ENTROPY - A talk I gave at church in 2001

ENTROPY

 

I had intended to put more content in this blog but focusing on other things through the course of the year overshadowed that intent :-) .

I had mentioned a talk I had given at Hillside, a small independent church in Boulder which I had the pleasure of attending for many years.  The church might be characterized as a small group of people in the community with a focus more on the Bible than on the doctrines of organized religion.  At least that was my impression -- actually quite an amazing thing, as the words of Jesus sometimes get lost as organized churches find themselves following other agendas.

At Hillside, we had a tradition where someone would get up and give a talk.   These talks were reflections that had a personal touch -- often as inspiring and meaningful to me as the sermons, and many of which I remember fondly to this day.  When I was asked, my first reaction was always fear -- as an introvert, the thought of getting up and talking about something personal and deep-felt is accompanied by all sorts of anxieties -- how I'll perform, what kinds of judgments might happen, whether people will understand, or relate, etc.  But the few times I did it, I was challenged immensely, but then found it rewarding.

Anyway, I was asked about this particular talk after I had brought it up in conversation.  I went looking through old Windows backups from about that time period, thinking I would cringe at my own words once I found it.  But when I finally did find it, I found I still kind of liked it, and found that it brought back fond memories of my time at Hillside.

The whole talk was inspired by a sign that was on a partition in the gym where our church had rented space.  I forget the words exactly -- it was something like "don't throw objects -- it will damage the wall".  That got me to thinking about the second law of thermodynamics (entropy), and out of that, my talk emerged.   (This is also a look back through time, by the way, memories and computer technology most of us have forgotten by now :-) ):  Finally it reflects on my favorite Bible passage -- Revelation 21.

Anyway, this is the talk:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hillside 7/28/2001: "Entropy"

I thought I’d describe a day in my life at work. And just to fill things out, a day in the life
of Isaac Newton, and a day in the life of our Cocker Spaniel dog, Abby.

A day in the life of Abby

Abby and I were driving across the western US on my way to visit my grandmother who lives in Portland. Abby was enjoying being able to watch me from her dog crate in the back seat of the car -- hour after hour

I was feeling guilty for confining her for so many hours, so I decided to try to find something fun for dogs to do along the way. And Abby had never been to a lake. So we stopped by a lake where I knew they allowed dogs thinking that Abby would love to swim. I grabbed a book to read, and we sat on the shore – a dozen other dogs were leaping around in the water, chasing each other on the shore, and generally having a great time. It was about a hundred degrees, so I encouraged Abby to get in the water and join them. Abby looked at me, and then looked at the lake and got this really serious expression. From her perspective it was as large as an ocean. But instead of seeming like a place where she could play, she looked across the expanse of water, bent over, and started drinking from the little bit of water lapping against the shore. To her, it was the world’s largest water dish, and I imagined that she wondered how in the world she was ever going to drink that much water

A day in the life of Isaac Newton

In college, when I was a student assistant at NCAR, we had three of us sharing an office – and to try to personalize our space a little bit, and to describe that space to anyone walking by, we put a sign on the door that read “Entropy Lab RL6-404”.

I wasn’t good at Physics in college, but in the 1660’s, Isaac Newton was at Cambridge studying, and in fact advancing Physics. Many people know about the story when Cambridge was closed due to the plague, and he was at his farm, saw an apple on the ground, and came up with gravitational theory in a flash of inspiration.

Not as many people know that Newton also thought about Entropy.

As students we defined entropy more in terms of the tendency for things to become disordered – like our office. Newton’s definition really only talked about energy states in the Universe. That is, the Universe is progressing towards an increasingly homogenous state where all that’s left of matter and energy is heat. The implication of that is that everything in the Universe that is organized – everything that has substance – takes energy to achieve that organization. And as the Universe’s energy equals out, and becomes heat, that organization disappears.

I can imagine a scene where Newton is contemplating this – perhaps observing not apples, but broken branches on the ground after one of England’s windstorms.  Certainly if he wrote his theory of gravity in a flash of inspiration – he probably wrote his second theory of thermodynamics, about entropy, in a flash of – well, depression.

In spite of the second law of thermodynamics – in spite of entropy – in spite of the fact that his hair turned gray before he was 30, Isaac Newton went on – and he achieved much more once Cambridge reopened. In fact, he was described by the Bishop as a devout, serious, hard-working, and moral man, and went on to be one of the greatest scientists of Western history.

His being able to go on in spite of this depressing discovery is sort of like Abby drinking from the lake. Neither got overly discouraged – neither thought about the enormity of their tasks – Newton just carried on, and Abby just drank.

A day in my life at NCAR

As I wake up in the morning, I have a wonderful feeling of well-being that all is well with the world – well, at least with our network. I of course have learned long ago not to indulge too heavily in those unrealistic thoughts.

I arrive at work, discover that a brownout from the thunderstorm of the previous evening has knocked out half of our systems, and the other half are all thrashing the network trying to reestablish contact with those that are down.

So as one of the servers comes on line – it does a disk check which looks like it’s going to take a couple of hours. I leave that to run, but can’t do much on the local network since everything depends on that server.

We have a visitor who needs a PC with Linux and Windows.  I get a Deskpro from storage but the disk is too small. So I pull a 9 Gigabyte disk out of a dead PC. I put the disk in, start the computer, but the bios on the mainboard is from an age when nobody was thought disks could be larger than 4GB.  I go to Compaq’s site on the web, grab the firmware update for the bios, put it on a floppy, take the floppy to the PC, go to install the update, and the computer won’t read the floppy. After a little bit of diagnosis I discover that we need another floppy drive. I get that, but it won’t fit in the enclosure – they make a different type of enclosure for floppies now.

I take the case apart, and attach the floppy drive loosely, and get the system to boot the firmware disk. So feeling a sense of accomplishment I check on the server. I walk into the server room, and find that the air conditioning has failed as a result of the power hit. The temperature is about 90, and the server shut down in the middle of its boot due to the heat.

So I call Facilities and open the doors to the room to cool it. I start up the server again and go to work on the PC some more. In order to run X-Windows, I have to have a better video card. So I put in a 4MB Matrox card and it fails – this time with smoke.

Fortunately it’s an old spare, and I have a 16MB nVidia card. I put that in, and reboot, and get beeps telling me something is wrong with the system, but it won’t tell me why. After checking the server which is still rebooting, I get on the web, go to Compaq’s site, and find that this type of Deskpro is no longer supported – and there is no technical information on what the beep codes mean. So I resort to newsgroups. I have to flash the bios with yet another version of the firmware so that it can recognize video cards that have more than 4MB of RAM. It takes so much time to figure this out, that by this time our server has booted.

So the Linux install goes well, but Windows 2000 needs 128MB of RAM and I only have 32MB in the system. I find out that it’s too old to support RIMM memories or even the DIMM memories. So while I’m on a site that sells legacy SIMMs, the PC shuts itself off without any reason.

I open the case, and it’s about 150 degrees inside. The power supply fan has failed, and even after replacing the power supply, the PC won’t boot. Fortunately it’s an old Pentium Pro manufactured in ’96 – so I put it in the dead computer pile, and find another PC to set up for the visitor. The pile now fills up about half of my office.

Anyway, that describes a day at NCAR.

According to one of those Miers Briggs temperament profile tests, I don’t multitask well and shouldn’t be a Systems Administrator. But on days in which I manage to bring a computer back to life I’m rewarded with a great sense of power -- I’ve defeated Entropy – the most powerful and certain force in the Universe.

But it’s really an illusion. Entropy and decay are all around us, especially in the I.T. business. Computers cost thousands of dollars at the beginning of their life, and within a few short years you can’t give them away.

There was an expression after the Titanic went down – “all ships sink”. People understood Entropy. Roman Engineers built structures that could stand for 2000 years, but today they are but fragile reminders of that Empire which itself slowly disappeared 1500 years ago.

Things break.

Your hair gets gray like Isaac Newton’s. Nobody wants to play football in a stadium that’s 35 years old. Video tapes decay and become unviewable after 10 or 15 years, even if you have the right kind of equipment. Photos loose their color after 30 or 40 years. Movies and books become forgotten.

This wall will get damaged.

CD-ROMs will only last a century. The Boulder Turnpike already needs to be resurfaced
after only 5 years. The Crossroads Mall expansion in 1981 is now the only part of the mall that anyone wants to use.

Nothing that man creates lasts.

So when I fix computer systems, I feel like Abby drinking from the lake – it’s a futile effort, but somehow I work on our computer systems, hoping to give each one a year or two of extra life.

A day with God

But to look at the day with an awareness of God transforms it.

It isn’t Entropy – it’s Creation that I see when I step out of the house in the morning.

The previous evening’s storm has left behind a cool morning, and everything smells washed and cleansed from the rain. In the deepest blue sky waiting for the dawn, Mars, Venus, and the crescent moon are perfectly lined up – and as the sky becomes light, Mars, which is near its closest point to the Earth remains brilliant next to the moon as the other stars quietly disappear.

On days where I am aware of God, I’m also aware of God’s continuing miracles and blessings. For instance, I’m blessed to come home in the evening to Sherrie, and to have little Daniel look at me and make all kinds of smiley faces because he’s glad I’m there.

My life is not a Zen type contentment by any stretch. It’s often chaotic and frantic, and when things break down at home or at work, it’s tremendously frustrating.

But there’s a lot of joy in knowing that Entropy is not an absolute, irreversible process. What God created moves through time towards eternity because of God. Left on its own, it would return to the chaotic void from which it started. The things we know – computers, and football stadiums, malls and empires, lakes, the Moon and Mars will all die away with time. But out of his mercy, God offers us a life in a newly created eternal world described by John in Revelation:

“a new heaven and a new earth .. the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. ‘Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death, or mourning, or crying, or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.’

And wherever we live with God in those promised times to come, there can be no entropy – no decay, no disappointment, and as Jeff pointed out a couple of weeks ago, nothing broken. Fishing nets will remain untorn. And it will be a place where nobody will have to be a Systems Administrator – where no trees fall due to the wind – where dogs get to play in the surf, and where God’s love and creation is eternal and sure.

The Populist

THE POPULIST

It's been a while since I posted my last essay, so I thought I'd try a new one.  But this one is a challenge -- I have a lot of random thoughts that aren't very organized.  I should have taken on a smaller more focused topic to write about.  In other words, this is going to be long :-) .  I wanted to comment on the election in this historic time, sharing a few thoughts, and probably decide to "publish" this in an unsatisfying not-yet-finished form.

Oh, and to give you a sneak peak, this is really about we who take sides in the end -- not about the "Populist" as I've sneakily titled this essay.

Also within my verbosity, I'm going to make a bunch of blanket statements, all of which can be argued with -- you'll naturally disagree with a few of them and I'll even be able to see your side.   This is mostly "me" talking out of the thoughts in my head at this moment in time -- any greater truth is really up to you as you bear with me and consider these thoughts.

Our painting: "Today"

Washington's Inauguration by Jean Leon Jerome Ferris
(Wiki Commons link)

Not being a journalist or professional writer, these thoughts tend to come together for me not as some sort of learned insightful analysis, but as a "painting" that begins with a palette of emotional and cultural forces.   The colors that emerge are very much dependent on the pigments that they begin with.   "Today", then, is a large complexly crafted painting created over time.  I believe we are the artists as individuals, as groups, and as humanity.  I also believe that God provided us the canvas and I take comfort that God considers our creation and holds "Today" up in consideration, no matter if it worthy of the museum, the living room wall, or an attic chest.   Along with other people of faith, I pray that God teaches us to improve our skills with our brushes and paints when we begin to work on the now-empty canvas of "Tomorrow".

Whatever your position on any of these points, I wish you peace as we all go through a tumultuous time together.


---


A lot has transpired since the 2016 election -- in fact today is the inauguration day of Donald Trump, the 45th President of the US.  I have also been considering throughout the week some of the words of Martin Luther King, Jr., whom we celebrated on Monday.

We're at a point in our history where everyone is asking questions and everyone is wondering what will happen next.  Usually the questions are asked in an anxious voice.  These are indeed uncertain times, and for a large number of us, our new leaders haven't given us a lot of encouragement.  For others of us, our previous leaders didn't give us a lot of encouragement.   In fact, the schisms that divide us manifest themselves as a gulf impossible to cross.

Our painting's models

My own world view is probably not yours.  That's okay of course -- but here are some of things I am currently perceiving as I contemplate the landscape of "Today".    (Keep in mind that I generally include myself as a member of the "left" but I've had a fair amount of experience also being on the "right" side of the political spectrum).  I've sorted a few random thoughts to see how they look alongside one another:

• The "right" seems largely disenchanted with our institutions.
• A populist came along who doesn't seem that savvy or insightful, but who has a very concise populist message "Make America Great".  The message ended up having a great deal of appeal among those on the right who are disenchanted with our institutions. 
• Someone from outside the political system came along, appealing to the "left" with a populist message that was nearly as concise and appealing - something like "take back control from the elite 1% who have unfair power over us".
• The populist on the right represents the 1% and so his message is incomprehensible to the left.  On the left he is seen as anything but "populist".  But on the right, his message resonates.  And in the face of no seriously viable contenders, the right chooses to run him as a candidate.
• The populist on the left had a viable contender whose pragmatic problem-solving style represented many institutions who are similarly striving to get things done.
• While the populist on the left eventually stepped back and supported the pragmatist on the left, not all of his supporters warmed to her message.     Her message provided well thought out solutions for most of the "issues" that were brought before her.  His message continued to focus tightly on taking back control from the 1%. 
• Neither candidate in the end was perceived as likeable by the majority (see below)
• On the just-hours-old canvas of "Today", as new institutions form alongside new leadership, the "left" is already disenchanted.  They were similarly disenchanted with our institutions during the time of George W. Bush.  Disenchantment has swung dramatically back and forth during my adult lifetime.

Our painting's color palette

Are you with me so far?   I know I'm generalizing quite a bit.   I know that you might not agree with each of my points.  I know that I might tend to add and subtract from the list as I continue to ponder this election.  I have tried to restrain myself from character judgment above.   I'm also not considering extremists so much even though they get all of the attention -- I'm really thinking of Americans across the board.   As a separate grouping, here are some more character-oriented thoughts:

• The "left" sees the "right" as void of compassion because of a perceived prejudice.
• The "right" sees the "left" as void of compassion because of a perceived elitism.
• Extremists on the "left" act "elitist" -- those on the "right" feel judged.
• Extremists on the "right" practice racism and hatred -- those on the "left" feel hated.
• The "left" sees the "right" as uninformed because the "right" distrusts "facts" that they see as associated with the institutions they react against.
• The "right" sees the "left" as uninformed because they don't focus on issues important to them.
• With regard to religion, each side sees the other as "faithless".  Each side values their own faith highly and faith frames their thinking. 
• Both sides have a hard time seeing the perspective of the other.  Some of it is geography or demographic, but a lot of it Social media.  Social media polarizes each side's judgments and insulates each side from the perspective of the other.  Social media is the brightest of pigments.  With such a pigment and the thickest of brush strokes,  extremists stand out with bold clashing contrasting brilliance.  The extremists can be dazzling to one side, and garish to the other.   Any other perspective is hard to see as it becomes "background" or obscured altogether.
• The "right" reacts with resentment and fear to everything the "left" expresses. 
• The "left" reacts with resentment and fear to everything the "right" expresses.

Our painting's muted hues

Still with me?  I may not be with me :-) -- this is getting a bit jumbled together, even in my own head.  But with each one of these thoughts, a Facebook post, a Meme, an Internet comment, or an opinion piece, or a piece of journalism comes to mind.

Here's the rarest thing in my mind -- things I have yet to see on Facebook or on the Internet except in the subtlest most understated hints.  I occasionally see this more boldly in personal conversation with people who are thoughtful and broad minded.  Here's my "rare" list -- understated colors and muted tones somewhere in the background on the canvas of "Today" and largely unnoticed:

• A new understanding emerges
• The "left" can see why the "right" is disenchanted with our institutions and appreciate their traditional values.
• The "right" can see the value of some of the more pragmatic approaches of the "left" and appreciate the value of some progressive social change.
• Both sides understand what they have in common.
• The "left" finds greater value in compassion than in fear and hate.  They emphasize compassion in the context of the ideals that define them as "left".  This is so, even while becoming activists for the causes they believe in.
• The "right" finds greater value in compassion than in fear and hate.  They emphasize compassion in the context of the ideals that define them as "right".  This is so, even while becoming activists for the causes they believe in.
• Each side communicates thoughtfully and compassionately and listens to the "other"
• Judgment is minimized in place of good, positive, and creative ideas

How I saw the election of 2016

My own perspective of the election was initially just thinking that we needed a veto vote for the majority in Congress -- that was an institution which left me disenchanted, the low point being Sequestration and then the government shutdown in 2013.  In waging a war of ideals against President Obama, Congress seemed to me to be neglecting its duty to come up with good ideas with which to carry us into the future.  Hillary Clinton quickly emerged, but I still had quite a bit of resentment against the ending years of the Bill Clinton administration and his conduct in the White House.   I then did some reading and was able to find quite a bit about her to like -- like others who I admire, she seemed to be a hard-working problem solver who believed the institutions of government could be reformed to indeed carry us into the future.   

Then Bernie Sanders came along.  He seemed to more sharply focus on the plight of the 99% -- and like many on both sides of the political spectrum, I was disenchanted by corrupt business practices that led us into the disastrous 2008 recession.  Nobody had really stood up to that particular elite, and as respected friends were energized, I too found myself mostly in favor of Sanders.  Deep in my mind, though, I felt like Clinton's pragmatic approach might work more effectively than Sanders' visionary approach.

And Trump came along as the other populist.  He represented that very 1% to me, but to others the things he said represented traditional values.  That was particularly so as politically oriented religious leaders on the right began to endorse him.  As I mentioned above, both had concise easy to explain messages.  Clinton's in comparison was complex and difficult to articulate.  I once looked up candidate slogans over the years (e.g., "Give 'em Hell Harry") and found that the Clinton campaign had perhaps a dozen of them.  Trump stuck with his one.  His tweets were similarly sharp, simple, and to the point as you'd expect with a 140 character limit -- exactly what his constituents wanted to hear.

Trump's message was one thing, but his outrageous behavior another.   I could see people I know on the "right" embrace the idea of change for the sake of traditional values ("Make America Great Again") but just about not vote for him because of his behavior, his lack of competence and experience, and his very visible lack of ethics.  And just about any comment about him from the "left", in the media or in social media, demonstrates the horror expressed regarding his character.  His character attracted the extremists on the right, but his message attracted a much larger group of voters on the right even thought they saw him as unlikable.

In the end it was the populist on the right (not really a Republican, but embraced by Republicans who tended to normalize him in their minds to the point where they could vote for him, holding their noses as the expression goes) running against the institutionally-oriented problem solver on the left.   I had no trouble moving back from Sanders to Clinton -- I had already identified quite a bit about her that I liked.  But others on the Sanders side never did move over.

In the midst of this were three earth-shaking events, all damaging to the rational-minded problem solver on the left even as she seemed unstoppable in the polls:  "Fake news" (mostly on the "right"), the Russian hack and the calculated release of embarrassing emails to Wikileaks, and Comey's inexplicable FBI investigation which also seemed calculated to do the most damage to Clinton's campaign.  Those who primarily saw Sanders as an outsider ready to reform government also saw Clinton as part of the establishment -- in their words, "in bed with wall street".  Fake news reinforced that image.  Wikileaks added fuel.  Comey's announcement of the email investigation lit the fire.  As fake news took hold, people were expressing views of Clinton that judged not her, but some horrible caricature that had been painted instead of her.  (I would say that the view of the left toward Trump is also that of a caricature except that I haven't had much evidence yet from Trump that holds up against criticisms of his character :-) ).

The other force were the extremists -- the KKK for instance, or the extreme religious right, or the alt-right (as known in "Gamergate").  They took the populist's more outlandish and hateful rhetoric as license to move their extremism out of the shadows.  Their hatred of the candidate on the left showed no limit.

I voted for her already knowing that these forces were formidable.  I still expected her to win, but I wondered how she was going to move beyond the damage caused to her campaign by fake news, Wikileaks, Comey, and the extremists.

In hindsight, it isn't hard for me to understand how the sides became much more polarized than I've ever seen before.  And it isn't even hard for me to understand how Trump managed a narrow victory.  The folks at fivethirtyeight.com have analyzed what they said in response to polls, and his victory always remained possible given the closeness of the race and some of how polling can offer imprecise data.  By election night, Trump had roughly a 30% chance of winning, and 30% events tend to happen all the time -- just under a third of the time.

Filling in the Gulf

So where do we go from here?  We have a so-called populist in the executive branch, and we have the same "right" dominated Congress that has been a continual disappointment to me.  Nobody really knows right now, but my guess is that he isn't going to have a lot of power and that Congress is going to have much more power than before.  I don't fear a fascist regime, but at the same time, I understand those who do.  (As an interesting exercise, read Trump's inauguration speech sometime, and then read Hitler's ).

My side, the "left",  is going to have to do some soul-searching.  We seem blind to the fact that when we say or post something in outrage over what someone on the right has said or done, others on the right will dismiss it as part of our elitism.   While gaining approval from our friends on the left, it's not going to close the gulf in the slightest.  But if the gulf remains open, we're going to have a nearly impossible influence over the next election or among those now in power today.

Clinton didn't loose because of any fault of her own, or her campaign, although I've read plenty of criticism and analysis that makes that claim.  She had good ideas and she had a positive outlook ("When they go low, we go high").  Trump isn't some genius that somehow manipulated the system to his advantage -- but he happened on the right circumstances.

Voters tended to like the more tightly focused messages of Trump and Sanders.   One of those, Bernie Sanders, will always have my admiration for holding the very wealthy and the very powerful ethically accountable.

I'd suggest that a future candidate should be as pragmatic and as positive as Clinton was, but with a very focused message - preferably one that considers the inequitable influence and inevitable corruption of leadership by the 1%.  But even that isn't going to work unless we Americans begin to bridge newly-widened gulfs.

My Christian faith focuses on the teachings of Jesus -- and among those teachings are a multitude of examples of being called to love and have compassion for others across similar social gulfs.  The well known parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) is a great example of such a teaching.  Honoring God above all and seeing ourselves as humble servants is another quality to which those of my Christian faith strive.  That too leads to bridging gulfs -- a positive reverence of God as our creator quickly quashes fear and hatred that divides us from one another.

Put into practice (and I speak for myself), that might mean stepping back from the pure enjoyment of a good barb against the other side.  Put the memes aside, and instead consider why it is that someone from the other side, if they are not an extremist, voted the way they did.  There is a reason large numbers of people on the right distrust some of these institutions -- government, science, medicine, education, the press, business, law enforcement, and religion.  There are reasons many on the left distrust others of these institutions.  Instead of judging and condemning, a more productive course would be that of Hillary Clinton insofar as we identify what we can improve about those institutions.   How can we support those who we know closely who work within those institutions, just trying to make the area of their responsibility work as well as possible?

Conclusion

And instead of ideological camps, anger and hatred (which exists on both sides in abundance), how about applying energy to upholding what we see as the best of humanity -- intellect, character, humility, reverence, compassion, forgiveness, ... there are many examples which are also found in abundance among what Jesus was always asking of those with whom he communicated.

I believe Trump must prove himself now that he is our president.  My opinion is also that he is off to a terrible start (inauguration speech and cabinet picks).  Ditto for our Republican Congress.   I believe that activists must fight for compassion and I admire Martin Luther King Jr., for the example he and his followers set so many years ago.  On my side of the political spectrum, I applaud and support those who march, those who petition, and those who work within the system. I support those of the press with journalistic integrity who hold our leaders accountable.

As a Christian, I also believe in praying for our leaders, even these new ones, as directed in the Bible (1 Timothy 2:1-4) that we may all live quiet, holy, and peaceful lives, made better in that process collectively.

But I believe that both sides could make significant progress toward filling in the gulf, simply by refraining from anger-fueled judgment and attempting to appreciate each others' perspective.  These are the ideals for which I pray most as I pray for our leaders and as I pray for ourselves.

During times in which I feel more optimistic, I have an assurance that such ideals put into practice will quickly move us into a brighter future.  During times in which I feel more optimistic, I find myself thinking that  in spite of the doings of a Populist, we may actually find that America is Great in a new way that we Americans haven't ever seen before.

During times in which I feel less optimistic . . . well, we always have Internet memes :-)

---

PS - Events are happening very fast -- I started composing this on the day of the inauguration shortly after watching the coverage and have edited it a few times since.  Since I started this essay, the weekend was highlighted by the history-making Womens' marches throughout the country, all defined by positive energy, loud voices, and nonviolence which I felt inspiring.  I'm proud of the fact that Denver had among the 5 largest demonstrations in the country.    I admire very much those who marched, those who are politically active, and those who are working to effect change in so many ways.  I admire even more those from each side that are actively seeking to understand the other side as I've tried to communicate in this essay.   These are indeed historic times.

A wall, A message from Martin Luther King, Jr.

A Wall, A Message from Martin Luther King, Jr.

The symbolism of this photo is from what I believe is one of the greatest speeches of human history. I try to read it every year at this time and get something new from it each time: "With this faith, we will be able to hew out of a mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day".

For my Christian friends, I think these reflect the words of Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus".

To me the MLK monument also symbolizes a wall -- you walk through the cleft in the stone from one world to another as you enter the monument. In the darkness of a Washington evening, I left my familiar world as a business traveler and tourist in DC, and entered another one. I stood alongside African American families, and other groups of every "world" and we shared awe, reading the plaques and gazing on the statue, the older among us remembering his tumultuous times.

Social media often is the opposite of "Social". Just read the comments section of any news story to see how hatred and fear abounds, how it feeds upon itself, and how walls are subsequently built. And it's not just hyper-partisanship. Online, there is always a "we" and a "them". "We" hang out in tribes of others who are just like us. "They" are always seen as lower than us in every way.

This wasn't the dream of Martin Luther King -- not if you let his words sink in.

I am part of the "liberal" tribe, but we are just as guilty of building walls as any other tribe. What if we devoted more energy to connecting positively with anyone different instead of holding onto hatred and resentment?

I've been privileged to know many who are different and in each case, that connection has been beautiful. If you are presented with that same opportunity and/or if you get a chance to read the entirety of Martin Luther King's "I have a dream speech", even if you've read it before, I'm pretty sure you'll see some of that same beauty.

--Tim Fredrick, Martin Luther King Day, 2017

Welcome to 1984, Jedi Fans

Welcome to 1984, Jedi Fans

Posted: November 29, 2016

It was March in 1984 when I snapped this photo of the terminal where I worked that spring.  I know the photo doesn't bring enough detail to read it, but after New Year's day, I had changed the message of the day on our multi-user PDP-11/780 to read:

"Welcome to 1984"

The allusion of course was to George Orwell's book, "1984" - a particularly biting political satire which was really about Orwell's own time, 1949.  His masterpiece was a dystopian outlook that didn't seem too removed from political forces of his day as history was propelling his own country (England) and the rest of the world deep into the cold war.

In my world then, 1984 wasn't at all dystopia -- somehow we humans had moved beyond Orwell's warning leaving his novel to be a "classic".  High school students all over the country might have had to read it for class, but "1984" really didn't hold any contemporary relevance.   In contrast, while the year 1983 had its share of crises, tragedies, and problems emanating from our television sets during the evening news, a number of remarkably progressive things were happening which shape our lives today -- from the beginnings of our modern Internet to Congress founding Martin Luther King day and criticizing Japanese internment.   Looking brightly to the future and calling it "Star Wars", the president was going to defend our country with space based technology that promised to make the inter-ballistic missile threat of the cold war obsolete.  His plan actually sounded feasible as we considered the technological and medical advances that seemed to be enthusiastically announced on the same screens almost every week.  Even "Return of the Jedi" figuratively ended the notion of political repression as the rebels of the Star Wars trilogy celebrated their victory leaving audiences to return home, feeling similarly triumphant and empowered.

I know that's my own picture of the year leading into 1984.  I realize I've ignored much in creating an image of the previous year in this essay that highlights the year with Ewok song and dance rather than something like the dark cold war vision of the TV series "The Day After".  In my picture, Darth Vador smiles happily on the audience in his posthumous transfiguration, ultimately reformed and renewed for the moviegoers of '83.     But I think many at that time would have agreed that Orwell's book just didn't seem that relevant when the year 1984 finally arrived.

Jumping way ahead to 2016, I have found myself reading 1984 again -- finding not just insight into Soviet style totalitarianism of the 40's and 50's, but themes that reflect against those of the most recent election.

One of the book's themes is that of "truth".  Orwell's "Ministry of Truth" deals with art, education, literature, and journalism.  But of course it's obvious, even to readers of today, that his Ministry of Truth is a propaganda machine like that of Joseph Goebbels.  Moreover,  the ministry is an instrument used to repress the free will of the people.  There is no "truth" in the "Ministry of Truth".  Inconvenient newspaper articles about people who were once favored by the party but who were later ousted aren't just hidden away.  They are physically destroyed in "Memory Holes" and replaced with articles that revise "history", demonstrating that the party's position had never changed after all.    The manufactured "truth" of 1984 is carried to the people by technology -- an information overload of pervasive screens that are always on and that have a Skype-like ability to see back into people's homes and workplaces, always manipulating their very thoughts.  Winston and other protagonists in 1984 had a sense that their "truth" was manufactured, but to oppose the party's nonsensical slogans (e.g., "Freedom is Slavery") even in one's inner thoughts was pretty much unthinkable.

The President elect's campaign rallies now live on YouTube  -- "two minutes of hate" as something similar was described in Orwell's book.  Take a look at one of them -- if the video doesn't end with riled up masses chanting "Lock her up!" then the candidate was having an off day.

The "memes" of the victorious party will similarly live on in web archives, perhaps to be resurrected and shared once in a while in the midst of heated emotion on social media.   George Orwell's "slogans" in 1984 were never out of sight, even though social media hadn't yet been invented in 1949.

Our 2016 election is finally over.

This last week, though, has been highlighted by one story after another about "fake news" -- web sites and Facebook pages that were set up during the election that manufactured "news" that would engage a certain conservative audience.  Sometimes the stories were real enough -- headlines and language were simply added to elicit an emotional reaction.  Writers knew how to manipulate their audience with emotion.  If through its emotional embellishment a story reinforced a reader's world view, the story would get shared -- carried en-masse to the people at large and gratefully accepted and shared with satisfying outrage to still more readers.  It would go instantly "viral" -- and throughout 2016 I saw hundreds of these cross my feed.   Advertisers were overjoyed -- their ads which were pinned to these stories would almost immediately get viewed by millions.  Even the President elect ended up participating in that "sharing" as fake news stories slid easily through his Twitter account on their way to his fans.   A group in Macedonia discovered readily enough that they could bring the profitability of supermarket tabloids to a much larger audience via the Internet.   Alex Jones and other conspiracy theorists end up thriving in a climate where legitimate journalism doesn't seem to stand a chance.

Even before the fake news phenomena, we had what many have called the "Fox News" effect -- but it could also be the "MSNBC effect".  These are feeds that do bring legitimate news, but alongside plenty of commentary, opinion spots, and editing, making them, as a podcast at Fivethirtyeight.com described, "activist" content rather than "journalist" content.

In 2016 the Ministry of Truth is alive and well -- even with Orwellian newsspeak-like phrases like "alt-right" (really "bigoted") and "post truth" (really "willfully ignorant").

But we live in an advanced age and an advanced culture -- so why has our modern Ministry of Truth taken hold?

A clue comes from this Gallop survey which I discovered after listening to a FiveThirtyEight podcast:

• http://www.gallup.com/poll/1597/confidence-institutions.aspx  

As you read through, look at the trends -- Maybe you can start with the year 1984 as you examine how we Americans trust our institutions.     Many institutions which were once more highly respected, now have diminished confidence.  Government is the obvious example, but it's also Schools, Science, Organized Religion, Banks, Labor, Journalism, and even Medicine.  We live in a very "anti-institution" age compared to 1984, and many have turned to our new ministry of truth and to a populist candidate like Donald Trump, out of their disappointment with these institutions.

That's half of the story about the survey -- the other half which goes back to Orwell's totalitarian vision are the institutions that haven't suffered drops in confidence.  These include the military (authority), the police (authority), and small business.

The Orwellian interpretation might be that more than before, people only trust authority.  (The commentator at FiveThirtyEight points out they also trust their local community -- hence "small business" being included above)   Donald Trump uses very authoritarian rhetoric -- not only is "Make America Great Again" his slogan, but he says things like he knows more than the generals, and is otherwise the only man who can lead us to this future of greatness.     Institutions that are about truth (Science, Education, Journalism, and Medicine) aren't trusted nearly as much as a man who can make emotional appeals to glory and greatness, and is supported by manufactured news which uses fear and patriotism in very much the same way Orwell's protagonists experience the products of the Ministry of Truth in their world.

Looking at the 2016 election while I read "1984", it makes sense that educated demographics tended to vote against Trump's populist movement.   They have confidence in institutions that are about truth.  Those who have been most disillusioned by the institutions of truth are left to trust authority instead.  Truth ends up having less influence than a populist running for office who promises to shake up these institutions.

Of course, this essay is just one point of view -- my own musings.   But right now,  I have been fascinated by "1984".   Whether it is to appreciate good literature or to examine Orwell's insights reflected on a modern age, I highly recommend the book.

I wish I could be more optimistic about these times, but we seem to have encountered a major setback in our culture.  In the light of failing journalism, empowered billionaires, climate denial, and struggling schools, this seems to me to be the "meme" of our times as much as of Orwell's fictional world:

"Ignorance is Strength"

Maybe somewhere further down the path of history, the tides of public opinion will shift, and we can once again be in a progressive age.  We might still find a time were we can feel good walking out of the theater, celebrating a future rebel alliance victory in the same vein as George Lucas's film of 1983.

Post Election Essay: HOPE

I have another "essay" -- this one I struggle with because the timing never seems right. In the last few days the news has been dark, both from the media and people on my FB feed who are personally experiencing hate directed at them or at people they love. So I don't know if this will resonate with you or not -- but know that whatever you are experiencing, my heart goes out to you.

HOPE

November 14, 2016 

Back in my InterVarsity days, I was in a group that had a discussion about the spiritual gifts. As we attempted to name each other's gifts (e.g., wisdom, counsel, understanding, fortitude, etc.) someone told me that I had a gift of "hope".

My reaction was "hmmm - that's odd". I couldn't really accept that at the time. I struggled with depression, stress, and anxiety, and during my darker times, hope seemed vaporous and elusive.

But it gave me something to think about over the years. I know there's a ton of theological and philosophical thought about what "hope is". I don't deny any of those right now -- this is just one thought swirling around in my own head.

What if hope isn't passive? What if it develops in a sequence like this?

• Hope is a thought.
• Hope is a choice.
• Hope is an embrace.
  

In today's political context, it works like this for me. It begins with a thought that within the complexity of history there's something better. There always is. The Black Plague accelerated the Renaissance. The 20th Century had Hitler, but it also had Einstein. Might whatever our demons of today also be outshone by something better?

Then it's a choice. People mostly voted or didn't vote out of their "world view", highly influenced by their locality and their culture. But "world view" is rarely absolute. I'm a liberal, but my world view is constantly being challenged and changed, the stream of my thoughts changing course often as a result of wise things you all say or pretty much any new information. It's a choice of mine whether to staunchly hold onto a world view when it doesn't work any more, or whether to consider something new.

But ultimately, hope is an active verb, not a passive one. It's not something you have, it's something you do. It's an embrace. If your world view is that Government has done little to make your life better, your hope is the act of voting for a populist candidate. If your world view is that we in the majority are ethically obligated to protect, include, enable, and uphold those who don't have a voice, then you are at least figuratively embracing them. In my liberal world, the populist will fail us -- he will disappoint. Those who hate in his name will eventually go back into obscurity. To empower myself, I'm practicing hope by writing these essays. And I'm about to write a letter to Senator Gardner. I signed a petition, and I've had a few conversations with friends. Really for me, hope doesn't exist in its fullness until I do these things.

We see fear and hate being practiced around us -- even in our own county. It's awful, sickening, and demoralizing.

But there's hope being practiced as well, and it is from younger people. I wish the media focused more on it. Our neighbor across the street is in high school and at his school the students organized a demonstration and walkout. His own poster read "Love and Unity, not Hate and Diversity" and it was painted all over with symbols of various religions, nationalities, people holding hands, and the rainbow flag. I saw a photo and as he prepared to march, he had the biggest grin on his face. He was practicing hope, even at his young age.

To those that choose to build their world view around disdain you'll find plenty of examples to reinforce that. Incidents of hate among students have occurred at my son's high school and at another school in a nearby town. Hate is a dark world view you choose to build. For myself, I know some pretty impressive kids and young adults in their 20's -- they did not as a rule support Trump, and because they are a generation with sophisticated social awareness and political savvy, a more connected and global generation, a generation that is better educated, and a generation with a stronger work ethic, there are an abundance of examples of people who inspire me to hope. And they themselves are more ready to practice hope than my generation ever was.

My own hope comes and goes, usually with each new FB post. But I know I can choose hope, and I know that I can embrace where that choice leads me.

Mostly the high school students who made a choice to express love and unity warmed my heart -- and even in these dark days, I'm encouraged by their serious but optimistic efforts to change the world they will inherit.

Post Election Essay: POWER

Power

November 12, 2016

I wanted to send this out as an encouragement, but I understand if in the midst of anger, grief and despair you aren't ready for this. If that's the case for you, my thoughts are very much with you. There will be a time to come back to this in the future.

Every four years we go through an election cycle where the marketing is intense and unrelenting. Even if you like political discussion as much as I do, 18 months from beginning to end is a dysfunctionally exhausting process. I say that even if you like the candidate that won. The overwhelming "marketing" teaches us that politics is power and encourages us to vote for the person that will wield that power in the way we most agree with. Through whatever flaws we have in our electoral system and through surprising support for Trump from the disempowered among us, we ended up with who I think is the worst and most morally deficient candidate as our executive chief in modern times and a continuation of the worst Congress of my lifetime.

Trump himself rallied on themes of power. On YouTube I watched his appearance in Pueblo and as he rattled off one authoritarian statement after another from his stump speech, the audience became more and more "energized". They felt their own power rising as they chanted "Lock her up!" at the end. Their combined voices were truly terrifying to witness if you didn't support their candidate. I have every reason to believe that Trump will wield as much power as our system allows. The fact we have this particular Republican congress puts a magnifying glass on that power.

But a wise friend of mine posted on his Facebook recently this: "See reality: power comes from the bottom, not the top. It's the way of nature". He gave the example of a herd of cattle giving their power to the rancher even though the animals are large and powerful. He continued on "Even the world's ancient spiritual traditions tell us the Ruler is at the bottom, not the top!"

If we're feeling powerless, it means that campaign marketing has succeeded. It's not reality, though. The reality is that power flows all around us. In my world, there is no greater power and influence than from someone who practices even the smallest acts of compassion. I'm inspired too by people that have acted to empower themselves by going to demonstrations, by signing petitions, by supporting charities and social causes, and by planning on next steps to keep visions of clean energy, environment, and social welfare alive.

For Christians, there is a type of power that is camaraderie with God. We misuse the word "blessing" all the time, but it's a word that's not about happiness. It's a word that means to be holy. I look at that as a type of power. At least it means that one is on the right path, less encumbered by what is not "holy" in order to be powerfully compassionate.

That we think power is in politics and not among and around us is what is surprising about what Jesus says in Matthew "Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth" - a theme that's reflected throughout the sermon on the mount. Or if you prefer the old testament, the words the Psalmist uses to comfort in Psalm 37 "Do not fret because of the wicked . . . the meek shall inherit the land". This type of power (for the meek) comes from refusing to wield power for oneself even when the temptation exists. In practice, I think it is power that comes when one instead takes action to make someone else's life better (compassion).

Seen in this way, a smile, a conversation with someone "different", a meal, or a hug are all more powerful than the types of power we believe the President wields.

Back to politics, I really didn't like the slogan "I'm with her" although I thought about attaching it to my car. It just seemed weak compared to a lot of inspiring slogans throughout the history of elections. The English major side of me sees those words and thinks, "I'm giving power to her". To this day, I feel the reasons for doing so were sound. Clearly, now that the election is over, those slogans will gradually disappear from yard signs and vehicles.

Expanding from a thought I encountered reading an editorial, what if we had a slogan "I'm with them" (referring to those who are frightened, who are hurting, and who may be hurting as government turns against them)? That wouldn't be giving power -- that would be recognizing that there's power to act. What if we had a slogan "we're with them"? That would be collectively working on behalf of our neighbor, doing things for them that help them realize that they have power as well. From what Clinton has said, and from what Sanders has said, I'm willing to bet that "We're with them" would resonate positively. Best of all, it's a slogan that wouldn't disappear with a political loss.

Fortunately we live in a political system where power is distributed and checks and balances are in place. A number of those were removed but a few remain (like the filibuster). It is an illusion, as my friend seemed to be saying, that all of the power is in one man, even constitutionally. That man does not affect all or even most of what goes on in each of our lives. We do have power, and if we can honestly say "We're with them" then that power is also a blessing.

Post Election Essay: COMPASSION

Compassion
November 11, 2016 

I've tried to talk myself into not looking at Facebook or the news these last couple of days as my blood pressure rises with each post. As you know, it's not really in my nature to turn away from either one.

I wish I could design a "compassion filter", though -- in my own grief over the election of Trump at this moment in my walk through history, compassion can be the one thing that stands up against the ugly formidable forces of fear and rage. It comes in the form of our school principal sending out a letter reaffirming that our High School does not tolerate hate and will actively stand up for students no matter their gender identity, race, religion, or political belief. It comes in the form of our institution's president gently reminding those of us who fear losing our jobs to the force of Republican anti-science rhetoric that we actually do have people on both sides of the aisle in Washington who take our research seriously. For me I tried to use it to counter my anger by renewing my contribution to the IRC - a rescue organization that assists refugees in crisis.

My own little world is safe, but the fear that is out there is palpable. A friend posted that someone he knows attempted suicide and as he was being helped said that he feared being subjected to gay conversion therapy by Trump and Pence. A myriad of stories are out there as Latinos and Muslims also express the fear they are living through.

My own little world is safe, but the anger that is out there is palpable. It is what elected Trump against all reason. The Democrats failed to see it and what a powerful force it is. There are also a myriad of stories and Facebook posts about hate crimes and hate messages. And in news headlines, the KKK is celebrating.

I don't always think People realize they are practicing hate when they call people they don't agree with "libtards" on Facebook, or when they claim Republicans only voted for Trump because of bigotry. They don't realize they are practicing hate when they post spiteful comments about protesters or when they fan the flames of fear.

But compassion is something one knows when they practice it, because an act of compassion diminishes fear, rage, and hate all at once -- for both the giver and recipient. If you are "liberal" like me, check what you say before posting. Is there a message of compassion in there? Will your post effect change as a result of compassion? Even if you are posting something critical of Trump or the Republicans, are you making it clear you're also advocating healing for someone who is currently hurting? If you are Conservative or Republican are you giving us a chance to grieve? Are you reassuring us with something other than mildly condescending platitudes? Are you recognizing that when people protest or cry out in anguish that their fear and anger is real to them and even justified?

To me, this week is my "9/11" -- when all of my culture around me seems to have toppled. Healing comes slowly. One man was given power who tends to say very authoritarian things. He could help a great deal by delivering a simple speech opposing the violence and hatred that is being practiced in his name. I'm still waiting . . .

I was very critical of his Presidency, but in our first "9/11" President Bush was quick to give a number of public statements in the months that followed, making it clear that we do not hate Muslims, and that it was not okay to practice that hatred within our own borders. It was his act of compassion to try to heal a culture that had toppled -- and for people like me who listened to that message, it was much needed encouragement opening a path to hope and closing a door to despair.