(This is part of my pondering about the nature of my love for Krystal.)

How Do You Identify and Practice Love?#

For months and years I was convinced that I shouldn't want to fall in love and in classic schizophrenic style I was also deeply afraid of ever doing it. Underpinning these two points was a belief that someone Love was beyond my control - it would be given to me and I would spontaneously be in Love. Now I feel that this is only part of the story: Love, because it is something you do not something you feel, requires work to let it live and the only thing that lies outside influence is the initial spark. This divine flash signals to us when we have met someone that we could love, if we are not watching or refuse to see it can slip through our hands.

In mid-October 2002, I was hit by a flash. At the time I did not interpret it as a signal that I was to fall in love with Krystal, I merely thought it was a signal that she gave me a kick and was something different. The process of realizing the gift we were given was long and fraught with much difficult as I battled my desire to love and my fear of love. With each skirmish against those two, I came close to the inkling of my Love for Krystal.

 

The shadow of Love I followed was more than the sinking feeling of every time she turned away and said goodbye and more than the complete agony of thinking of her with another - as she is now. This pain and suffering are not virtues assembled from Love, because Love is Just, Love is not Jealous or Unkind, and no feeling of Jealousy or Betrayal comes from Love. And I do not feel that having feels of this nature debases the properties of Love, because Love is a 'hospital for the sick, not a home of the saintly.' Once of the key aspects of Love is that she is forever forgiving and helpful to the heart of Lovers. When Love is returned it strengthens us to move forward in our quests to honour that Love in our own way.

No, Love is not desiring sole possession - as if any type of possession were possible - of your Lover. It is having the goals of giving your lover Liberty, Love, and Understanding. And then judging yourself by those goals.

 

To give someone Liberty means that we practice a non-jealous and accommodating love. To attempt to deny our lover her freedom and constrict her actions is to be an enslaver and ignorant to her needs. Essentially, to try and exert control over our lover is to put ourselves before her and destroy what would otherwise be called love. A friend or other commitment is not an attack on us nor is it breaking the commitment of Love. We need not worry about others because if our lover loves us in return then there is no need in their eye for anyone else. Any suffering caused by the inability to give a lover Liberty is either unjust or a misunderstand hurt caused by the refusal to accept Love.

The second desire that is essential to Love is the need to show that Love and have it be recognized. When we are in Love we may want the whole world know but above all else we want our Love to be recognized and received by our lover. In my case it was incredibly difficult to bring myself to show my Love to Krystal because I failed to realize it myself. The harsh judge of the self is particularly not lenient when it comes to this issue. One of the greatest forms of doubt and dishonour that we can feel is that caused by the failure to show those we Love that we Love them. I live now in the pain of remembering failed attempts to give Love and without sunshine to warm my wings and push my course forward.

The last pain that Love can cause us from lack of fulfillment of a desire is the desire to be Understanding of our lover. From two angles is Understanding desired: we first seek to Understand our lover's feelings so that when we fail in other fields we know and can move to remedy it; and secondly, we long for Understanding of the nature of our Love so that we can better understand how they have become a part of us and how they are the ideal of everything good and grand in the world. By Understanding does not live where there is Jealousy and is scared to show its face without loving arms to greet it. So our attempts to understand and fully appreciate our Love are essential to expressing and living that Love to the fullest.

 

On the other side of these wishes is the desire to receive all these things from a lover. We cannot believe that a person who claims to Love us wants to constrict our wishes and be sovereign over us, because Love embraces Liberty and shares in Love. We seek to Understand and be Understood by our lovers so we can connect a deeper and more fundamental level, so we can appreciate and be appreciated for every minute detail of our lover's being. A "lover" who does not seek to Understand us is one who is selfishly infatuated with the feelings we bring them and not truly engulf by the captivating awe and honour of Love. Above all else is the desire receive our Love once more in return, nothing hurts more than having our Love refused or abused. Without Love returned what would otherwise be a heart filled with warmth and hope becomes one saturated in sadness and devoid of meaning. I am unsure if it is better or worse when Love is present but just not returned - in the case of myself once with my fear of returning Krystal's love, or in the case of Krystal now where for some reason she does not want to share in the wonder. (Of course this assumption that she does in fact Love me still, but that is debatable.)

 

The important thing to realize is that Love does not "find" you or let you know who it is. All it does is put out personal ads that you must answer and work at. Love is not a feeling, it is something you do and by forsaking Love and expecting it to do all the work for you, you will surely fail at realizing its true potential and meaning.

 

Without Krystal's Love in return I have much difficulty in attempting to honour her by freeing myself of my vices like Jealousy or Envy. For a long time I was not about to return Krystal's Love to her and that was the fundamental thing that made the relationship hard for her. But she was a strong person who could fight my guards for a long time. Slowly, however, her drive has been weakened and she no longer seeks to share in Love with me.

Metafilter links to an article in Parameters from Charles J. Dunlap, Jr, The Origins of the Military Coup of 2012 from 1992.#

(Note: When reading this it is strange to have to remember that when Charles refers to the 'Second Gulf War' he is talking about something he thought would not ever really happen.)

An introduction into the setting of the letter,

The letter that follows takes us on a darkly imagined excursion into the future. A military coup has taken place in the United States--the year is 2012--and General Thomas E. T. Brutus, Commander-in-Chief of the Unified Armed Forces of the United States, now occupies the White House as permanent Military Plenipotentiary. His position has been ratified by a national referendum, though scattered disorders still prevail and arrests for acts of sedition are underway. A senior retired officer of the Unified Armed Forces, known here simply as Prisoner 222305759, is one of those arrested, having been convicted by court-martial for opposing the coup. Prior to his execution, he is able to smuggle out of prison a letter to an old War College classmate discussing the "Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012." In it, he argues that the coup was the outgrowth of trends visible as far back as 1992. These trends were the massive diversion of military forces to civilian uses, the monolithic unification of the armed forces, and the insularity of the military community. His letter survives and is here presented verbatim.

The central problem that was seeded in 1992 for Prisoner 222305759 was the increasing domain of the military and the disillusionment of the American public with the effectiveness of the democratic process.

Americans became exasperated with democracy. We were disillusioned with the apparent inability of elected government to solve the nation's dilemmas. We were looking for someone or something that could produce workable answers. The one institution of government in which the people retained faith was the military. Buoyed by the military's obvious competence in the First Gulf War, the public increasingly turned to it for solutions to the country's problems. Americans called for an acceleration of trends begun in the 1980s: tasking the military with a variety of new, nontraditional missions, and vastly escalating its commitment to formerly ancillary duties.

The most important defense against a coup d'etat is a populace that supports the current government, sadly that trust of the government continued to erode in the years after 1992.

For over two centuries that vigilance was rewarded, and most Americans came to consider the very notion of a military coup preposterous. Historian Andrew Janos captured the conventional view of the latter half of the 20th century in this clipping I saved:

A coup d'etat in the United States would be too fantastic to contemplate, not only because few would actually entertain the idea, but also because the bulk of the people are strongly attached to the prevailing political system and would rise in defense of a political leader even though they might not like him. The environment most hospitable to coups d'etat is one in which political apathy prevails as the dominant style.[7]

However, when Janos wrote that back in 1964, 61.9 percent of the electorate voted. Since then voter participation has steadily declined. By 1988 only 50.1 percent of the eligible voters cast a ballot.[8] Simple extrapolation of those numbers to last spring's Referendum would have predicted almost exactly the turnout. It was precisely reversed from that of 1964: 61.9 percent of the electorate did not vote.

So, the military was tasked with more responsibilities and additional, non-traditional missions such as humanitarian aid and nation building.

The revised charter for the armed forces was not confined to domestic enterprises. Overseas humanitarian and nation-building assignments proliferated.[45] Though these projects have always been performed by the military on an ad hoc basis, in 1986 Congress formalized that process. It declared overseas humanitarian and civic assistance activities to be "valid military missions" and specifically authorized them by law.[46] Fueled by favorable press for operations in Iraq, Bangladesh, and the Philippines during the early 1990s, humanitarian missions were touted as the military's "model for the future."[47] That prediction came true. When several African governments collapsed under AIDS epidemics and famines around the turn of the century, US troops--first introduced to the continent in the 1990s--were called upon to restore basic services. They never left.[48] Now the US military constitutes the de facto government in many of those areas. Once again, the first whisperings of such duties could be heard in 1992.[49]

The problem was that the anti-democratic nature of the military was extended into an increasingly large number of sectors of American life and American presence world wide. This put more and more power into unelected hands.

Not only this but these things caused the military's role as being able and willing to wage wars when necessary to decrease and become less effective. (I think this section of the paper has less to do with the Coup, and more to do with the author's sense of what should be changed about the military. If the military lost all its firepower and training then it would not be as deadly or effective in a Coup. It would still be dangerous because of the authoritarian style of operation.)

Humanitarian missions likewise undermined the military's sense of itself. As one Navy officer gushed during the 1991 Bangladesh relief operation, "It's great to be here doing the opposite of a soldier."[89] While no true soldier relishes war, the fact remains that the essence of the military is warfighting and preparation for the same. What journalist Barton Gellman has said of the Army can be extrapolated to the military as a whole: it is an "organization whose fighting spirit depends . . . heavily on tradition."[90] If that tradition becomes imbued with a preference for "doing the opposite of a soldier," fighting spirit is bound to suffer. When we first heard editorial calls to "pacify the military" by involving it in civic projects,[91] we should have given them the forceful rebuke they deserved.

At the end are some interesting bullet points about what could have been changed in the military's operation to avoid the unfortunate Coup of 2012.

Demand that the armed forces focus exclusively on indisputably military duties. We must not diffuse our energies away from our fundamental responsibility for warfighting. To send ill-trained troops into combat makes us accomplices to murder.

Acknowledge that national security does have economic, social, educational, and environmental dimensions, but insist that this doesn't necessarily mean the problems in those areas are the responsibility of the military to correct. Stylishly designating efforts to solve national ills as "wars" doesn't convert them into something appropriate for the employment of military forces.

Readily cede budgetary resources to those agencies whose business it is to address the non-military issues the armed forces are presently asked to fix. We are not the DEA, EPA, Peace Corps, Department of Education, or Red Cross--nor should we be. It has never been easy to give up resources, but in the long term we--and the nation--will be better served by a smaller but appropriately focused military.

Divest the defense budget of perception-skewing expenses. Narcotics interdiction, environmental cleanup, humanitarian relief, and other costs tangential to actual combat capability should be assigned to the budgets of DEA, EPA, State, and so forth. As long as these expensive programs are hidden in the defense budget, the taxpayer understandably--but mistakenly--will continue to believe he's buying military readiness.

The final remarks about democracy are essential for every citizen to read:

Democracy is a fragile institution that must be continuously nurtured and scrupulously protected. I would also tell them that they must speak out when they see the institution threatened; indeed, it is their duty to do so.

George Soros writes in The Atlantic Monthly about "The Bubble of American Supremacy."#

The idea is that the Bush Administration is under the illusion that American dominance and success are justifications to spread the trappings of our success to other countries around the world that we do not agree with. And, this illusion is being thrust upon the Citizens of the World with great danger to Liberty and Life.

The root of the problem was a plan that has existed for nearly a decade that was finally able to be put into practice by the terrorist attack of 2001.

September 11 could not have changed the course of history to the extent that it has if President Bush had not responded to it the way he did. He declared war on terrorism, and under that guise implemented a radical foreign-policy agenda whose underlying principles predated the tragedy. Those principles can be summed up as follows: International relations are relations of power, not law; power prevails and law legitimizes what prevails. The United States is unquestionably the dominant power in the post-Cold War world; it is therefore in a position to impose its views, interests, and values. The world would benefit from adopting those values, because the American model has demonstrated its superiority. The Clinton and first Bush Administrations failed to use the full potential of American power. This must be corrected; the United States must find a way to assert its supremacy in the world.

Soros writes that this ideology of supremacy is incorrect for two reasons:

The supremacist ideology of the Bush Administration stands in opposition to the principles of an open society, which recognize that people have different views and that nobody is in possession of the ultimate truth. The supremacist ideology postulates that just because we are stronger than others, we know better and have right on our side. [Quoting Bush,] "The great struggles of the twentieth century between liberty and totalitarianism ended with a decisive victory for the forces of freedom—and a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy, and free enterprise."

The assumptions behind this statement are false on two counts. First, there is no single sustainable model for national success. Second, the American model, which has indeed been successful, is not available to others, because our success depends greatly on our dominant position at the center of the global capitalist system, and we are not willing to yield it.

Soros relates this situation to a financial bubble, when reality is slightly distorted and the imagination runs wild with hope and confusing towards the cliff of Ignorance.

The quest for American supremacy qualifies as a bubble. The dominant position the United States occupies in the world is the element of reality that is being distorted. The proposition that the United States will be better off if it uses its position to impose its values and interests everywhere is the misconception. It is exactly by not abusing its power that America attained its current position.

Where are we in this boom-bust process? The deteriorating situation in Iraq is either the moment of truth or a test that, if it is successfully overcome, will only reinforce the trend.

The future is not abysmal though, as George Soros offers the idea of "the United States [leading] a cooperative effort to improve the world by engaging in preventive actions of a constructive character."

The United States is uniquely positioned to lead the effort. We cannot just do anything we want, as the Iraqi situation demonstrates, but nothing much can be done in the way of international cooperation without the leadership—or at least the participation—of the United States.

Globalization has rendered the world increasingly interdependent, but international politics is still based on the sovereignty of states. What goes on within individual states can be of vital interest to the rest of the world, but the principle of sovereignty militates against interfering in their internal affairs. How to deal with failed states and oppressive, corrupt, and inept regimes? How to get rid of the likes of Saddam? There are too many such regimes to wage war against every one. This is the great unresolved problem confronting us today.

[...] Military action should remain a last resort. The United States is currently preoccupied with issues of security, and rightly so. But the framework within which to think about security is collective security. Neither nuclear proliferation nor international terrorism can be successfully addressed without international cooperation. The world is looking to us for leadership. We have provided it in the past; the main reason why anti-American feelings are so strong in the world today is that we are not providing it in the present.

The "Neo-Con" idea that "Force can only be answered with Force" contains a typo, "Force WILL only be answered with Force." So until one state decides that it will no longer support terrorism by being an active participant in "Shock and Awe" terror, terrorism will thrive and the collective security of all the nations of the world will be greatly reduced. As will the freedoms that give us the oxygen with which to live as totalitarian states begin to reign in a world that is supposed to be so insecure that people like John Ashcroft must put until their control to "protect."

Carly Hawkins writes about Alexis de Tocqueville.#

She's been studying his work all semester and talking about it occasionally. I'm glad that she's finally found love...

I was too tired to say this last week when I was writing about seeing deT's name randomly on Jay's site, but...it was sort of like when you see your crush unexpectedly. The same way you sort of feel socked in the stomach because you weren't expecting it and didn't have the time to mentally prepare to be faced with him. I don't really expect de Tocqueville to be in my life except on Mondays from 2 to 5:30.

And everything she writes about him and all these wonderful quotations makes me want to throw away all the books I have in queue right now and get some de Tocqueville immediately. But patience is virtuous and I will let the ideas stew that I think he will talk about stew before I get around to reading him. Trust me Carly, I am a believer because of you!

 

Many of Alexis' ideas seem very Libertarian and this suggests to me that the common assertion that America was founded upon Libertarianism is spot on and that the vision has been lost from fraud, force, and corruption.

...no one has discovered a political system which equally favors the development and prosperity of all classes in society. These classes have continued to form something like distinct nations within the same nation and experience has shown that it was almost as dangerous to place the fate of all these classes in the hands of any one of them as it is to make one nation the judge of any other nation's destiny.

[ And... ]

As far as I am concerned, when I feel the hand of power weighing down upon my brow, I take no interest in knowing who oppresses me and I am not more inclined to put my head under the yoke simply because a million arms offer it to me.

These suggest to me that Alexis is a believer in the ideas of Self-Ownership and that all organization is based on mutual need and community. Because the only just organizations of control are those that voluntary it makes no sense to allow one group (A) to exert control on another (B) because the need for force is the direct proof that this other group (A) does not have principals that are the best for the second group. (B) Similarly, de Tocqueville does not believe in the tyranny of the masses either. This represents the claim that "no force is made by just by the numbers who support it" and that all leaders should be given influence occasionally and voluntarily - rather than forced upon those who do not want them.

More explicitly, Alexis challenges the idea that public force can be the glue of a rational and happy community:

No great man can exist without virtue; no great nation can exist with respect for rights; one might almost say that there is no society without such respect. For what sort of gathering of rational and intelligent beings have you got where force is the sole bond between them?

Other wonderful quotes about the nature and principle of Freedom and Liberty:

I think that at all times I should have loved freedom, but in the times in which we live I feel inclined to worship it.

[ And ... ]

Today's rulers appear to be seeking to use men to achieve great things. I should like them to think a little more of creating great men, to attach less value to work and more to the workman and never fail to remember that a nation cannot remain strong for long when each individual man is weak, and that we have still not discovered a social formula, nor any political ruse, which can turn a nation of small-minded and flabby citizens into one that is full of energy.

Empower the people and give them control of their own lives.

 

Carly also points on some parts that would be of particular importance to me, and she is correct in gauging those pieces that she selected. Carly knows my tastes and is my political muse.

Carly proposes the idea, and I completely support as far as I know, that Alexis de Tocqueville would have been a blogger and sang praise of them today as he did of the independent, free newspapers of the 1800s.

these are some clips on de Tocqueville and newspapers as the guardians of democracy. I meant to post these probably two months ago, and then again at the beginning of last week. Never happened obviously, but you might find them interesting still:

When men are no longer united in any firm or lasting way, it is impossible to persuade any great number of them to act in cooperation unless you convince each of those whose help is vital that his private interests are served by voluntarily joining his efforts to those of all the others.

This cannot be acheived usually or conveniently except with the help of a newspaper, which is the only way of being able to place the same thought at the same moment into a thousand minds...

So, as men become more equal and individualism more of a menace, newspapers are more necessary. The belief that they just guarantee freedom would diminish their importance; they sustain civilization.

I wonder if he would say the same about blogs for modern culture?

People who are gifted with Freedom and Liberty, as graced upon by great Intellect and Holy God, are nourished by Choice and the ability to form the unions they desire for their own ends. Although these unions do not have any rights that the composite people do not have - that is, they are still obligated by Contract and must bow before Justice - they are vital for organization against those who seek to rob the people of their Life, Liberty, or Property. One of the most fundamental parts of Liberty that has been consistently attacked over time is the right to speak and spread ideas. This was once attacked head on by the displaced British rule and was allowed to breathe once again by the new democracy in America. The pumping lungs of dissent where powered and placed by the many newspapers of the day:

Then a newspaper appears to publish the opinion or idea which had occurred simultaneously but separately to each of them. Immediately, everyone turns towards this light and those wandering spirits, having sought each other for a long time in the darkness, at last meet and unite. The newspaper has brought them together and continues to be necessary to keep them together.

However, newspapers today are not enough. Through increasing attacks on our freedom by the government through more recent acts like the PATRIOT act and older traumas like enforced political correctness and state ownership (or influence) of the media. A new guiding light of freedom must be found to lead the people from the ignorant slavery that the State forces on them. That light is other people, whether on blogs, at Meetups, college newspapers, and other forms of media that remain free.

 

My political journey of study has just began and I plan on reading The Federalist Letters and Democracy in America at the next waypoint. At each summit height and mail drop box, I am finding messages from people who have gone before me like Carly and Alexis who describe their own thoughts on Mt. Monarchy and the Forests of Federation. I'm learning this land and am glad to have this guidance.

In Economics this morning I read a short story by Dostoevsky, The Dream of a Ridiculous Man, as it was recommended to me by Christopher Lydon.#

Briefly, it is the story of a man who is apathetic to his life and the world and wants to end that life and be free from that meaningless world. On the night he is about to kill himself he struck by compassion and has a dream. This dream is much like an abduction story and he is taken to a planet of paradise where he experiences the love that existed in the world before the Fall, but corrupts that world and learns how our own Earth was corrupted. After he woke he made it his mission to live in that world and preach its wonder.

There are some great parts in the story...

The compassion he was struck by was a girl who called for his help, this causes the man to realize that in some ways the world exists only his mind and that he actions have an effect on the well being of the world,

I stamped and shouted at the unhappy child as though to say - not only I feel no pity, but even if I behave inhumanly and contemptibly, I am free to, for in another two hours everything will be extinguished. Do you believe that that was why I shouted that? I am almost convinced of it now. I seemed clear to me that life and the world somehow depended upon me now. I may almost say that the world now seemed created for me alone: if I shot myself the world would cease to be at least for me. I say nothing of its being likely that nothing will exist for anyone when I am gone, and that as soon as my consciousness is extinguished the whole world will vanish too and become void like a phantom, as a mere appurtenance of my consciousness, for possibly all this world and all these people are only me myself.

This idea caused him to wonder about the nature of doing wrong and what his life would be like if he was suddenly some place detached from the society he wronged. This is subtly wondering if when we Sin we are wronging other people or is it more important that we are wronging ourselves and (if you believe) dishonour God.

For instance, a strange reflection suddenly occurred to me, that if I had lived before on the moon or on Mars and there had committed the most disgraceful and dishonourable action and had there been put to such shame and ignominy as one can only conceive and realise in dreams, in nightmares, and if, finding myself afterwards on earth, I were able to retain the memory of what I had done on the other planet and at the same time knew that I should never, under any circumstances, return there, then looking from the earth to the moon - should I care or not? Should I feel shame for that action or not?

 

When he is taken to the new planet that looks exactly like Earth but still does not know much about it, he wonders if it is like Earth where we can only be happy when we bear suffering and sacrifice.

After being taken to the new planet that looks exactly like Earth,

"[...] Is there suffering upon this new earth? On our earth we can only love with suffering and through suffering. We cannot love otherwise, and we know of no other sort of love. I want suffering in order to love. I long, I thirst, this very instant, to kiss with tears the earth that I have left, and I don't want, I won't accept life on any other!"

The people on this planet existed like Adam and Eve, untarnished by Knowledge, they were happy in their happiness and did not seek new ways to prove themselves wrong and exploit others...

It struck me as inexplicable that, knowing so much, they had, for instance, no science like our. But I soon realised that their knowledge was gained and fostered by intuitions different from those of us on earth, and that their aspirations, too, were quite different. They desired nothing and were at peace; they did not aspire to knowledge of life as we aspire to understand it, because their lives were full. But their knowledge was higher and deeper than ours; for our science seeks to explain what life is, aspires to understand it in order to teach others how to love, while they without science knew how to live; and that I understood, but I could not understand their knowledge. They showed me their trees, and I could not understand the intense love with which they looked at them; it was as though they were talking with creatures like themselves.

 

But, his presence and influence caused them to learn of the love of suffering and the lies that were at the root of this corrupted form of Love,

They became acquainted with sorrow and loved sorrow; they thirsted for suffering, and said that truth could only be attained through suffering. Then science appeared. As they became wicked they began talking of brotherhood and humanitarianism, and understood those ideas. As they became criminal, they invented justice and drew up whole legal codes in order to observe it, and to ensure their being kept, set up a guillotine. They hardly remembered what they had lost, in fact refused to believe that they had ever been happy and innocent. They even laughed at the possibility o this happiness in the past, and called it a dream.

And like the history of Man on Earth, they picked up the strange obsession with 'progress' and continued selfishness of wronging each other...

"We may be deceitful, wicked and unjust, we know it and weep over it, we grieve over it; we torment and punish ourselves more perhaps than that merciful Judge Who will judge us and whose Name we know not. But we have science, and by the means of it we shall find the truth and we shall arrive at it consciously. Knowledge is higher than feeling, the consciousness of life is higher than life. Science will give us wisdom, wisdom will reveal the laws, and the knowledge of the laws of happiness is higher than happiness."

 

So when he woke from his dream and returned to Life on Earth, his all encompassing goal was to spread the word of Love and try to the right the wrong that corrupted man from the beginning of time.

Suppose that this paradise will never come to pass (that I understand), yet I shall go on preaching it. And yet how simple it is: in one day, in one hour everything could be arranged at once! The chief thing is to love others like yourself, that's the chief thing, and that's everything; nothing else is wanted - you will find out at once how to arrange it all. And yet it's an old truth which has been told and retold a billion times - but it has not formed part of our lives! The consciousness of life is higher than life, the knowledge of the laws of happiness is higher than happiness - that is what one must contend against. And I shall. If only everyone wants it, it can be arranged at once.

The biggest problem in doing good in the world is lacking the will to practice goodness yourself - always asking others to be responsible for you and for the creation of happiness on Earth. This does not mean we should care about other's happiness but it does mean that we have to consider each other peers with a hand in each other's lives. An influence, not a controller. Through Love and Liberty we can walk together towards Happiness.

Sometimes, to realize this we must dream of the ideal world that will come as the result of taking an active role in making it. If we do not believe we can do then we certainly cannot so if this dream sounds strange to you, do go to bed right away and dream one of your own...

Yes, I dreamed a dream, my dream of the third of November. They tease me now, telling me it was only a dream. But does it matter whether it was a dream or reality, if the dream made known to me the truth? If once one has recognized the truth and seen it, you know that it is the truth and that there is no other and there cannot be, whether you are asleep or awake. Let it be a dream, so be it, but that real life of which you make so much I had meant to extinguish by suicide, and my dream, my dream - oh, it revealed to me a different life, renewed, grand and full of power!

Edmund Furse wrote a paper about "The Theology of Robots."#

Furse, a devout Christian, believes that when intelligent robots (computers with strong AI) are created they will be capable of having religious lives and will be likely to want to take up Christianity.

He talks about arguments for and against the possibility of strong AI with occasional emphasis on the religious opposition:

The fifth argument against strong AI is that God created humans as intelligent persons,

and He made no other such beings. In this view, humans are unique among creation being made in the image and likeness of God, and therefore we will always be different to any artefacts made by us. There are a number of responses to this argument. First of all a distinction needs to be made between humans and persons. Humans are the species homo sapiens on the planet earth; we might also consider other species as humans, e.g. homo erectus. A person is an autonomous agent who is capable of intelligent communication, for example, a human, a Martian, an angel in heaven, and I would argue, an intelligent robot. A number of religious writers in science fiction, for example C.S. Lewis and James Bligh SJ, have suggested that there may be intelligent life forms on other planets - persons in my terminology - and further that these persons will have a religious dimension to their lives. Thus it can be argued that the gospel should be preached on Mars, and throughout the universe. Thus, by considering aliens we can escape the anthropocentric view of persons as only being homo sapiens. Just as when a child is brought up we want it to come to know God, the same argument applies to robots. Why should God not desire the salvation of robots?

He writes about why a robot may want to believe in God and how that would occur,

Clearly, a robot on reading the world's religious literature can come to believe that many humans believe in a divine being known as God. Humans believe that God is all knowing, that He created the universe, and that He loves humanity. Will the robot continue to sit on the agnostic fence talking about the God that people believe in, without attempting to communicate with God himself?

[...]

Let us assume that the robot does believe that God might exist. The next question is why should a robot WANT to believe in God? "See how they love one another" was how the early Christian community was seen by others. Perhaps if the robot had Christian friends, and he had personal experience of their life of love and care, he might want to have something of what they have. Certainly, if the robot had experienced his own failure in attempting to love others, then he might be more predisposed to want to experience this Christian life. But, of course, if all the robots' Christian friends were indistinguishable in their lives from non-Christians, this argument will not cut much ice.

And finally, Edmund wonders if when robots do many things that humans currently do this will create a struggle for employment and a confusion about the nature of meaning for many humans who currently think of their lives as revolving around their jobs.

Meaning and purpose then will have to come from elsewhere than from our employment.

[...]

But there are less ephemeral sources of meaning and purpose. First, and most obviously is prayer and adoration. If there is nothing for us to do, then we can always worship God. Indeed this is the picture we have of our future lives in heaven. But we might get bored with a 10 hour day of praising God. Second then, there would also be plenty of scope for personal development and education. Given a lifetime of 150 years according to the latest scientific research, this would give us plenty of time to visit all sorts of places, to study many cultures and subjects. Of course, this would mean real education, a love of learning for its own sake, rather than in order to achieve wealth or fame. Third, there would be plenty of scope to learn to be better at loving our neighbours, at caring for our families and friends. In a sense love does make the world go round, and it is no accident that stories of self sacrifice for others such as that of Schindler or Jesus himself move us greatly and form an important part of our culture. Jesus taught according to St.Paul that it is better to give than to receive, and loving other people can give a very deep meaning to one's life. And, of course, this would mean in this future society, loving both humans and robots.

Faré proposes a Church of Freedom to allow you to be exempt from taxes by donating all your property to the tax-exempt Church and it giving you sole access to it as a Minister of the Faith.#

In the name of freedom of thought, couldn't there be a Church of Tax Evasion? A Church that would allow those who believe that taxation is evil to be exempt from any tax? A Church that anyone could join, and that would spread the godsend miracle of prosperity to its members, should they religiously abide by the following divine rules of the Church:

Adult individuals may become members by selflessly donating to the Church part or totality of their wealth and income.

The Church, in exchange, will name each donator Minister of the Church, and confide him by a solemn act of eternal validity of the totality of the riches that he donated to the Church.

With the riches thus entrusted to him by the Church, every minister may do, in the name of the Church, whatever God inspires him to do with, as the holy Minister of the Church that he is. This includes giving it back to the miserably poor member of the Church that he has become by donating so much riches to the Church.

After mulling on this for a while and getting some feedback, he realizes that tax-exempt status that is given to some cults but not others is yet another way that the State is not truly separate from the Church.

I've been told that the IRS and other national equivalents would take measures against people who "abuse their right" of being exempted from tax. Similarly, governments will gladly sue you, retroactively tax you, etc., without much recourse, whenever they think that there is a "hole" in the letter of the law.

Now, what does this mean? It means that government and its minions are both judge and party in such matters. They are the ones who judge if they have to abide by the law, or whether after all, they will ignore it. Of course, the ultimate sanction should they abuse this situation is for them to be overthrown. But then, this is no different with any regime, and the same tricks of slowly accustomizing people to more tyranny will drive them to forget all their liberties.

All in all, through this administrative decision of tax exemption or not, government is deciding which acts of cult are legit, and which are not; it is effectively favoring some religions as opposed to others, some gurus as opposed to others (or lack thereof), etc. In other words, differential tax exemption is but a subtle means by which church is kept in non-separation from State. In practice, we see that it is favoring superstition over reason, just because traditional religions are very superstitious, and it has come to identify religions with this worst aspect of them. Thus, government is effectively promoting ignorance and superstition through a subtle mechanism of state-funding of particular churches.

Von writes about politically biased historical revisionism and Howard Dean.#

Dean's suggestion that *sanctions could continue indefinitely* either comes from a lack of knowledge or a willingness to revise history to suit his present political purposes. Niether is excusable in a presidential candidate, but, for what it's worth, I'm thinking it is the latter. Dean has been particularly calculating on Iraq. For instance, Dean now says he wouldn't have given the Bush administration authority to go to war in Iraq. However, Dean in fact favored an alternative war resolution (sponsored by Sens. Biden, D-Del., and Lugar, R-Ind.) that differed little from the one that passed. This resolution "authorized exactly the course that Bush took."

We need clear and committed leadership on Iraq. We need leaders who do not overpromise and who do not play politics, but who recognize how difficult it will be to put this egg back together. Dean has not yet shown himself to be that man.

Jorrit Wiersma writes about anti-Statism and his opinions on Socialism and political organization.#

I do not agree that democracy promotes egalitarianism. In my opinion democracy works reasonably well in a time when the people are motivated to improve their country (for example in the recovery period after the second world war) but it fails in periods when individualism is rife (such as the current time). When most people (= voters) are well-off then, in my opinion, a democracy will tend to neglect the minorities among its population. In other words, it obstructsegalitarianism.

I guess it is obvious that I, as a socialist, would not be a proponent of abolishing all forms of government. Hoppe makes some fairly good points to argue that a lack of government would not necessarily lead to anarchy (basically, his argument is that a free market is the solution to everything) but my guess is that it would never work for other reasons. I think that we humans have a natural tendency to appoint leaders. Hoppe would probably argue that this is a misconception that we need to let go of, but I think that if you abolish government then people will start to build up their own hierarchies locally and these will keep growing until we are back where we started: a country with a government. I think the economy even drives this: big projects such as infrastructure, science, even a school system, cannot be set up by a single person or company. This means that groups have to be formed, negotiations have to be made, and to do this people will want to appoint someone or a group of persons to act as a leader. Since this happens at all levels in society, my guess is that it will lead inevitably to a goverment system.

I think it is essential to point out that libertarian is not anti-leadership and anti-governance. It is only anti-State, in the current notion of the State. The Libertarian stance on the problem, as I interpret it, is that the single most important right and responsibility we have is self-ownership. You own yourself, and to deny that is to say that someone else has higher claim to your life that you. This means that it is unjust for anyone to try and take your Life, Liberty, or Property. And if they try to you have the right to defend yourself - but it is wrong to initiate violence. You can, if you want, organize with other people to help protect each other's Life, Liberty, and Property but you cannot force that organization on another person without their consent - that would be to take their Liberty.

Libertarians are opposed to the coercion that the government represents. It says that you must do these things and you have no choice otherwise - our way or the highway. I find it to be rather elementary why governments are bad for people ultimately. If you are interested in what is best for you, then if the government is what is best for you you would voluntarily donate money to it and there would be no need for taxes. The simple fact that the government must enforce tax laws means that it is inherently doing a poor job.

If you were to suddenly get a lot of money - say from a lottery - and you wanted to give some to help less fortunate people. Would you donate it to a private charity or try to give the IRS a little more or try to get the office that runs Welfare more money?

Andy Duncan writes about how God is a libertarian after having an argument with a Christian Socialist.#

Hang on a minute, I said, forgetting all about the economic arguments of wealth creation and personal motivation. You're a Christian, right? Yes, you atheist monster and whore-master of Babylon! You want taxes to go up, to the point where people like me have nothing left except just enough to exist on? That's right. To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities! But isn't the central pillar of Christianity, its ultimate source of moral strength, the Ten Commandments of Moses? Certainly is. Thou shalt have no other gods before me! But doesn't taxation break one of the most vital commandments of all, second only to "Thou shalt not kill", that "Thou shalt not steal"? In what way foul demonic fiend?

Because all taxation is theft.

Bang to rights. Following the two second pause in which the mad Christian, who possesses even madder staring eyes than me, adjusted their world view to defend themselves, I had taken the field. There then followed a subsidiary argument about how this Christian willingly paid all taxes. Good for you, I said. I don't pay a penny willingly, except perhaps a little for the Scots Guards, the SAS, and Her Majesty's after-dinner tipples. At least ninety-five percent of what the state takes from me, I said, is taken by duress. I pay it because if I don't, the state will kidnap me, slam me in one of its gaols, and refuse to release me until I pay off its ransom. If tax isn't theft, I said, desperately trying to remember the correct quote from one of Uncle Murray's books, you should try asking the UK population for state contributions, rather than taking them under duress, and see how far you get.

Eric S. Raymond writes about Cthulhu and Christ and comparing religions and political philosophies.#

Jack T. Chick's pamphlets speak plainly the most fundamental message of Christian evangelism: believe or be damned. It's all about fear, the induced fear that if you don't get straight with God you will burn in Hell. Not for Chick the sugar-coating of talk about love or morality or becoming a better person. Writing for the lowest common denominator, he zeroes in on terror.

[...]

What is really incisive about Hallis's parody is his demonstration that very little about the Christian world-view or rhetoric has to change to make it indistinguishable from Lovecraft's nightmare. Ah, the rapture of being taken up by the Elder Gods! Worship and sacrifice are good things. Trust the preacher, he will make you fear and show you the way.

It used to be popular among a certain sort of leftist to claim that the collectivist and apocalyptic ideas in socialism made it a proper political analog of Christianity. They were arguably correct in this; where they went wrong was in considering the connection flattering to socialism rather than damning of Christianity. Hallis's parody is a starker demonstration; the fact that both the fictional cult of Cthulhu and the all-too-real religion of Christianity both depend so fundamentally on the terror of the Gods is not grounds for exonerating the former, but rather for condemning the latter.

Michael Williams writes about choosing between God and not-God is the most important decision every soul makes.#

I've talked to some people about God actually gotten the response: "I don't know, and I guess I don't really care." Anyone who says something like that shows that they don't really understand the question. If God exists, and if he has expectations for us, we'd be foolish to ignore them. We may not like what he wants us to do -- we may not even like him -- but only a fool blinds himself to reality for momentary pleasure.

On the other hand, if God doesn't exist, or if he doesn't care what we do, then we'd be foolish to spend our lives trying to please him. If religion really is just the opiate of the masses, we'd be suckers to buy into the illusion and waste our lives on a fantasy.

If someone is apathetic about God, it means he's already answered one of those two questions with "no", or he's a fool. If it's the former, it's important that he recognize the significance of his decision; if it's the latter... well, more than religion, I think ignorance is the opiate of the masses.

Ryan Skadberg links to Gina Smith who tells a hilarious Atheism joke.#

Zomby Boy writes about vague policy and politicians.#

Wesley Clark continues his march to irrelevance with his domestic policy goals as reported in the Ney York Times.

As part of what he calls his turnaround plan for America, General Clark, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, said that in his first term as president he would raise the pretax income of the typical family by $3,000, make college accessible to one million students who otherwise could not afford it, lift two million children out of poverty, extend health coverage to 30 million uninsured Americans and put in place environmental measures that he said would save 100,000 lives by 2020.

The great thing about making plans this vague is that it's really hard to argue the point. Who will sit back and say that they don't want typical families to make $3,000 more a year? Or say that they would prefer that those million students didn't bother with college?

What it doesn't address, though, is how he intends to achieve the goals.

Brendan links an article in the Washington Post from Holly Burkhalter on dealing with sex slavery.#

Article:

Women in sex work almost always are compelled into it by sexual violence, poverty and discrimination. They often are debt-bonded to pimps and brothel owners, and they are marginalized within society. They are vulnerable to violent abuse, including rape and robbery, by local police. Many are young girls, who are much sought after. They often are unable to speak the local language and incapable of negotiating safe sex -- much less their freedom. Their situations are desperate and their lives short.

Brendan:

This is one of the most important human rights issues, on par with genocide and the drafting of child soldiers. Prostitution is a vexing problem for libertarians. How do you ensure the freedom of consenting adults, while still ensuring that vulnerable woman are not forced into prostitution. Clearly, a purely criminal justice approach doesn't work, but I don't think a perfectly laisezz-faire approach is correct either.

Richard Gayle links to The Power of The Internet.#

CBS New York has run an Associated Press article reporting that New Jersey man Sean Leach was pulled over in his 1992 Mazda 626 for an expired registration. The officer that pulled him over, Jason Zier, proceeded to write Leach a ticket, but not before Leach called a friend to help him re-register his 626 online, after hearing that his vehicle would be towed away. By the time Zier had finished writing the ticket, the vehicle was registered again. Zier's patrol car's computer confirmed that the car was legally on the roads. Although Leach's speed and wit didn't help him avoid a ticket, but it did let him drive away without being towed. The lesson here, everyone, is twofold; first, never procrastinate when it comes to renewing your vehicle registration, and secondly, never underestimate the value of your mobile connectedness with the world.

Courtney quotes,#

"The word 'politics' is derived from the word 'poly', meaning 'many', and the word 'ticks', meaning 'blood sucking parasites'." - Larry Hardiman

Vote for the new tagline for Sparkwood & 21, currently "Like the Star Wars Kid, but on purpose."#

I've narrowed the proposed taglines to a slender ten after reviewing all 74 comments(!). I really liked most of what was entered but found myself unable to choose most of them for one significant reason. Because they weren't just right. Even if I found an entry funny or incredibly clever it may be that the entry simply didn't go in the direction I wanted to take the new tagline.

Kaye Trammell responds to Lisa Williams about having multiple blogs and personal vs professional voice.#

For example, as nice as I'm sure he is -- I really don't want to read about the life & times of Phil Wolff. I prefer his blog data points on BlogCount instead. Jennifer Ecklund-Johnson, a PR consultant in Chicago, blogs in hopes to build her client base & extend herself as an expert.

So, should these [bloggers] include "off-topic" posts? My answer is no. Such blogs aren't meant to be "human," rather they are meant to be informational resources. I'd much rather have something focused & infrequent than have to wade through non-topic oriented posts to get what I came there for.

Richard responds to one point Lisa made about liking "completely unedited views" of sites, like Blogdex or Localfeeds.

I have a problem with the phrase "completely unedited view", because I argue that it's literally impossible for humans to have completely unedited views of anything. That's a point for philosophers to argue, actually, and I'm not one, but that's not going to stop me from arguing it. Our brain is one massive filter which tries—not always successfully—to filter out what it doesn't want to know and filter in what it wants to know. I also disagree with the notion that every weblog entry must be categorized according to some taxonomy. This site's entries have a taxonomy, but most of the entries go uncategorized. Making a feed or a "category" page of just uncategorized wouldn't actually be too hard in my publishing system of choice. But for the moment, there is nothing resembling a page or feed of "just one category", and there's no great urge on my part to create one. (Not having a great urge to do something doesn't necessarily mean that it stopped me from doing that something, however.)

Lisa Williams replies to this comment and others,

Kaye, however, brings up the best reason I've heard so far to have more than one blog: the social conventions of the workplace. Needless to say, social conventions are human institutions and as a result don't advance at the same blistering rate that Moore's Law dictates for all things digital. She points out, quite rightly, I think, that an indiscreet or merely unfocused blog could keep a bright young person from being able to fully excercise their talents and intellect in their career.

Lisa then writes about anonymity and workplace blogs.

Kaye responds once more later,

Blogging is a continuum. Lisa talks about how when she started blogging that she would do so anonymously. She didn't want to become the face of her organization. I have no doubt that others who work for large companies try to avoid becoming an "inside source" as well. But, then she moved toward her current paradigm of hosting a true snapshot of her life - family, thoughts, work & experiences. Blogging is a continuum. You start your blog on one side of the continuum. As blogging takes a more solid role in one's life, that pendulum can shift. For me, I blog less about personal things. For Lisa, it is the opposite. Neither of us is wrong -- we are both moving along the blogging continuum.

I had the same experience when I started my blog. At first I wanted to be very anonymous and write mostly about technical stuff and papers I'd read. Over time I've become more social/political/everythingical and personal. I would not have imagine putting a picture of myself up before the summer. Or writing about how much I love Krystal for that matter.

Richard wonders why Lisa became de-anonymized. I cannot answer for her but my reasons were that I was meeting lots of bloggers in real life... so there's not much anonymous there. And then I became proud and happier with my blogging so I was more comfortable letting people I knew before the blog know about it.

Tangential to the idea of having multiple blogs is whether group blogs are something good are not.#

Pito Salas weighs in...

When I am explaining what (I think) a blog is to folks who've never heard of one, a very typical question or observation is: "Oh, isn't that what a newsgroup or mailing list is?" I think one of the fundamental differences (maybe the only one) is that a newsgroup consists of postings by many people about a single topic. A blog, then, consists of postings by one person on his/her thoughts on many topics.

[...]

Net, net: It's a continuum - if two people contribute to a blog is different than if two thousand people contribute to it. I would say, though, that the more authors there are, the less of a blog it is.

Lis Riba debunks an email going around bashing Howard Dean.#

Does that satisfactorily address all the claims being made? If not, contact me with further open questions.

In general, I've gotten an impression from Howard Dean that he sometimes speaks before he has time to think out the most effective way to phrase matters. It's a problem that I have too, which is why I prefer written communications that give me more time to consider and organize my thoughts. That just means we have to listen to what he says more carefully and be wary of brief soundbites taken out of context.

And I want to express my gratitude to my parents, who both sent me copies of this email, trusting me to be able to verify or debunk it. Thanks.

PhotoDude writes about Howard Dean and rumour-mongering.#

"The top Democrat continued, 'Now, who knows what the real situation is? But the trouble is, by suppressing that kind of information, you lead to those kinds of theories, whether they have any truth to them or not.'"

Dean also warned that the more theories like that get repeated, the more people believe them. Like, when a presidential candidate repeats them over a media outlet, Howard?

Now he is trying to defend what he said, but just makes it worse (which is becoming a Dean trait): "Democratic presidential front-runner Howard Dean insisted on Sunday that 'we don't know' whether President Bush was warned in advance about al Qaeda's plot to hijack airplanes and drive them into the World Trade Center and Pentagon two years ago."

Dave Winer writes about the Dean non-Difference.#

I do believe in using the Internet to revolutionize democracy. You can see that in my writings going back to1994. People said I was a dreamer, that I should stick to technology, but I insisted that politics and technology were inseparable. Hey it's nice to be right. But Dean doesn't go nearly far enough, not enough to make it real democracy, and not enough to beat Bush. So far Dean only reports to and about people who are already Dean supporters.

Lawrence Lessig replies,

Dave urges the campaign to take one step further [than just organizing the campaign.] As he writes, "Dean only reports to and about people who are already Dean supporters." He has a point (though I'll confess, they've never demanded a loyalty oath from me). I share the view that it would be something truly amazing to see it done well: Imagine these spaces reporting on and reporting to people other than Deaners. What should it look like? A blog with threads reporting criticism, with space for the criticism to be debated? Simple pointers to contrary views? At a minimum it should include bloggers on the bus who are not Dean bloggers. But what beyond the minimum?

I can well understand the hesitation. Campaigns are not about giving space to the opponent. And the key to Deans' successful use of the net is not the replication of /. for politics, but using the net to get people to do something in real space. Nonetheless, it would fit with the theme of this open source presidential campaign that forks are allowed — indeed, encouraged — as a way to demonstrate the commitment that remains.

Oliver Willis writes about how he came to Dean.#

I did and still feel that any of the other major candidates would make a much better president that George Bush, but I became a Howard Dean supporter because his message made it okay to be a Democrat again. I'm tired of playing the math, and engaging in a game that the right-wing has made the rules up for. September 11th was no longer being used to unite, but instead to demonize and bully. Frankly, I'm not interested in playing their game anymore.

But its more than Howard Dean. Yes, whether he wins the election or not is enormously important, but his campaign is also a tipping point in the larger sense. Regardless of his personal positions on the issues, the movement behind him has demonstrated that the left doesn't need to twist themselves into knots to fit into the media's "narrative". Calculating electoral math until its distilled to one or two blue/red colored squares on a tv screen is a horrible way to go about adressing the needs of a republic.

Brian Leiter defends Noam Chomsky from blogospheric attacks.#

So why have the blogosphere right-wingers gone beserk over this banal remark? Stupidity plainly plays a role in some cases. A Chomsky-hating predisposition on the part of many supports the least plausible reading of any statement made by the man. A tendency by some on the left to pander to the right through displays of distancing oneself from Chomsky is a factor in still other cases.

Some advice to Chomsky haters: calm yourselves! Rest assured that the great man will say things that genuinely challenge your prejudices and ignorance, and then you can resume ranting. And do try to remember that Chomsky is a man of genuine intellectual accomplishment, having invented a real scholarly discipline in its modern form, and who participates at the highest level in theoretical debates in cognate fields. This might, at least, create a presumption that when he writes about subjects that make only modest intellectual demands--like foreign relations or politics--that he is unlikely to make gross mistakes, and that he may, in fact, have legitimate reasons for saying what he does.

Nathalie Chica writes about being Jewish after reading Joseph Epstein's essay on the subject.#

I have a strange -- and that's to say, probably typical -- relationship to my Jewishness. Among other Jews, I'm quick to proclaim myself one; among non-Jews, I never mention it. But my appearance's ability to imply my heritage betrays both impulses. In Iowa, people look at my dark wavy hair and say, "You could be Jewish!," meaning, "If there were Jews in this city, you would be one of them." In cities or schools full of Jews -- Beverly Hills, Brown University, NYC -- people say "But you don't look. . ." and point to my nose, straight with a ski-slope tip. (Also, my last name is Sephardic; no trace of the Ashkenazi -bloom or -man or -stein.) The result is that I feel, no matter where I go, that I look Other. And am Other. I'm not quite a Jew: I never had a bat mitzvah or ate Jewish food at home; my mother's ancestors were soldiers in the Civil War, not recent Eastern European immigrants; and my family, inflated with stepparents and adoptions, includes so many religions that the only holiday it makes sense to celebrate is a commercialized Christmas. But I'm also very much a Jew, at least in terms of its stereotypes: I'm bookish, sickly, and very paranoid about future waves of anti-semitism. But, most importantly, I have the correct attitude towards categories: an attitude of tension, ambiguity, Otherness. For, what does it mean to be Jewish when Jewishness is not an ethnicity? When, given the growing amount of non-practicing Jews, it isn't always a religion? And when, among many, it is absolutely not a heritage? Jewishness becomes this: to NOT be what others are, to categorize oneself in terms of absence rather than presence, alienation rather than inclusion.

Gen Kanai links to Kim Jong Il's Livejournal.#

BaathOfLeastResistance: Hey so are you going to help me or not?

License2KimJongill: Let's see.

License2KimJongill: That would be, not.

[...]

BaathOfLeastResistance: Oooh

BaathOfLeastResistance: Mark my words, Jong

BaathOfLeastResistance: You're a dead man.

License2KimJongill: Hmm, let's see

License2KimJongill: I think I'll go pass another law, edict, or proclamation

License2KimJongill: Over the country I STILL RULE

Dean Esmay links to Nathan who writes about Homosexual Morality.#

I am an advocate, just as my opponents are. They are advocating a freedom to express their preferences. I am not advocating the opposite, per se. I am advocating morality. The posts on morality should make it clear that I am not merely adopting a theological guideline to impose on people, rather, I am arguing that the wisdom and insight contained in the traditional Christian mores are best for all humans, spanning all cultures. From what I've seen to this point in all the arguments of homosexuals and homosexual advocates, homosexuality is incompatible with morality.

Simply put: the basis of Christian morality is responsibility. The very first argument put forward by homosexuals as a group is: Homosexuality is not a choice. That is the very definition of denial of responsibility. When you start discussing the damaging consequences and correlations of homosexuality, the first responses are: any damaging consequences are soley due to a disapproving society, and HIV/AIDS is not a homosexual disease. These are also a complete denial of responsibility. I'm directing this to homosexuals of both genders, not just men.

In comments to Dean's post, John Kusch writes,

I am confused when people say that homosexuals must take responsibility for their actions. Last time I checked, nobody but me took the hit for my failed relationships. Nobody but me took the hit for an unwise sexual choice. Last time I checked, taking responsibility for AIDS means *suffering* and *dying* (modern HIV medications are not the walk in the park some people believe they are). I'm not sure what further responsibility Nathan is asking us to take.

Point blank, we already take responsibility for our lives. The fact that some of us may live them in a manner with which Nathan disagrees is unfortunate for Nathan. But before he goes any further into exactly why and how we homosexuals must adhere to and publicly demonstrate our adherence to his moral code, perhaps he would like to explore the heterosexual world of wife-swapping, which boasts more heterosexual participants than the gay circuit parties, bath houses, women's festivals and anonymous cruising parks combined.

I am opposed to Gay Marriage. I am opposed to all legally recognized unions, it's not the government's place. If there is to be a government then it should treat people equally before the law. If the goal is to be supportive of people with children, then be supportive of people with children not heterosexual married couples who are not divorced.

Thomas Krannawitter is thinking about feelings and politics.#

Whenever I assign writing projects to my students, I advise them in advance to avoid the terms "feelings" and "felt" in describing the moral and political arguments of others. It is common for students today to write something to the effect that the American Founders harbored bad "feelings" toward the British, or that Abraham Lincoln "felt" that slavery was wrong. When I receive answers like this, I remind them that the question is not what kind of emotive, fuzzy "feelings" were in their bosoms, but whether or not their arguments and actions were correct.

An argument is a rational explanation and defense of a position, policy, or practice. At the core of an argument is logos, or reason, which is why an argument can be comprehended by other rational minds — and why an argument has little to do with subjective "feelings."

[...]

That is an argument. Agree with it or disagree with it, it is an argument that can be understood, criticized, and evaluated with reason. Today, however, our politics are driven by little reason, and much feeling. Consider that almost every interview of almost every public person centers around questions of how he or she "felt" about this or that event. Barbara Walters has made a career of asking people how they feel.

Thomas links to James Harrigan who writes about the replacement of 'I think' with 'I feel' in modern America.

Take, for instance, America's on-again off-again hate affair with the word "niggardly." A word meaning "miserly" is by definition pejorative, but the actual meaning of the word scarcely matters when feelings are concerned. The real problem with the word niggardly is that it shares its first four letters with the granddaddy of all racial slurs. That the words derive from different roots and thus mean different things is quite irrelevant. The simple fact is that the term in question sounds like an offensive word, and this is enough to warrant punitive measures when it is uttered.

[...]

Then there was the case of Stephanie Bell, a fourth-grade teacher in Wilmington, North Carolina, who in 2002 had the nerve to use the offending term in a classroom discussion. A parent, Akwana Walker, claimed offense. Ms. Bell was ultimately forced to apologize to Walker, whose child was transferred to another (presumably less literate) class. Bell was also, according to her son, formally reprimanded for "lacking sensitivity to the school's diverse population of students and not being aware of cultural differences." In order to become properly sensitized, Bell was required to attend sensitivity training.

One wonders why the school board, principal, and offended parent were not compelled to take English lessons.

Christopher Lydon, Bob Doyle, and I were talking about this at dinner last night, how many words in America are being forced out of use because how people feel about them. From words that some feel are racist, like the above case, to the recent comment from Nicholas Kristof about Howard Dean:

Moreover, Mr. Dean is smart, but he knows it. America's heartland oozes suspicion of Eastern elitists, and Mr. Dean's cockiness would exacerbate that suspicion. President Clinton oozed charm and was fluent in Southern ("even a blind hog can find an acorn," he'd say scornfully), while Mr. Dean needs a Berlitz course in self-deprecating folksiness.

Mr. Dean's recent remarks about Southern men and Confederate flags showed both his awareness of this problem and his ineptitude in addressing it. He also described the episode as a "huge contretemps," and I seriously doubt that anybody who publicly uses the word "contretemps" can ever be elected president

Like in a communist country, the rampant equality that is forced upon the populace by its components and by the political correctness enforced by the iron fist of government supposes that "You are all free, as long your are free exactly the rest of us." Or as Chris put it, it is like by standing up and being different you're making everyone else "look bad" and "that has got to stop." It's strange times we live in...

Atrios links to a Mad Action Figure of President Bush.#

Atrios links to a great letter from a soldier.#

So the boss came to visit us on Thanksgiving, under wraps and under the American flag. Thanks for coming. Oh thank you, kind leader, merciful leader, for taking one day out of your busy schedule to visit us. The shepherd looking over his flock. Thanks for making the sacrifice. God knows we're making one. Re-election is coming up, but that had nothing to do with it, now did it?

I remember your victorious landing on the ship. Oh how all those then alive, and now dead, would love to sit down next to you, cutting their families' turkeys and filling the empty seats at the tables. Leader of the free world, be our guest at the head of our table. Or would you like to sit in one of the many empty seats left by the war? There's plenty of room. Enough turkey and stuffing to go around. Fat and happy, delirious and exhausted. That's how I feel.

In a hurry? Going so soon? Have time for questions? You sure do have time for compliments. Do you ever feel responsible? I'm tired of this. Go back home to the ranch and tell them how happy and fulfilling the trip made you feel.

Spc. Damian Torres
Iraq

Merde in France describes some French political satire.#

French prime time across-the-board anti-Americanism

'Les guignols' layed it on thick last week with a sketch that portrayed a visit by a French crew of journalists to a US Army barracks in Iraq. One soldier is shown crying while looking at pictures of his family. An other GI grabs a journalit's microphone to scream to his mother that he wants to go home. A third GI hangs himself with his boot laces. A background voice says 'that's one less that will be wasted by the Iraqis' and 'that's the world's leading Army looking good'.

Jessica wonders about the future of technology.#

Channel Z makes me think of the evolution of Web pages. First, it was just enough to have a page on the Internet or a blog. Next, the pages/blogs became a little more sophisticated with added features. Now, Web sites are much more technically sophisticated than the first pages on the Internet years ago. What's next for blogs? Who's doing that strategic planning and how are they doing it?

I think that every true paradigm shift in technology and science is particularly unplanned. It just sort of happens when enough good ideas percolate up to a new concept. Read what Peter Lindberg wrote about at the end of November about Thomas S. Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions for what I mean.

Maybe she'll make that another book to uncharacteristically read. ;)

Matthew Dennis gives praise to The Last Samurai.#

The irony of praising Japanese culture on Pearl Harbor Day is not lost on me.

However, we saw The Last Samurai yesterday and it was great. I'd been looking forward to it for awhile and was not disappointed. Good story about honor and discipline without hitting you over the head with it like so many movies these days. The violence was purposeful. (And different from the samurai sword action in Kill Bill: Vol. 1.) And the picture looks nice: you don't expect a film to be filled with conflict yet capture an environment of peace and beauty. The movie returns several times to the topic of tree blossoms.

Only 335 more blog posts to read! It's been a long 4 hours.#

Richard links to Teresa Méndez who writes about coupling and being single.#

"I think it's fine to be single until you're 35, but then you're supposed to be coupled," says Kay Trimberger, a professor of women's and gender studies at Sonoma State University in Rohnert Park, Calif., who studies the lives of single women. "For anybody over 35, the message is still pretty heavy that there's something wrong with you."

Elayne Rapping, professor of women's and media studies at the University at Buffalo in New York, disagrees with the idea that America is becoming a society that accepts singles. She senses a return to matrimony - "big marriage, big wedding, the big gown, and the diamond ring."

"There are more single people than ever before, but culturally those people are not happy," she says. "The idea that it's a great way to live is not what I see being true."

The Yeti writes about working at Abercrombie and Fitch during the transition from the Golden Age to the Sub-Par Age.#

As the Limited moved in and spun off AF as a stock, the entire brand went straight down the tubes. AF went to cheaper suppliers, so the quality of the clothing really suffered. The jeans were Gap knockoffs (I know this because we would find jeans with Gap logos on the buttons and have to send them back). The clothing got smaller and more European (think one stripe across the chest), and the advertising revolved around young people in less and less actual clothing.

That wasn't the worst part. It was the new "Look", that is talked about on the news program. In the Spring of 1996, Abercrombie and Fitch came out with a book of acceptable guidelines, and asked, well, told the managers they needed to start weeding out the staff.

[...]

The justification was Ralph Lauren's All-American look pioneered a few years before. The truth was AF wanted to grow, and felt using kiddie sex to sell the clothing would work, because in the 90's, teens had the money, and wearing AF quickly became the trendy new style. The idea was to create an atmosphere where the employees did little and looked good. Understand - the corporate pitch was "Polo did it, we can too."

Joi Ito writes about Lawrence Lessig and his son.#

I had lunch with Willem Dakota Neuefeind Lessig and his parents Larryand Bettina. Willem is still three months old but gets around quite a bit. He was visiting Tokyo this week and invited me to lunch with his parents. Apparently Willem and Larry have a game they play where they take turns mimicking and repeating what the other says. One time Larry cheated and repeated the phrase twice instead of one time according to the rules. Willem was very upset by this and questions Larry's understanding of the rule of law.

Everyone should wish Bentley health.#

Moxie writes about elections and comparing art.#

Much like painting, I see writing as an art and comparing any artist to another is simply pointless. Of course in regards to me, I'm just a hack. Sometimes I get lucky and other times (mostly) I just suck.

But I don't compare myself to others and dislike being compared to others. I'm just myself.

Love me or leave me. Trust me, I'm used to it.

I'll take the first!

Joey deVilla links to Leonard Peikoff on the history and true meaning of Christmas titled, "Why Christmas Should Be More Commercial."#

Christmas in America is an exuberant display of human ingenuity, capitalist productivity, and the enjoyment of life. Yet all of these are castigated as "materialistic"; the real meaning of the holiday, we are told, is assorted Nativity tales and altruist injunctions (e.g., love thy neighbor) that no one takes seriously.

In fact, Christmas as we celebrate it today is a 19th-century American invention. The freedom and prosperity of post-Civil War America created the happiest nation in history. The result was the desire to celebrate, to revel in the goods and pleasures of life on earth. Christmas (which was not a federal holiday until 1870) became the leading American outlet for this feeling.

An amazing Paris Hilton interview on SNL.#

Hilton's double entendre-filled "interview" with "Weekend Update's" Jimmy Fallon follows:

FALLON: As we agreed we won't be discussing the scandal that's been in the papers these last couple of weeks.
HILTON: Thank you Jimmy, I appreciate that.
FALLON: We just want to find out about you, Paris Hilton. So, your family, the Hiltons, own hotels all over the world.
HILTON: Yes, they're in New York, London, Paris...
FALLON: So there's actually a Paris Hilton?
HILTON: Yes, there is.

Dimmy Karras continues on the theme of the 'echo-chamber' which is rather poorly attributed to what he was trying to get across.#

Fair enough, I acknowledged that the blogs are helpful as organizing and fundraising tools, which is plain to see. And I fully back the view that the Net "guarantees that you can always find someone who agrees with you and remain as ignorant as you want to be." I think I went a little further than that even, claiming that ideologues on both sides aren't respectful of one another and so they're unlikely to win over people who may even be somewhat open-minded/on the fence. Name-calling of Bush is only going to piss off a supporter, whereas an unemotional policy discussion may open eyes. But wonkishness is less entertaining and so is less likely to get noticed.

Obviously I like the blogosphere since I spend plenty of time reading and writing blogs. I just wanted to inject a bit of sanity among the many claims I've read about blogs' messianic revolutionary importance to the entire political process.

So, because blogs are so intensely personal (generally) and because you are incredibly able to find people you agree with it seems that many people write for an audience they assume already agrees with them. This incestuous feedback loop makes it possible for a group to be increasingly violent and rude to the opposition. Bloggers can be quick to read and quick to flame other bloggers and meatspace people.

Not only can you find someone you agree with, everyone else disagrees with you so incredibly that you are unlikely to be won over by slur.

I would agree with this, because I feel that this is a problem greater than weblogs, one that is present in other forms of media. Why I think that weblogs are important to the political process in a slightly messianic way is not they are perfection and truth but that they are an easy way for lots of people to talk to lots of other people. No longer does freedom of the press only belong to those who own one. That in and of itself is important.

Secondly, I think that these problems we're talking about with weblogs are bound to be solved as the form mature a little bit and people learn better ways of cutting off the flow to sources who succumb to flaming and get a better breadth of conversation.

Carly writes about the pressure to be a prodigy in Politics.#

See, there's this whole Thing among young people that are into politics that you've got to do it young, you have to be the prodigy and the protege and if you're not running campaigns by the time you're old enough to drink, then you've already failed miserably and you might as well just shut down now. I try not to let myself think in these terms, I try to look at the larger picture of good god, you're only 20, there's plenty of time but it still gets a little frustrating to think that you haven't Made It yet. And that was just a little bit of validation that I sorely needed today. Actually, every day, but today in particular it was nice.

I think that this is a symptom of the greater state of mind of Americans. Focusing so much on productivity and acquisition of wealth leads to this idea that you are some how "wasting time" with humanist pursuits, rather than enriching your life with what really matters. So the most productive people are those who forgo childhood innocence and humanity for a head start in their Productivity Plan. Then added to this is the notion that if you DON'T do that (or if you do and don't succeed tremendously) then there is nothing to look forward to because you've already past your peak.

It's very depressing if you let yourself forget that the only ones you need to please are yourself, your love, and your greater conscience.