Screw Qantas

What a bunch of conniving, petulant, self-aggrandizing scumbags.

Qantas are now doing the media blowjob circuit insisting that unless the government uses its powers to prevent any further industrial action by the unions of its staff members, it’ll keep its fleet grounded indefinitely.

I’ve seen this sort of behaviour before – it’s usually at a shopping centre, where some nasty and selfish little 8 year old gets told he or she can’t have that new toy or treat, and has a huge screaming temper tantrum. Well Qantas management and arch-offender CEO Joyce have thrown themselves onto the ground and started screaming, with snot running from their noses screaming “I WON’T I WON’T I WON’T”.

So that means they’re a bunch of conniving, petulant, self-aggrandizing, tantrum-throwing scumbags. And richly compensated ones. Excessively, richly compensated ones.

So within their lovely houses and with their travel arrangements sorted out in advance via other means, the Qantas board has figuratively bent the Australian nation over the boardroom table, spat on their hands and said, “Relax bitch, it won’t hurt a bit.”

Not just the Qantas workers.

Not just the people booked to fly Qantas.

Not just the family of the people booked to fly Qantas.

Not just the businesses that will be affected.

When you add all those things together, you’re talking about screwing the entire nation.

Under the Howard government, this would have been a supremely confident move.

Under a Labor government of old, such as Keating or Hawke for instance, this would have reeked of desperation and been likely to be shutdown within 24-48 hours.

Under this government?

There’s going to be a lot of very pissed off Australians baying for Qantas management blood. Some quite possibly literally. I smell an election victory for Labor with this if they fix it quickly and smack the Qantas management team six ways from Sunday. In public.

[Edit]

However, it’s become clear that the Australian government is siding with Qantas management and petitioning for the immediate end to industrial action.

Way to go, Julia! Between the asylum seekers, gay rights and now industrial relations, you may very well go down in history as Australia’s greatest Liberal prime minister of all time.

 

If I were to somehow travel back in time and were able to give my younger self some advice without causing a temporal paradox, I can honestly say that I’d give only one piece of advice: don’t change a thing.

Young PrestonThe above photo was taken when I was somewhere around 4 years old, and much of my psychology sessions so far have turned out to be addressing things related to the next 5-10 years of that little boy’s life.

Yet, I am who I am, and every event in my past has contributed to making me the person I am, and just as importantly, has contributed to me knowing the people I now know. Sure, there’s some shit in my past, but wishing I could somehow wipe that away means wishing for an erasure of self – of this self.

When I’d been thinking about Friday’s psychologist visit on Wednesday and Thursday, I wasn’t quite sure what I’d be discussing, other than a desire to explore what options there might be on the social phobia front. Then, late Thursday evening, I saw an incoming consulting request which might mean travel to the opposite side of the world. My first, initial reaction, was pure horror.

What was useful though was having already spent a couple of sessions discussing various bits and pieces of my psyche, my self awareness had been tuned enough that I could recognise this reaction for what it was – social phobia. Not a lack of appreciation (or, likely), a lack of desire for the work. Just the typical gut fear for having to go into a new situation.

So I made a brief comment about it on Facebook, knowing it would elicit some feedback, then went to bed to sleep on it. That in itself was a sign of an improved reaction. And so, the next morning, I threw the consulting opportunity request across to my managing director.

It certainly gave me something to talk about on Friday afternoon though with my psychologist, and as I’ve discovered in previous sessions, for me at least, those sessions are about me talking to someone sufficiently independent and outside my ‘loop’ that I can validate my subconscious thoughts on what the solution might be – thus enabling me to actually apply those thoughts and head towards that solution.

When we see people talking about seeing a psychologist or psychiatrist on TV, the term “repressed memory therapy” is tossed around like a sad meme, and so it builds up this notion that it’s either all bullshit or it’s all involving deep hypnotherapy sessions. For me it’s not so much a case of “repressed memory” but “unprioritised memory” or “unacknowledged memory”. In this case, we started talking about my general struggle with travel and its linkage to my social anxiety and suddenly I remembered the significance of an experience when I was around 10 or 11. A few friends and myself from our school had been given the opportunity to go to a one week “creative” camp – video, music, writing, etc. I’d approached it eagerly, but the morning I had to go, a huge dread built up in me, and I spent the entire week away utterly miserable. It was the first time I’d ever really been homesick, and it hurt bad. I got a cold as well, which made the experience doubly annoying, but I still remember to this day leaning over an upstairs railing at the event and thinking “If I manage to fall over I’ll likely break my arm and then they’ll have to let me go home”. I didn’t go through with it of course, but it was that level of discomfort.

And for the most part, it is that frightened, homesick kind of kid that pops up in the psyche when solo travel is discussed. (That kid that also grew up in the cold war, the 70s and 80s, who was smart enough to understand worrying parents and be terrified of the notion of  being away when a nuclear holocaust started.)

I know in many circles, Freud is getting a bit passé, but there is something to be said in particular for the base notions of id, ego and super-ego – at least from a lay perspective. That super-ego approach has been to trample and dominate the id, to invalidate its processes and suppress them. Or if you want to bring it out of the Freudian analogy, it’s about trying to suppress the negative emotions in the limbic system.

Ironically in doing so, I’d achieved the exact opposite: The angry side that lead to intense anger suppression for lengthy periods followed by irrational outbursts, and the traumatised, scared side that hated the notion of travel or dealing with new people. “Monsters of the Id” – and we’re taught monsters don’t exist, so they should be ignored. The super-ego approach of “reasoned intellectual response will rule” – the vulcan attitude, you might say, creates an opposite result than intended.

So what’s the net result?

A cure isn’t about learning to control these elements – well, not in the suppress interpretation of control, but how to integrate them.

I don’t need to go back and tell that little boy from my past to change anything. (That’s not his job, and if he did, I wouldn’t be me, I’d be someone else anyway.) I just need to give myself the permission to make those changes now, in me.

(Oh, and apparently I need to learn how to relax, so I’m off to learn about the parasympathetic nervous system…)

 

In an article in the UK Telegraph, we’re told that Pope Ratzinger recently declared in an address that “saving” humanity from homosexuality and transexuality can be compared to saving the environment:

In his address to the Curia, the Vatican’s central administration, the Pope himself described behaviour beyond traditional heterosexual relations as “a destruction of God’s work”.

He said the Roman Catholic Church had a duty to “protect man from the destruction of himself” and urged respect for the “nature of the human being as man and woman.”

The pontiff added: “The tropical forests do deserve our protection. But man, as a creature, does not deserve any less.”

To be perfectly blunt, I think the pope yet again has his head stuck so far up his arse that he can see what he had for breakfast.

Instead, I’d suggest a few things that humanity really does need to be saved from:

  1. People who molest and abuse children. On the scale of which it has been conducted by the catholic church, this constitutes a crime against humanity and as such the pope and his most senior advisors need to be charged and investigated for shielding and suppressing these details.
  2. Overpopulation. This week the world’s population will hit 7 billion. The incessant immoral teachings of religious organisations against birth control imperils the entire human race, on a daily basis. We have already reached population levels that are likely to be unsustainable. The vatican, through its continual preaching of abstenance-only birth control is directly attacking humanity’s future.
  3. Poverty. Sure, the catholic church’s charitable arms do good work, but the vatican has amassed considerable riches which is hoards like Scrooge McDuck. “Bankers’ best guesses about the Vatican’s wealth put it at $10 billion to $15 billion … The Vatican has big investments in banking, insurance, chemicals, steel, construction, real estate … Unlike ordinary stockholders, the Vatican pays no taxes on this income.” (Time Magazine, US, February 26 1965.) The church apparently got jack of this sort of notoriety and started publishing finances, but these seem to be clearly doctored, with a 2005/2006 report estimating the net worth of all the church’s real estate at just $908 million US dollars. The trick, you see, is to treat each diocese as largely (financially) independent. But that’s sheer sophistry, given all humanity-damaging church policy is enforced from the central authority – and so too could wealth redistribution.
  4. Suicide. The catholic doctrine explicitly says that those who commit suicide go to hell. Yet, by continually pushing religious intolerance towards homosexuality, it systematically and directly contributes to the bullying and self-hatred experienced by many same-sex attracted people – bullying and self-hatred that leads to a higher suicide rate in the gay/lesbian community than experienced in the heterosexual community. By their own arguments, they are guilty of mortal sins by encouraging this behaviour.

Perhaps, after he pulls his head from his arse, this self proclaimed moral arbiter of the world could look into the recesses of his abscessed and pestilent organisation, and realise that humanity actually needs to be saved from the catholic church.

 

With all the talk about “gay marriage rights” really just being about “marriage rights”, I thought I might spend a moment to actually talk about something that justifiably can have the “gay” appellation attached to it.

A gay anniversary.

We found out last night that this weekend marks the 31st Anniversary of the Laird Hotel.

But that’s not the anniversary that I’m talking about – even though it could be tagged as a gay anniversary.

No, what I’m talking about is Darren and my gay anniversary. The first anniversary of us ever setting foot in a gay club. It happened a year ago, this weekend. With thoughts starting to coalesce for our move to Melbourne (albeit still thinking it would be 1-2 years out!), we came down to Melbourne to visit two relatively new but great friends we’d made during the year. They already both knew that we’d never been to a gay club before (both with some mix of horror and amazement, I guess), and decided to introduce us to the Laird.

The idea terrified the hell out of me. Honestly, I lost nights and nights of sleep thinking about it, and was a nervous wreck. Now I can look back at it with a strong degree of amusement and self-awareness that it was a perfect storm for me in terms of social phobia, but back then, I was terrified.

As it turned out, the night they intended to take us happened to be the Laird’s 30th Anniversary, although they hadn’t known it at the time they decided to do it.

It was therefore with great trepidation and a strong desire to just run, that I followed them and Darren into the Laird in Abbortsford, and after taking about an hour or so to relax (with, of course the help from some Dutch courage), I started to enjoy the place. OK, I’d known that it was a bear and leather bar before I walked in, but I still had visions of it everything that was an anathema to me on the gay scene – judgemental twinks and muscle men, pumping dance music (or Kylie tracks on sycophantic repeat) and rejection.

Instead? Friendly smiles, a relaxed atmosphere despite the packed nature of the night, and the occasional known face as I recognised someone I’d been talking to online before. We bumped into a good friend who we’d thought would be in Sydney and so hadn’t told about our visit. I was hugged by someone I’d been talking to for a few years online who mistook me for one of our friends we’d come with, only to share a laugh about still knowing each other regardless. Darren bumped into one or two people he’d met on his last holiday in Tasmania who’d come up for the event as well. Equally though, on reflection, that night now is as much defined by who we did see as it was by who we didn’t and who are now such good friends, too, including undoubtedly a best friend for me. In addition to a few very close friends we found out subsequently had been there, I’d bet my next cup of coffee that probably half of the bears on my friends list on Facebook were also there that night – unknown at the time, but friendships awaiting with the march of time.

When we came back down in March so that I could meet customers, and Darren could start scouting regions for us to live in, we visited the Laird again a few times, and that feeling of welcoming comfort was strongly reinforced. So by the time we moved in June, we were missing it (not to mention our friends), and it was a welcoming beacon all the way from Kingsville.

But that first night – the Laird’s 30th Anniversary – was a pretty special night.

(I got cake!)

How many more gay venues have we been in since the Laird? Hang on, I’ll count … there’s been … um, none.

I suspect the first time that count will increment will be the next time we visit Auckland.

Happy 31st Anniversary, Laird. And happy first gay anniversary for Darren and I.

 

Monsters John. Monsters from the Id.

Monsters of the IdOn Friday morning, after feeling a little anxiety rising, I found myself again sitting down to another 50 minute session with my psychologist. We started talking about language and the way I ‘see’ conversations when I’m post-analysing, as a result of use of the word ‘issues’ in the previous session. One of the more interesting parts of that component of the conversation was coming up with an alternate word so that I’m not dealing with the mild cognitive dissonance of my view of ‘issues’ and what he (and likely most people) would see it as. In particular, he visibly balked when I suggested calling them ‘problems’ instead, since he felt that a ‘problem’ had negative connotations. My answer: a problem is something that needs analysis and leads to a solution. And the negativity may not be a bad thing – after all, if I’ve been dealing with these ‘issues’ the wrong way for years, then maybe giving then a more negative label is a good way of encouraging me to deal better with them.

So, problems it is. Problems can be dealt with.

As I suspected with therapy, the real process for me is having a sounding board, completely outside of my ‘loop’, who I can impartially talk to and get that new perspective I need to break out of certain areas. I guess the closest analogy would be that I’m stuck in a maze, but anyone else in the ‘loop’ with me is equally stuck in the maze too, so there’s not much point talking to them. Someone sitting in a chair above the maze though? That’s the person to talk to.

Ironically, having realised I was feeling anxiety, a lot of the puzzle pieces had already started falling into place before I walked into the session. For years I’d labelled my introversion as the reason why I’d sometimes be reluctant to go out – and that’s certainly a contributing factor, but it’s only a peripheral one. As we got onto that topic of comfort levels in social situations, I discussed a typical situation for Darren and I when we go out into any situation where either (a) we’re going somewhere new, (b) we may be or are intending to meet people I don’t know, or (c) we’ll be doing something newish. And in those situations:

  • I get grumpy a couple of hours before we go out;
  • I mentally have to drag myself out the house – or Darren has to do similar;
  • I’ll be stressed the entire time to the destination;
  • Once we’re there, I’ll continue to be anxious for a while;
  • It’ll reach a crest where I want to just get the hell out of there;
  • Someone or something will break the ice;
  • I’ll be almost entirely comfortable for the rest of the time.

(Then, to top it off, I’ll frequently get guilty about the fact that I’m getting grumpy, I’ll then get angry with myself for being guilty about being grumpy, I’ll then get guilty with myself for getting angry about being guilty about being grumpy … and so on. But I’ll get to that in a moment.)

Answer? That one’s easy – I have a mild social phobia. It’s not the sort of debilitating one that leads people to be complete hermits, because I recognise the need to get out and frequently want to get out, it’s just I have an anxiety period associated with it until I reach that required comfort level. Solution? Be prepared it will happen, social anxiety is common enough that there’s nothing to really worry about. Relax.

Relax.

So much of my problems probably spring from years of refusing to relax. I’ll get to that another time.

The anger/guilt cycle though is quite simply neurotic. And it is worse when I get irrationally angry – such as in situations where I’ve been over-managing my anger and it jumps out at an inappropriate time. I know it’s completely irrational to get as mad as I do at the time, so I get guilty about it, so I get angry about having to let it go when I feel like it needs to come out, and again, the cycle happens.

The neurotic behaviour is the one to really focus on, and the way to achieve that (which I’d been looking for) is to short-cut the anger/guilt cycle so I can pull myself out of the anger. The theory behind that solution is amazingly simple, and while I can’t say I look forward to trying it out, I can equally say I’m hopeful it will help, since logically it makes sense.

Rightly or wrongly, that anger when it rises is basic fight-or-flight, but I’m effectively preparing to do both. So that means shallow breaths, it means altering the oxygen/CO2 balance. It means putting the body on edge. Which does explain the slightly altered vision when I’m getting irrationally angry and moving into that cycle.

Which leads to the action. It’s possible to simultaneously be in fight-or-flight and relaxed. Deliberately short-cut by taking deep slow measured diaphragmatic breaths. That helps restore the oxygen balance in the body and brings down the fight-or-flight reaction to the point where logic is no longer as skewed and coherent decisions can be made. Such as, “OK, so I got stupidly angry. I’m not going to get guilty about it, I’m going to move on, rather than trying to hold onto it.”

Growing up, I’d be tormented to the point where I exploded, then I’d be told that I was such a bad sport and told my behaviour was unacceptable. So my anger over-management kicked in. My general cycle has been to refuse to acknowledge the anger, trying to suppress it, until it’s too late and so when it does burst out it’s emotionally harmful to those caught in its wake. And by ‘those caught in its wake’, I invariably mean Darren.

Monsters from the Id, indeed.

Ultimately those different deep emotional parts of us aren’t meant to be suppressed, or excised. They are a real part of us and shunning them doesn’t solve anything. Equally though, letting them into executive control isn’t something that should be done either. Yet, continually trying to suppress means that occasionally they will sneak through into executive control.

I’m surmising as much as anything my depression has been stemming from twin neuroses – first, refusing to acknowledge the validity of some forms of anger, and second, by going into my anger/guilt cycle. Both ultimately lead me to have up/down swings while the internal battle is going on. (The first, in fact, is actually just an apex manifestation of the real core neurosis – I’m incredibly, harshly judgemental of myself.)

I’ve still got a long walk ahead of me – I’m not going to solve this overnight. But at least, I’ve now got a compass to find my way out of the maze.


End note: “Monsters from the Id” is reference to the 1956 Science Fiction movie, “Forbidden Planet“. If you haven’t seen it, I strongly recommend you do. It’s one of the best science fiction movies of all time, and totally stands the test of time. “Id” is something that the psychologist didn’t mention – I know to a degree the Freudian notion of Id/Ego/Super Ego have slipped out of fashion, but if you equate Id to the limbic system or reptilian part of the brain, there are worthwhile analogies to be drawn.

 

High Anxiety

 

So I’m about 3 hours off my second psychologist appointment, having woken up with a filthy headache (gone now, all praise panadeine), and that constricted feeling in the throat is rising, meaning I’m feeling the onset of some level of anxiety.

I walked out of the last session feeling so good, then a few hours later crashed so strongly (having allowed myself to get too wrapped up in my own definitions of words), that there’s some level of nervousness in just approaching the next session.

One of the side-effects of deciding to confront all of these issues is, quite frankly, a significantly more acute self-awareness. (I’ve always been reasonably self aware that there’s been issues, but (and there’s no way around this), I’m a damn good liar when I set my mind to it, and I’m also so regularly reserved that the average person who has known me for years wouldn’t really have noticed much, if anything, anyway.)

With that significantly increased self-awareness comes a self-admission that I can at times feel somewhat anxious about having to deal with new people and new situations. Not to the point that you’d call it a phobia, but there’s definitely that strong introvert sitting there wanting to shutdown, withdraw and have some solitude when things get ‘new’. For instance, on Wednesday night Darren and I went to a comedy club in North Melbourne with a couple of his work colleagues, and suddenly confronted by (a) having to meet new people who I had practically zero frame of reference for, (b) doing it in a location I’ve never been, and (c) going to a type of venue I’ve never been, I had to drag myself out of the house, and at every step along the way found myself mentally clawing for an escape route.

It wasn’t until the first of the three comedy acts was over that I found myself actually letting go of that desire to flee.

In the introductory session I touched on my fight-or-flight desire with the psychologist, mentioning the irony that I can happily stand up in front of a large group of people and talk about something I’m a subject matter expert in, but the notion of going into a small situation with unknown people who I have to make small talk with is about as terrifying as zombies to me. (Well, I didn’t mention the zombie-phobia to him, but that’s a quicker way of explaining it here.)

But it’s probably something I need to explore a little more.

 

 

Yesterday morning I made my first visit to a psychologist. It was more of an introductory session – exploratory, if you will. The psychologist was probably as much as anything wanting to make sure that we could achieve results together, since everyone in mental health seems very clear that one of the biggest challenges is matching a patient to a compatible therapist.

Yet, some things did get discussed – enough, at least, for me to walk out of the session having been told some useful things, namely:

  • Yep, I’ve been dealing with depression for likely some time.
  • My depression comes from various items of trauma, and is unlikely to stem from an actual disorder.
  • I don’t have anger management issues – I have anger over-management issues.

Net result, I was told, was that I should reassure myself that I’m not ‘crazy’ but I just simply have some issues that I need to resolve.

So, I walked away from the clinic with a spring in my step that I hadn’t felt for ages – discussion had started, I was walking that (potentially long) path towards clearing up, I can reassure myself that I’m not crazy, and I equally don’t have a disorder I’ll have to learn to manage. I just have issues.

And I felt really good for about 2-3 hours, until my self analysis kicked in.

The curse of being intelligent is that you’re often your harshest critic, and so my thought process eventually turned down the following path:

  1. So I don’t have a mental disorder.
  2. I don’t have a physical disorder.
  3. I just have issues.
  4. Does that make me a failure as a person for having not dealt with them?

So yesterday afternoon, all into the night and then through to early this morning, I was stuck in that loop. No actual ‘excuses’ for the failed thought processes, so it’s just a failure on my part to actually deal with my issues under my own steam. The ‘breakthrough’ of deciding to see someone wasn’t a breakthrough but an admission of failure. It doesn’t matter that having learnt the term this week that I’m aware I frequently have impostor syndrome. Self awareness and intelligence, it appears, is a bitch when it comes to mental health, since it means lengthy stretches of cognitive dissonance – such as in this case simultaneously holding the world view that I’m a failure and knowing it’s not the case.

This morning though, after a night of existential nightmares, and ramping up into the same feelings of failure, I managed to get myself onto enough of a different tangent that I could see the issue in a different context.

Context is without a doubt a core problem for me. I’m going to make a bold claim here and suggest that I may have synaesthesia. If you’ve heard of it, you’ve probably heard of it in the context (ha!) of associating/seeing colours with sounds, or seeing words and text in colour. It’s a condition that has several formal recognised versions and considerably more informal ones that haven’t been studied enough to be formally recognised.

Mine? If it’s not synaesthesia it’s likely going to be some variant of a linguistic disorder. It all stems from how I learnt to speak though. I had a speech impediment as a kid that was so strong I had to go to speech therapy, and a considerable part of the learning there involved having flash card sessions. A picture of a cat, with the word “cat” underneath, and having to repeatedly say “cat” until it sounded close enough to move on to “dog”, or whatever the next flash card would be.

So I learnt to read while I learnt to speak. And for years I thought that was the only net effect of it, until only recently I realised that it affects how I communicate, too. In fact, it affects it hugely. Darren and I will periodically have contextual failures in communication, and it goes like this:

Darren: So, Steven said X.

Me: Oh, that’s interesting.

>I go off on a mental tangent about another person, Stephen<

>Context has switched, I’m now thinking Stephen instead of Steven<

Darren: And then Steven said Y

Me: Huh? What? What are we talking about?

You see, I make a contextual switch based on the words, not the content of the discussion, and I lose track of the actual discussion. Spelling becomes meaning, for a start – but my interpretation supersedes meaning. Why?

Because of the stupid fucking flashcards.

I don’t just see words associated with things, I see meanings associated with words. There are whole books and theories of academic studies about whether language shapes thought or the other way around, and I’ve got the entire fucking battle running around in my head on a daily basis. So, particularly as I run through things in my head later, I’ve got those flash cards in my head tagging my meanings to the words that come back. If it’s just about cats, dogs, place names, people’s names, inanimate objects, that’s all fine.

Words that can have interpreted nuances, though?

Something Darren says frequently in instant messaging is “fair enough”, as a response. It’s a statement that he’s seen and understood what’s been said to him, felt it necessary to  acknowledge it, but has nothing further to say, quite possibly because there is nothing further to say.

“Fair enough”, for me, still interprets as “Oh fair enough!”, with extreme exasperation. And so every time Darren says “fair enough”, I have that “blink blink” moment where I first see my interpretation, then pull out of it and see his interpretation. Or more correctly, see a more likely interpretation. Indeed, another best friend in Melbourne happens to say “fair enough” when he chats online with me as well, and I have to equally do the same “blink blink” every time he says it.

This, as a quick side point, is why I react so strongly towards hate speech. I’m not just seeing the words. I’m seeing the meaning, overlaid like an augmented reality over the words. I see the anger, the depraved need to hurt and cause injury all wrapped up in the words.

Maybe my synaesthesia is that on non-neutral words, I don’t just see the word, I see the emotion of the word, or the interpreted meaning of the word. Not always – I’ve got some theories about how it triggers, but I’m still exploring that.

But where does any of this come back to my plummet yesterday?

Issues.

It all hinged on the word issue, and how I naturally interpret it. For me, an issue is that I can’t find a file on my computer I need to use. Or I’m looking for a pair of scissors I misplaced. It’s a minor, niggling thing. So once that self-analysis kicked in yesterday afternoon – fuck, if all I have are issues, that’s pretty lame – I’m pretty lame. And that’s where the loop started.

Yet, in no way is that what the psychologist meant yesterday when he said I had issues. So now I’m going through that period of cognitive dissonance where I’m simultaneously aware of what I mean by ‘issues’ and what he meant by ‘issues’, reconciling the differences between the two, and dealing with the need to not see my meaning when I think of him talking about ‘issues’.

(Of course, this is now the bit where my natural curiosity kicks in. Do others who had to do similar speech therapy as children deal with language the same way (or at least a similar way) to how I do?)

So, as I undergo therapy, it’s clearly something I’ll have to clearly spell out to my psychologist – my contextual failures aren’t just something that causes me to lose track of conversations as I’m having them, it’s also something that affects my post-conversation analysis, too.

The old clichéd saying is that every cloud has a silver lining. It may have taken me around 33 years to work out the negative impacts of the speech therapy I had as a kid, but I wonder whether they can be harnessed in a positive way? In the simplest form, obviously by retaining as much as possible a foreground awareness of how they impact my interpretation of information, I can start to control and limit that interpretation, channeling it in the direction it should go rather than the direction it would naturally go (for me). But what of other possibilities? For instance, I’ve always been atrocious at learning languages. For example, after 2 years of study at high school, I can introduce myself and ask if someone speaks English, in French. But would I be make better progress on languages if I did it via flash cards?

I have much food for thought.

Will the vulcan klingon? I certainly hope not.

 

In case it’s not been immediately obvious to anyone, I’ve done some simple diagrams to explain where RIM went wrong in this catastrophic outage they’ve been suffering.

You see, most companies implement what we call redundant infrastructure. In systems that require high availability, this is often accomplished with something as simple as clustered (either LAN or WAN) hardware and communications. Sometimes it’s designed that each component runs at the same time, sharing the load, but if one fails, the other one takes over and runs all the load. In simple terms, it looks like this:

Active/Active ClustersThat all makes sense, right?

Unfortunately, RIM seemed more focused on having failover capabilities for upper level management, so it instead clustered its’ CEOs:

RIM Clustered CEOsThe supposed theory behind this is that the two CEOs, working in an active/active arrangement, could handle load better and get the job done better than a single CEO – and provide resiliency!

Unfortunately though, the hardware resiliency wasn’t as up to scratch, and when it started to fail, RIM started having a catastrophic outage.

Now, you may have expected at that point for the active/active CEO cluster to step in and help. Unfortunately though, they’ve barely been heard from. So, in cluster terms, we have to assume a sort of reversed split-brain situation has occurred, where both components of the cluster think the other component is still running:

RIM-splitbrainAnd there you have it – why RIM is having their current outage.

It’s also a lesson for all you other companies out there: you need fault tolerant infrastructure as well as CEOs.

 

 

“They were Gods once, but their worshippers either died out or were converted to the worship of other Gods. They wail and flutter around the edges of reality without substance or even thought. All they have is need.”

(“The Hidden City”, David Eddings.)

I’m not much of a David Eddings fan these days. These days I pretty much maintain that the only truly good book of his that I’ve ever read was “The Losers”. That being said, he does have a knack for turning a good phrase from time to time, and the “Powerless Ones” mentioned in “The Hidden City” constantly springs to mind when I think of people such as Richard Stallman.

Now, if you’re not a big IT geek, you may not have heard that much of Richard Stallman. Richard was instrumental in the development of the Free Software Foundation, and the GNU Project. (GNU, in this sense, is one of those self-recursive acronyms so loved in some IT circles – in this case, it stands for GNU’s Not Unix.)

Richard Stallman is a relic of a bygone age. He believes and espouses the notion that all software should be free (“free as in speech”, not “free as in beer”, as the FSF so bluntly puts it). To quote the FSF directly:

Free software is a matter of the users’ freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it means that the program’s users have the four essential freedoms:

  • The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
  • The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
  • The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
  • The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission to do so.

Some time ago, Richard Stallman did some good things. He developed tools which were added into Linux distributions (“It’s GNU/Linux!”, you’ll hear some people cry fervently), and has undoubtedly contributed to the sum total of computer science endeavours. Any business using free or open source software* is using software that likely owes part of its existence to the advocacy efforts of Stallman.

But, like The Powerless Ones, we don’t have to assume that having once said and done things of import, everything Stallman says and does today is still of import.

It came as no surprise, for instance, when on the death of Steve Jobs, Stallman said:

Steve Jobs, the pioneer of the computer as a jail made cool, designed to sever fools from their freedom, has died.

As Chicago Mayor Harold Washington said of the corrupt former Mayor Daley, “I’m not glad he’s dead, but I’m glad he’s gone.” Nobody deserves to have to die – not Jobs, not Mr. Bill, not even people guilty of bigger evils than theirs. But we all deserve the end of Jobs’ malign influence on people’s computing.

Unfortunately, that influence continues despite his absence. We can only hope his successors, as they attempt to carry on his legacy, will be less effective.

That “malign influence”? That’s the bit where Apple builds products that aren’t designed from the ground up to allow the end-user to hack, tinker and play. In fact, many of Apple’s products are explicitly designed to discourage this. They don’t, for instance, allow you to officially root (hack) an iPhone, iPod Touch or iPad.

But, as I pointed out in “Apple Won. Get with the programme“, we’ve moved beyond that point in computing where everything should be done to ensure that geeks get 100% satisfaction:

I think Apple almost inherently offends a lot of overclockers because it creates a much more closed in system. That closed in system means they can’t tweak components, performance, etc., to their hearts’ desire: from the most basic (theming the OS) through to the most complex (hacking it to run on any hardware), Apple sacrifice non-consumer extensibility at the expense of making it more accessible to an increasing number of consumers. Nothing demonstrated this more than iOS – be it on the iPad or iPhone, or even the iPod Touch. Both for the consumers, and for the overclockers.

Stallman views the world still from the early computer-era perspective. He wants to get in and tinker. He wants to experiment. He wants to change. He wants to share what he’s changed with others. All of which are admirable things, but that’s not the evolutionary path that technology takes. Technology becomes simpler, it becomes easier, it becomes more reliable.

The sad thing is, in his demand to change, he’s remaining remarkably stagnant, and wants to force that stagnation on all of us.

Stallman tends to come out swinging against a lot of different technologies these days, often in a highly amusing way. For instance, he’s dead set against Facebook, and has on his main page:

Facebook’s face recognition demonstrates a threat to everyone’s privacy. I therefore ask people not to put photos of me on Facebook; you can do likewise.

Yet, a Google search for “Richard Stallman” images yields over 280,000 results. OK, not all of those results are going to be photos of him, but the initially returned results are. His face is already “out there”. His increasingly histrionic appearing proclamations of security and privacy fail to take into account the changing political and personal landscape out there – there are new privacy boundaries for users in the digital age, and all the screaming into the void that he wants to do will achieve nought, save creating the impression that he goes to bed wearing a copper-mesh hat.

Stallman really could use reading and digesting the contents of Danah Boyd’s “Making Sense of Privacy and Publicity“. (I suggest you do, too.)

Would it alter his perception one iota?

No.

A philosophy lecturer once said (and may have been paraphrasing someone else) “old ideas don’t die out. It’s just the people who hold them do.”

The notion of a world full of only free software – where everyone is a programmer and can tinker and play with their software as much as they want, where they can hack on any device they own and achieve anything they want (e.g., making their TV display a binary clock in the upper-left corner, or having their iOS device announce the time on the hour – whatever thing you can think of, really) is past. It was a pioneering notion, but it doesn’t fit with the consumer-centric development of technologies, and it doesn’t matter how much Stallman continues to shout into the ether, it won’t come back, either.

Is this a bad thing? The millions of iOS device owners wouldn’t agree. Nor, for that matter, would the millions of Android users who have never nor will ever ‘root’ their phone. Nor would the vast majority of computer users, who do not use open source operating systems.

That’s not to say that free and open source software no longer have a part to play. A realist can look at the nature of IT now and be content that it has a strong and healthy mix of both proprietary software and open source/free software. Which model is best? Both! Neither! Or rather, “both, together!” Without going too spiritual, they’re yin and yang to each other – both complimenting each other and symbiotically forming a complete ecosystem that helps power society.

Technology use shifts over time, and Stallman has tried to stay the tide. And so he “wail[s] and flutters around the edges of reality without substance or even thought”.

Please, pay the powerless one no heed – his time has past.

* Open source and free software groups, while they share some similar ideals, don’t actually fully mesh. That’s beyond the scope of what I’m writing about today, though.

 

Sometimes Darren and I have the most bizarre conversations where we just completely miss the context of what each other is saying. Or, to be more correct, I miss the context of what he’s saying. It has something to do with the way we think.

In fact, stopping to properly think about it, it has everything to do with the way I was taught to speak. You see, I had a pretty awful speech impediment as a kid, and so before I started primary school I had to do several months worth of speech therapy. My primary recollection of that was sitting on a bed of an evening and going through one flash card after another, with both the object, and the word printed on the card. A drawing of a cat, and the word ‘cat’. A drawing of a box, and the word ‘box’, etc.

Where Darren and I have contextual issues is where he says something to me – maybe talking about someone – and I don’t link it to what we may have only just 5 minutes before been talking about, because I’ve gone on a slight tangent. The best way to explain it is to imagine you know two guys called Steve – but one is Steven, and the other is Stephen.

And so, the sequence starts with us talking about the same Steve – short for Steven, maybe, but there’ll be a brief pause or gap in the conversation, and I’ll for some reason think of Stephen, instead. Darren will then say something else about Steve, but because I’ve pictured Steve = Stephen in my head, what he’s saying no longer makes sense for Steve = Steven, and so I’ve lost the context, and the conversation goes off the rails.

It’s totally bizarre. And it can happen sometimes multiple times in a day.

But never in electronic communication. Only when there’s actual speaking going on. I guess that’s further proof that it’s influenced by the speech therapy. When I’m having an IM, SMS or email conversation with someone, I’m not speaking, so I’m not picturing words. Therefore I can’t picture the wrong words. The words out of context.

All because in my mind, I’m picturing a different spelling of the word he’s saying and therefore what he’s saying doesn’t compute. Like last night, I lost context over someone saying “cheap” and me hearing “cheep”. No pronunciation difference whatsoever – just me immediately picturing the alternate word in my head.

Yes, I’m odd.

© 2012 unsane Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha