2nd Law of Thermodynamics

I have a close friend that is a Christian apologist (Christian apologetics is a branch of theology that defends Christianity against objections). For years he has been using the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to prove the start, end, and creation of order and chaos. The first time he used it, I was unfamiliar with the concept. Since then I have looked it up several times, and I always have difficulty grasping and retaining what the 2nd law of thermodynamics means.

I finally understand it where I can briefly explain. This first part is more informational than a rant, but I'll post it anyway. This is a slightly modified email I sent. My rant will be below!

I used three videos from Khan to refresh (I recommend watching all three for a better understanding), along with an occasion google search to confirm my understanding was mostly accurate. I recently read a book called The Order of Time, it had the best description of the 2nd law I came across at the time. 

Info on the 2^nd Law of Thermodynamics

The 2^nd law of Thermodynamics explains that, “we don't see a spontaneous transfer of heat from cold areas to hot areas… What we do observe is that if [we] were to put ice water in the middle of a room at room temperature, [we’re] gonna see the other way. [We’re] gonna see transfer of heat from the warmer regions to the colder regions.” The law is based on the transfer of heat from warm/hot to cold.

The transfer of heat leads to entropy. The 2nd law explains that entropy in a closed system only increases. Most scientist would consider the universe a closed system (deist that believe God interferes with the universe would make our universe an open system, and the 2nd law wouldn’t apply). If we consider the universe a closed system, the universe is constantly increasing in entropy. As the space of the expanding universe increases, so does the possibilities of different states. Therefore, the greater possibilities leads to greater entropy. The average temperature of the universe decreases, but the entropy increases because there is more space/possibilities of ordered states.

Rant Time

Christian apologists love the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It gives them a scientific argument for their God. Here is a good argument by Jeff Miller, a Christian apologists who has a PhD in engineering, click here for his article. It isn't bad.

"There are only three possible explanations for the existence of matter in the Universe. Either all of the mass/matter/energy of the Universe spontaneously generated (i.e., it popped into existence out of nothing), or it has always existed (i.e., it is eternal.). Without an outside force (a transcendent, omnipotent, eternal, superior Being), no other options for the existence of the Universe are available. However, as the Laws of Thermodynamics prove, the spontaneous generation and the eternality of matter are logically and scientifically impossible. One possible option remains: the Universe was created by the Creator."

Miller is referencing the first law of thermodynamics that states, energy cannot be created or destroyed. Miller's argument is still bad. He says the first two possible explanations are logically and scientifically impossible, but guess what? So is the remaining possibility. 

(side note) Lawerance Krauss wrote a book arguing how a universe could appear from nothing, and he is a theoretical physicist. So there must be some scientific possibility.

Miller makes a couple assumptions that are unsupported. The Big Bang theory describes the first moments in the universe, but it says nothing about what happened before. It's not that implausible to think the universe could have existed in some form prior to the big bang and rebanged. Also he describes the eternity of matter. Matter didn't exist in the first moments according to the big bang. Miller needs to explain more.

This is my problem with the few Christian apologists I know. They cherry pick science. Miller did too. He only applied scientific and logic to the arguments he was destructing, not his own. This is bad philosophy.

My friend who started my rant doesn't believe in science. Any science/theories that conflict with his beliefs result from wild conspiracies by secularists and atheists. 

Conclusion

My rant is losing steam, and in all honesty, I don't care. I'm in some universe, however it started, and knowing how it started and who did or didn't create it, isn't going to improve my life. Rant out!

Jimbo

Book Review: Gmorning, Gnight!: Little Pep Talks for Me & You Gmorning, Gnight!: Little Pep Talks for Me & You by Lin-Manuel Miranda

Gmorning, Gnight!: Little Pep Talks for Me & You by Lin-Manuel Miranda
My rating: 1 of 5 stars

If you like the author, you might like this. If you like poetry, stay away!

I can't believe the person who wrote Hamilton would publish this.

The poetry is plagued with cheesy and simplistic writing. I don't follow his twitter, but i think he writes sappy tweets and his fans love them? So he published them as a book? Without revising them, of course? And if that's not what he did, it reads like it.

Then there are little illustration for each page. People complain a lot about Rupu Kuar, this is much much worse.

View all my reviews

It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia is the darker, more offensive, and more political version of Seinfeld. Instead of Jerry's house, the show takes place at the bar. Otherwise both shows are full of hilarious selfish bad people. Always Sunny ventures outside the basic sitcom format and is constantly pushing the limits. Later seasons are more hit and miss, but it's still my favorite TV show all time. I look forward to and watch every episode.

Why the List?

My friend Mo was a big part of me getting into It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. After recently recording for the pilot "The Gang Gets Racist," I was shocked to hear that Mo, and Drew, have lost touch with Always Sunny since returning from the Peace Corps.

This list is for Mo, Drew, and any one new or returning to Always Sunny.

Newbies, below is a nice starting point to guide you into Always Sunny. There is no right or wrong way to watch Always Sunny (really the order doesn't matter) as long as you're watching. Starting at season one is fine, and the pilot is strong, but like many shows, the writing and characters evolve and developed a lot over the seasons. Also Frank, Danny DeVito's character, joins the gang in season 2.

My suggested gateway episodes.

1. "The Gang Goes Jihad" s02e02- this is the first season with Frank. You really could just start with season 2.
2. "Dennis and Dee Go on Welfare" s02e03- like many of the episodes the title explains it all.
3. "Sweet Dee's Dating a Retarded Person" s03e09- this is a prequel for "The Nightman Cometh." See where the musical, dayman, and nightman were born.
4. "The Nightman Cometh" s04e13- this was my intro to the show. We watched it over and over one weekend, and I fell in love with these scumbag characters. Charlie writes and directs a musical.
5. "Mac and Charlie Write a Movie" s05e11- this could very much be titled "Mac Gets Racists again." The Gang makes a Lethal Weapon movie which is actually pretty good.

Welcome back Mo! 

This is the best of what Mo and Drew missed the last few years. These are the episodes that keep me full of that special feeling I got watching Always Sunny in the Peace Corps.

• Stack these two bad boys together, both episodes are The Gang playing Chardee MacDennis: "Chardee MacDennis: The Game of Games" s07e07 and "Chardee MacDennis 2: Electric Boogaloo" s11e01.
• "Reynolds vs. Reynolds: The Cereal Defense" s08e10- classic gang nonsense and dynamics!
• "Flowers for Charlie" s09e08- very cool parody of Flowers for Algernon, and this episode was written by David Benioff and D.B. Weiss, the creators of Game of Thrones.
• "The Gang Makes Lethal Weapon 6" s09e09- this is a sequel to the above mentioned "Mac and Charlie Write a Movie" s05e11.
• "Dee Made a Smut Film" s11e04- this episode is such an awesome critique of art. Dennis' conclusion on art is the best.
• "The Gang Turns Black" s12e01- a parody of Quantum Leap turned racist musical, it's The Gang at their best once again.
• "The Gang Goes to a Water Park" s12e02- horrible people doing horrible things at a water park with a fun Usual Suspects reference.
• "Hero or Hate Crime?" s12e06- Mac officially comes out of the closet!
• "A Cricket's Tale" s12e09- this is a Cricket solo story (just for Drew). It actually takes place within the other episodes of the season every time Cricket meets up with The Gang.
• "The Gang Escapes" s13e02- The Gang does an escape room challenge.

Suggestions are welcomed!

Who Has the Right to Tell Stories?

Once again, my disagreement with Jessica Gao has inspired another rant. This time, who has the right to tell certain stories. Spoiler, I do have a personal bias. My podcast, Pilots and Petards Podcast, discussed this issue at the end of our Episode 24 The Crown. We ended up in a disagreement regarding Dana Schutz painting. This rant is my response to my cohosts Mo and Drew.

I'm arguing people have the right to any story they want to tell. It can be done in bad taste, but they still have the right. I fully support freedom of speech even for the most despicable speech. Let the audience decide.

Tolstoy is famous for being a man who can write women characters. Should he have never written Anna Karenina because he isn't a woman? Should Harriet Beecher Stowe never have written Uncle Tom's Cabin? Or the king of white men telling other people's stories Howard Zinn.

Dana Schutz, last year, received a ton of criticism for her painting "Open Casket" of Emmett Till (Bob Dylan also wrote a song called The Death of Emmett Till in 1962). From the articles I read, the main problem is Schutz is profiting from black suffering. The protesters claim that the painting is wrong and should be censored because Schutz has no right to that story because neither her nor her family experienced Till's suffering or similar. Many protesters requested the painting be destroyed.

Schutz responded saying, she doesn't know what it is like to be black in America, but she does know what it is like to be a mother. Schutz paints, and as a painter she was inspired by Mamie Till's experience. Like Beecher or Zinn, her painting may reach people that wouldn't learn about this story, and those viewers may gain a greater understanding of race, injustice, and the cruel history for people of color. I see those potentials as positives.

I don't think Schutz painting was in bad taste. I browsed the Whitney Biennial 2017, (it appears they did switch Schutz's painting) but if you look, I think you would agree the diversity of artists is well represented. This leads me to disagree that Schutz is stealing black artists jobs by painting Till's experience. I see her as spreading the story.

Schutz is on our side too. If I had to display a Emmett Till painting, I'd look for an African American artist. But if I had to display a Schutz painting, I wouldn't rule out "Open Casket" because she is white.

Here's the rub. I wrote a poem with a voice of a Mamie Till type character. It was inspired by my love of African American Lit, social injustice, and scientific speculation for a cure of aging. I could have made my characters white trash, but voices came to me from characters like the one I wrote. I tried to be thoughtful and respectful in my portrayal, and I spent several hours writing, revising, and thinking about my short poem to get it right at the time.

I didn't live the experiences I created, but I have witnessed aspects of it. Poor people gain access when profits are right. My characters could have had any poor person's voice, even a poor voice my family personally knows. Maybe if I rewrote this poem today, it would. But at the time, I felt and I was motivated by the voice I choose. This is, in my opinion, my best poem. If someday I should publish a poem or collection, I'd hate to have to leave my best work out because I didn't have the right skin.

I didn't even really argue my original point. But if you are here looking for guidance, write whatever story moves you, and attempt to do it in good taste. Research, empathize, think, and do your best to make a piece of art worthy of engagment.


Jimbo out!

Apu and "No Good Read Goes Unpunished"

Background

 

The Simpsons finally addressed (kind of) the issues of Apu's character being racist stereotypes in episode 15, season 29, titled "No Good Read Goes Unpunished." The response is more than likely to the uproar from the 2017 documentary titled The Problem with Apu. NPR, along with many other sources, wrote articles condemning the simpsons' "No Good Read Goes Unpunished."

I watched the Simpsons episode in full; I read the NPR article, "The Simpsons To 'The Problem With Apu': Drop Dead;" and I listened to the latest Whiting Wongs episode called "He's Brown and Everyone's Yellow." I didn't see the documentary which is fine for my current purpose.

My responses were motivated by Jessica Gao's response because I feel she overlooked a few things from the episode. NPR certainly dropped the ball in their article. Below are my talking points that were ignored by Whiting Wongs and NPR.

 

The Title

The title is "No Good Read Goes Unpunished." In general, the simpsons are implying that offending people is part of entertainment. I disagree. I do get the point and I think it is a valid argument that could be made. I will not be addressing that argument.

Throughout the episode there are several allusions to this topic from both positive and negative points of view. As Gao mentioned, the simpsons tried to be South Park, and I agree they missed.

What punishment are the simpsons referring to? A punishment for past offenses? Or their current punishment after the airing of this show? Or even a future punishment to come?

Apu's Presence

Apu was in the show twice and both times was voiceless. That's interesting to note. I'm avoiding a interpretation because it could be interpreter many ways.

The Art of War

The Art of War is one of the most iconic war books ever written. It is philosophical and I would argue very much a source of Asian wisdom. Both Homer and Bart read The Art of War in this episode. The simpsons writers could have chosen any book to solve Bart and Homer's feud. Was the Art of War picked because of its mainstream popularity, or are they focusing in on the deception idea towards Apu? The topic of deception is a focal point in the first chapter of the Art of War.

This is a clever deeper meaning into Apu and apologizing, but the point is too ambiguous. Which viewers/characters are the simpons trying to deceive?

With No Apologies 

With No Apologies is a memoir by Barry Goldwater. Goldwater was a senator who ran for President in 1964. He is famously remembered for opposing the civil rights movement in the 1960s.

This is a tasteless reference, surprisingly NPR and Ms. Gao missed it.

Lisa is reading this book prior to Marge coming into her room. This is a big foreshadow that the simpsons will not be apologizing. Using a book that represents an old racist white guy not apologizing... Well that does sounds a lot funnier now. Still, it is a very cheap shot. One people won't even notice. Seems odd. I'm sure someone is getting a big kick out of it.

Marge's Rewrite 

We cannot rewrite all the wrongs of the past. As viewers we can accept or reject the works in the context of their time and place in history and or society.

Marge's book is boring because the characters are too perfect due to her attempt to make the story inoffensive.

The simpsons are addressing the larger issue of not offending anyone. This simpsons think there is always someone who will be offended, that's a fair point. Writers, comedians, and entertainers have to decide how many people they are whiling to offend to produce their performance/product.

Homer's Victory

Ironically, Homer becomes like Ned to win the war against Bart. This could be interpreted as a psuedo apology. Ned is boring and inoffensive. Homer becomes Ned. Homer beats Bart by being inoffensive. This is where South Park would have killed it. Stan or Kyle would have made a soliloquy about what they learned and it'd be funny

Conclusion

If you don't like the simpsons don't watch and don't talk about it. 

What is the balance between entertainment and offensiveness? How many liters of brown tears are worth x amount of laughter?

I don't know the answer. People can and should be able to say whatever they want. If you or I is offended we should judge the person accordingly. In a show, such as the simpsons, we can ignore it if it is too boring or too offensive. If the simpsons cannot find the correct balance they will seize to be on TV in the future.

The simpsons have zero moral duty to its viewers. The question is how many people are they willing to piss off vs please.

Doomed!

I heard a person on a podcast make the cliche quote about learning history or being doomed to repeat it. I was on my bike, but I couldn't help thinking what a stupid comment that is.

The first example I thought of was General Lee (thinking of two of his biographies I recently read). He was an excellent student of military history, especially Napoléon Bonaparte. He knew all about Napoléon's mistakes in Russia: trying to push his forces too far and during too extreme conditions, and still Lee repeated those same mistakes pretty well. Maybe an expert in military tactics and history would say I'm over generalizing the commonalities, and maybe I am. But I'm sure if we dug deep enough we would find historians make a ton of the same mistakes they have studied. That's my real point. History will not save us. Hindsight makes it easy to say, "history would have told us." But there are so many factors leading to any event, how could anyone know which factors to focus on or which ones to avoid? It is ridiculous.

I'd have to say, knowing history might make you less likely to repeat it at best, but definitely not exempt.

While looking for the exact quote to use I found the top google hit was an article with someone claiming the same idea I had. I have to say, the articles examples are weak. Not that my example is better, but it is more specific, thus better.

According to Nicholas Clairmont at Big Think, the phrase probably originated from George Santayana.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it

I like that version a lot better because being a student of history is insignificant. Instead, the problem is memory and not the learning. With how unreliable our memory is, this phrase makes a lot more sense.

In the end, people and governments are doomed to make mistakes. Maybe super intelligent computers or super humans of the future will be able to know/remember so many things that they will be able to prevent mistakes of the past, but ntil then, us homo sapiens sapiens might just be doomed!

Email interview about The Punisher

I did an email interview with Abraham Riesman on the topic of "why so many soldiers and law-enforcement officers feel such an affinity for The Punisher." Here is the article's link. Below are his questions and my responses. Someday, I may revise and improve my responses into a more formal rant. 

Riesman: What was your role in the USMC, if you weren’t a grunt?

Me: I did supply administrations with an infantry unit. I always regretted not being a grunt. When I found out I couldn't switch, I volunteered to be sent to an infantry unit. I got to do more training than a typical supply Marine, and when we deployed to Iraq, I was a squad leader for a security squad for mainly resupply patrols.

Riesman: When did you first become aware of The Punisher?

I was a comic book and superhero fan growing up. So I feel like I always knew about him. I would have had Punisher trading cards and comics that had him. Although I collected comics growing up, I never read them until I became a reader in a late 20s.

Riesman: When did you become a serious fan?

I wouldn't consider myself that serious of a fan. But I really liked the 2004 Punisher movie. I especially liked how the character didn't make all the cliche action movie mistakes, or keep his enemies alive. The Punisher mini series titled Born written by Garth Ennis is one of my favorite comic book stories. Welcome Back Frank is another great story.

I especially liked The Punisher character in the new netflix series. I found the philosophical comparisons between Daredevil and The Punisher to be a lot of fun. The they did a great job sympathizing with Frank Castle without glorifying his actions.

Riesman: How do you show off your fandom?

Besides being part of the Punisher Body Count community as a memeber of their facebook group, I do not show off my fandom. People might see me reading a Punisher comic in public.

Riesman: What makes the Punisher interesting to you, especially as a member of the military?

His ethical code.

Riesman: What danger do you see in the Punisher’s philosophy of extrajudicial killing?

He is a character in a world of mutants, Spider-Men, etc. Within his story line there is a chance he could make a mistake and kill the wrong person which, in contrasts, the Daredevil/Spider-man character may avoid by using the justice system. Either way, I see all the super hero vigilantes' philosophies as unsuccessful in solving crimes or making their cities/world a better place. Criminals escape or new criminals arise. Within the Marvel Universe, it doesn't seem to matter.

To answer your question I do not see a danger. As a viewer or fan, I have not seen any evidence to suggest that The Punisher causes any danger to society. Steven Pinker suggests that humans are becoming less violent. I tend to agree with him. I can witness progress in racism, aggression, and attitudes towards violence in my friends, family, and colleagues during my life. The generation below me, in general, is a lot more compassionate. People want to blame violent video games, movies, or characters like the Punisher for increased violence, but besides a few isolated places, like Chicago, violence statistics are down. It would be interesting to see data on the issue. But I would bet poverty, lack of education, and drugs/alcohol are much stronger factors in violence than interests in violent vigilant stories.

Riesman: Why do you think so many members of the military find the Punisher interesting?

The Punisher is more complex than most Marvel characters. The benevolent characters, like superman, are boring. In addition, The Punisher does not have super powers, another boring trait of Superman because he is too powerful. But these factors make The Punisher a great character for all people.

Frank Castle was a Marine, and the Marines have a motto of Semper Fidelis (always faithful), that might be something that would create a bias in Marines liking The Punisher. Marines share pretty strong common bonds with other Marines, even ones they have never met.

There is, or was when I served from 2001-2005, a culture in the Marine Corps that values killing. In bootcamp, we are constantly yelling kill. Everything we did was, "Kill. Kill. Kill!" We "attacked the chow hall" when we entered the cafeteria yelling "Kill" and making war cries. That's one way we were brainwashed to to support killing. War movies too. I think patriotic war movies brainwash young men to idolize war and killing "enemies/terrorists" more than fictional vigilantes ever will. I wanted to kill bad guys in war as a young man, I never wanted to hunt criminals even though I loved vigilante stories.

Sorry, but I cannot help but going back to these ideas about violent vigilant characters creating violence in fans or viewers. Military members are probably more violent and aggressive, I'd be surprised if data said otherwise. But I don't think that has to do with the superhero genre. I blame the media selling and supporting war. I can think of a few people I personally know who joined the military because they wanted to kill people, but that was rare from my experiences. Faith in American, fighting "good wars," and patriotic war movies made us want to fight in war.

I hope you are writing a non-judgemental piece. It would be very easy to write up a story about the Punisher's connections with military members, and or mass shooters, especially with the new series coming out soon and the Vegas shooting. That would make a good headline to sell, but that would be a shame and misrepresentation.

I hope my ideas can help. It was fun to think about these ideas.