Policing police (3) Mar 15, 2010
A few weeks ago I was driving on a 30-mph road near the high school in my town.  It was the middle of the day, and I was behind a cop.  The cop was driving at or under the speed limit (bravo), and he didn't have his siren or lights on.  He didn't appear to be in any rush, which is unusual but perfectly acceptable.  As we approached a stop sign, I maintained a safe following distance (of course) and watched as the cop slowed down only slightly, then coasted through the stop sign without coming to a complete stop, after which he continued on his leisurely way. 

In my short time on this planet, I've seen cops do many seemingly illegal things.  I've seen them turn around on those dirt roads in the middle of the highway where it says not to make any turns (emergency vehicles are allowed to do this).  I've seen them drive through red lights on their way to important business.  I've seen them travel obviously over the speed limit in an apparent attempt to apprehend a speeding suspect.  These examples are all sort of gray areas, because we as a society have collectively agreed to exempt certain people from following laws when said people are trying to enforce laws.  It's kind of a catch-22, but it's generally seen as a good thing.  Otherwise, for example, everyone would speed all the time and simply ignore flashing lights in their rearview, knowing that eventually the cops would be left in the dust. 

But I'm pretty sure failing to stop at a stop sign when not in pursuit of a criminal or somehow otherwise enforcing the law is a black and white issue.  This cop should've gotten a ticket, been forced to pay a fine, and gotten points on his license and insurance.  That's what would've happened if it had been anyone else in the same situation, except an attractive young girl with a good crying reflex.  So the question that comes to mind is:  Who polices the police?  Who makes sure the law-enforcers remain law-followers?  Because if there's one group I'd sign up for in a heartbeat, it would be that one. #law
Flatland (3) Mar 15, 2010
Flatland is a book written by a British schoolmaster in 1884 about a two-dimensional being who lives in a two-dimensional world and is visited by a three-dimensional being from a three-dimensional world.  This may sound like possibly the worst topic for a book in the history of the universe, and I would agree with that premise, except that I read the book a few weeks ago and it kind of blew my mind.  It was mentioned on a recent episode of the geeky TV show The Big Bang Theory, and it turned out Wendy's former boss had given her a copy several years ago inscribed with the words, "I hope you like this better than the Bible," which is one of the more ridiculous things I've ever read, both because the book doesn't quite measure up in any significant way to the Bible no matter how you look at it (take, for example the fact that the average human has never even heard of Flatland), and because this was Wendy's boss.  The backstory makes a little more sense as Wendy had just started working and one of the few things her boss knew about her was that she read the Bible.  Regardless, thanks for the book. 

Anyway, the book is essentially about perspective.  It was nearly impossible for the two-dimensional being to understand the idea of a third dimension because he wasn't equipped with the ability to comprehend it.  He understood "length" and "width" because that's what his two-dimensional world consisted of, but the idea of "height" simply couldn't be explained rationally from the perspective of two dimensions.  It was only after visiting a one-dimensional world and having difficulty communicating the idea of two dimensions to the one-dimensional inhabitants that the two-dimensional being could fathom the possibility of a three-dimensional world. 

This theme has two main implications, both of which are at least slightly ridiculous, but which I will explore nonetheless.  The first is that there could conceivably be more than three spacial dimensions.  And while that idea sounds fantastical, our objection to it has the exact same basis as the two-dimensional being's objection to a three-dimensional world:  It doesn't fit in with our current understanding of things, therefore it can't possibly be true.  And just like the two-dimensional being was proven wrong by a visit from a three-dimensional being, so could we too be proven wrong by a visit from a four-dimensional being, or a five- or six-dimensional being, whatever that even means. 

Second, the human concept of "God" could be our interpretation of a visit from a four-dimensional being, which either means (a) our "God" is one of many gods, none of which are more worthy of worship than the next, or (b) we should aspire to learn about this being from another dimension so that we can expand our minds and understand our position in the grand scheme of things. 

Personally, I'm sticking with option (b) because it better fits into my current system of understanding, which I fully realize is a perfect example of irony. #entertainment