad that the general store had closed up shop while the proprietor went 'on vacation'.

It was on the evening of April 30^th that things seemed to culminate. I heard of people seeing strange things everywhere and that night I decided to stay in the heavy brick Asylum rather than venture the streets to my home. That decision may have saved my life.

It was at about 11PM that a sudden wind came up through the town of Arkham, a wind that grew in strength until it reached hurricane proportions. Sometime before midnight the power went out and the inmates seemed to go mad. While the orderlies had their hands full I watched out the solid barred windows of the Asylum as the winds tore through the streets, knocking over power lines and tearing up trees. I though for a moment I saw Dr. Fern move down the street in front of the building looking up at the sky, but that was impossible and I knew it—no person could have survived in those winds.

It must have been sometime around midnight when the temperature began to drop precipitously as the winds continued to lash the town. Later, I would find that my house had been torn from its foundation like so many others. Over dinner with a friend of Carolyn's I heard such a tale and to not know whether Mr. Monterey Jack (if that even is his real name) was putting me on, or had put away too many beers. But either way, here is what he claimed happened in the wee hours of the first of May:

Mr. Jack told me that it was indeed the ancient spirit of the winds, Ithaqua, who had come to Arkham. He said that he faced the demon-prince with his bare hands (his tommy-gun having been torn from those same hands but the hurricane force gales). He said that his three friends were there also—who I have already named earlier—and that together, in the face of the icy winds that were hurled at them that they faced down the demon-prince (or as Carolyn calls them: the 'Great Old Ones') and that they won.

I don't know what to believe, but I know what I know. And what I know is that some insanity, so terror, had gripped Arkham in the days leading up to that night. I know that without warning or explanation and hurricane appeared over Arkham and Arkham alone. And I know that in the morning, though terrible devastation remained, the madness was gone.

I don't know whether some collective hallucination had threatened to drive the entire town mad, and if maybe that psychosis had enough psychic energy to become real for a while and exhaust itself in a dreadful storm. I don't know if maybe Sister Mary had been telling me not of hallucinations, but of the God's Honest Truth and that she stood with three others against an ancient terror that had threatened to destroy us all—and won. I don't know.

But I do know that we are still here. And if, from time to time, Sister Mary asks us to pray to protect the world from evil, where's the harm in that?

for more essays and for short stories, check out http://www.MHHickey.com

for talk about books, swords, and nerd hobbies, check out http://www.Booksandswords.com