One of the benefits of refusing to give a shit about whether or not I keep my job anymore is not being intimidated by the power of the big boys when they come and visit our humble little plant. The VP in charge of our entire sector was in town on Wednesday, and in a Q&A section that followed an exceedingly lame PowerPoint presentation I chimed in with the following question, in regard to the fact that our company just put both barrels into its mouth and squeezed both triggers, Hemmingway style, by outsourcing all of its technical engineering work:

"With the outsourcing of most of our technical jobs to third-party firms, to what degree do we expect that to have an effect on our ability to find and retain people who are qualified to give technical direction to the company, in positions like technical leaders?"

The question seemed to fluster him a bit, and he did a stalling move that was opaque enough for me actually to be a little impressed by it, making a bit of a joke that he was going to "translate" the question to the rest of the crowd, by going to repeat it in oversimplified language.

Poker playing John, who was sitting on my immediate right, and with whom I generally have a fairly antagonistic relationship, seemed a little taken aback, and murmured "Good question!" I tried not to beam.

Tom asked me if his oversimplified version was what I was asking, and I said, "Sort of. I'm specifically referring to electrical type work here. Like, how do we expect to find people who are qualified to tell us what the next generation PLC is that we should buy, if they've never actually programmed a PLC, and don't have the opportunity to, since we've farmed all that out?"

It became abundantly clear that he had no answer, though he did say that that was an "important question" and that it was one that they would have to look closely at. He passed it off then, to the engineering-specific underling who gave some bullshit about how project managers gain technical expertise through overseeing technical aspects of their job. This is horseshit of course, and I called him on it in roundabout fashion, saying "Sure, maybe for things like PLC programming, but other aspects, like Vision and HMI, are more of a black box."

It was the only time where a question was asked, responded to, and the questioner piped back up through the whole session, and it was an interesting little exchange. I was actually pretty proud of it.

The hidden message was, of course, "Okay, we all get what you're trying to do by pushing our technical jobs elsewhere. And the effect that that has is to tell smart guys like me that they have no place in this company. That's your prerogative when it comes to design work, but let's not forget that smart guys like me are the ones that are poised to grow into our future technical leaders, the ones that provide the crucial technical direction that we need to the company. And by saying that we only want people who like managing other people, you're alienating anyone who might remotely be interested in that sort of job down the line, and creating one hell of a vaccuum."

It was interesting. I think I actually impressed some people. I think some people were thinking, "holy crap, check out the pair on that one." Not giving a shit is a powerful forensic tool.

Man, this is sad. It's 7:00 in the morning on a Saturday and I feel like I've slept in. 12 straight days of 12 hour shifts will do that to you ... 144 hours+ of work in under two weeks. Ugh. So painful. But, I don't have to work today, and today is the day of the $100 game. Then it's Jose's going away party, where I fully intend to get blitzed and play copious amounts of XBox.

AIDS denial

Having taken an interest in the evolution/creation "debate" over the past few years (which is to say, having a desire to arm my brain against the pseudo-scientific ramblings of anti-science religious fundamentalist fanatics), one of the curious phenomena I've come across is the notion of HIV/AIDS denial, which is often used by the pro-science side of the debate as another scientific "controversy", like "intelligent design", that has absolutely no evidence in its favor, yet commands a rabid following. I hadn't heard much about it until recently, and had never really speculated on what the motivation could possibly be for trying to deny HIV causes AIDS, but this post over at Aetiology (a wonderful science blog, btw, run by the pHd with perhaps the best mug shot in the scientific universe, Tara Smith) has proven to be very educational. Go through the comments, and prepare for some vile stuff, both in the traditional and intellectual fashion.

The primary perpetrator is a poster named "Michael", who, as best as I can tell, is a homosexual that lost his lover to AIDS, or, as he describes it, to AZT. That had never actually occurred to me, but it makes perfect sense. I had always assumed that these psychotic delusions were the result of some weird manifestation of homophobia, which still may play into it (Michael clearly seems self-loathing, as his graphic depictions of what he purports to have go on in certain homosexual orgies seems to represent), but upon the top of that, it appears that there is actually some belief that homosexuals were targetted with AZT in a holocaust-like campaign of eradication!

Reading through those nearly endless posts is an interesting exercise. Such a strange mix of argumentum ad hominem, argumentum ad ignorantium, and argumentum ad infinitum: the endless spewing of personal attacks in order to avoid discussing the evidence, of which the dude is obviously quite ignorant. It's interesting how far they can stretch a simple observation (early treatment of AIDS patients was largely ineffective and in many ways disastrous) into a conflation of all sorts of fucked up assertions.

What interests me more than that insanity is the similarity it bears to many other sorts of anti-reason rhetoric that pollutes the net. The similarities to Creationism are many, but it doesn't stop there. A poster going by the name "futurelegend" astutely puts it as follows:

But also, I think the reasoning behind HIV Deniers and evolution deniers and various breeds of religious nuts is all the same. HIV is unlike anything we have encountered before. People are desperate for news that its not so bad, that 'scientists' have blown it out of proportion, the world really isnt this dark and evil. Its easy to exploit this hope. But the fact of the matter is, this world is dark and evil enough to contain a virus like HIV, and all the lemon juice and vinegar in the world wont stop it. **shrug** Its hard for some people to accept.

So in a way, psychologically it is the same as say, Creationists. We didnt evolve on our own! We arent alone in the universe! Theres a god that made us, and loves us, and if he didnt make us exactly like this book says, maybe that book isnt divinely inspired at all. **shrug** Again, its hard for some people to accept.

It goes further than that, though. You can see a lot of this fucked-up projection and denial in a lot of the conspiracy theorists, such as those that pollute a good blog like Screw Loose Change.

I wish I knew more about the human mind, so that I could penetrate a little better into what causes this behavior, but I can definitely see the same sort of behavior in forum after forum after forum.

I don't know that anyone has ever done a full psychological evaluation of whatever underlying psychological condition is the cause for this sort of behavior, or if these behaviors have ever been scientifically, psychologically, medically connected. Creationists, AIDS deniers, and the Tinfoil Hat Brigade all exhibit the same reality-defeating tendencies to ignore information that's inconvenient to them, the same projection of their own behavior on whoever they're arguing with, and generally tend towards the same argumentative techniques. That can't be a coincidence.

I'm a masochist. I decided that I wanted to go down and visit Angie for the Labor Day weekend, seeing as how she was good enough to come up and visit me over July 4. In any case, the drive down to Houston was pleasant enough, managing it in just over six hours (lead foot + 350Z = lucky I didn't get a ticket), and having a more or less good time hanging out.

Except for...

First night. She asks "which side of the bed do you want?" and I laugh and smile and we share the bed, platonically, quite nicely.

Second night. We hop into the bed without comment. I wake up at 3:00 and she's gone. She explains it that night by saying that I was snoring and that she couldn't get me to stop. It's a fucking lie but I don't have the balls to call her on it.

Third night. She just takes the couch.

Monday. We're out to lunch at Chili's, ready to be seated, she makes a comment that makes me laugh and want to make a joke in response, and to accentuate the joke I put a hand on her back and give a bit of a rub and make the comment, and she just tenses up and snaps, "listen, I'm not your girlfriend, please don't touch me like that!"

What the fuck?

Never mind that I've given this girl more backrubs than I can count, and that she's always happy to receive them. The comment came so quickly, and off of a touch that was so innocuous, that it was obvious that she'd been looking for an excuse to go off with that comment.

I came very, very close to going off on her as the conversation progressed. She has this way of going "sor-ry" whenever she tries to give her reasons that she's not attracted to me - and it just makes me want to smack her, as if she's saying "sor-ry I'm such a shallow, superficial little cunt when it comes to you!" I'm not even pissed that she's not attracted to me (that's the claim, anyway) - I'm not stupid, and girls have completely valid reasons for not being attracted to me. But when every single guy she's dated since I've known her has been a complete fucking chud, the argument loses its credibility. The last guy she dated was thirty-eight ... THIRTY-EIGHT for chrissake, she's twenty-five ... almost completely bald, with no discernable intelligence, no discernable personality, and who wound up cheating on her after she made the terrible fucking decision to move out of Atlanta and try to maintain a long-distance relationship.

For all her posturing about wanting to get married and wanting to settle down, she has a remarkable track record of finding guys where that's not even a remote possibility. Honestly, I think the reason she keeps me at arm's length, more than anything, is that she knows that a relationship with me *would* last, and on a subconscious level that scares the everliving shit out of her. I still remember this guy she met down in Roswell, who, when she talked about him to me, she didn't even come off as being completely nuts about him - all she ever did was complain - and then when she went back up to Toledo, actually tried to maintain a long-distance relationship. Ridiculous.

In truth, she's operating under the fantasy that some nice, single, gorgeous, successful, flawless, young guy is going to waltz into her life and sweep her off her feet; what that steers her toward tend to be miserable, superficial losers who are skilled at presenting an image of themselves that obfuscates their self-destructive interiors. She maintains the illusion of having high standards, when really, what she has are specific standards. She's looking for the specific traits that ensure a relationship that will self-destruct in nine to twelve months.

In any case, I don't fit into that, and I'm not trying to. I've never pursued a relationship with her, only tried to explore the limits of what she's willing to play around with on a casual, "I only see this guy once every few months" basis. She's more or less rebuffed me on all points, but she keeps coming back for more - it's an interesting dynamic, one where I know I'm causing inner conflict for her and where I hope that inner conflict is healthy.