Note To Self

Do not give out your opinion unless you are deliberately on defense or deliberately on offense. Meaning, do not idly give opinion.

One should either:

A) Be asked for their opinion, which makes it necessary to speak your mind.
B) Have some kind of external goal. You are venturing out into the marketplace of ideas and submitting something for consideration, your objective is to persuade. Besides your opinion, you should have two other things on hand - a suggested course of action which you're lobbying for, and a collection of arguments to support it.

I should tattoo this one on my body somewhere, so I don't forget. I'm catching myself idly publishing my opinion on facebook (even in cases where I don't know what I'm talking about, or don't feel strongly about the topic). I feel like things would be better for myself and others if I didn't do that. Here's a few good reasons why.

• It's vain.
• It hurts my credibility by inviting (righteous) dissent.
• It's rude to others because it adds unhelpful noise to a conversation.
• The "Who gives a shit?" factor. Having an opinion on any particular topic is NOT extraordinary. And treating ordinary things as if they were extraordinary is cynical and just plain wrong.

Awright, back to work.

Too long, my friends!

No excuse, of course. Aside from summer-time cavortings, I've been suckling the teat of the beast known as Facebook. Squandering my blogspiration on the trifles known as "status updates"...

But the time for instant gratification is at an end! I enter now a new era of only slightly delayed gratification. Rejoice!

My "big idea" for this year was an outline of my own vision for conservativism. And if I remember correctly, I promised to have it finished before the election. Nope.

In hindsight it might be better this way. Aside from the election results forcing the conversation about how conservatives must change to start winning elections again, I've also had several months and dozens of political discussions with friends to give me new perspective.

I had a few other blog ideas that I'm still kicking around, but I do intend to start with the one on conservativism. I don't know when it will be ready but I'll start on it soon.

Mahalo,

-Dungy

Zen and the Art of Kraft Dinner

"It is edible. But I wouldn't call it 'food'" - Tholl the Mizarian, Star Trek: The Next Generation, "Allegiance"

The value of authenticity in culture is a dominant trait in my generation, the "Millennials". Sometimes it's taken to obnoxious extremes, but usually I find it to be charming. In the context of food, you can see it in the resurgence of backyard gardens, the emphasis on farmers markets and exotic cuisine, and the attempts to recreate "real" or homemade dishes, often from scratch.

It's a good thing, not just because it tastes good, but because there's an ethos behind it. That being, the disdain for artificiality or phoniness. I suspect it's probably a reaction to post-WWII technological advancements that intended to make food quick and easy (just add water, makes it's own sauce!). I'm sure there's a health aspect behind there too, but I think the cultural issue is really the driving force. It's the hip thing to do.

That's alright by me, but dogma has no place in the kitchen. We all like to go against the grain every once in a while, and food doesn't have to be "genuine" to be a delicacy.

My personal passion is Kraft Macaroni and Cheese. Growing up, it was my personal favorite, and I've spent years honing my technique. It's a recipe that takes all of 2 minutes to learn, 10 minutes to make, but one could spend a lifetime perfecting it. With the possible exception of the nation of Canada, I doubt anyone is more passionate than I about the Blue Box.

Just like hipster millennials, I have a philosophy to making Kraft Dinner. The philosophy and the recipe are so tightly bound up in each other that it's impossible to separate one from the other. In keeping with my summer of whimsy, I'd like to share it with you.

First, abandon any prejudices or preconceived notions regarding the dish in question. If you have fond memories of a family member preparing a tray of cheesy macaroni for a social function - clear those images from your mind. That will immediately throw you off. Any ideas of what cheese looks like or tastes like is, likewise, a distraction. There is NO cheese in Kraft Macaroni and Cheese. Don't even think of grating that colby over this thing. In fact, our best case scenario will use as little real dairy as possible.

Enter a state of zen, with your mind a blank slate. Embrace the total reversal of normal food values.  This is not about feebly trying to ape a "real" dish. This is about fake food living loud and proud. We are dealing here with the exact opposite of man-made nourishment. This is some artificial being's interpretation of what human beings consume. Only by fully accepting can you full appreciate.

OK. Let's begin.

1. When making your purchase from the grocery store, remember this rule of thumb: Macaroni sucks. It doesn't taste as good as not-macaroni. If you have the opportunity to buy Kraft's other blue box products, like "spirals" or pasta shaped like cartoon characters, do that instead. Shapey pasta has lots of edges, nooks and crannies that trap the flavor-liquid. Also, this should go without saying but do not mess with any flavors other than the original blue box. No homestyle, no 3 cheese, no Italian. If you don't have salted stick butter at home, buy some of that too. You won't need much.

2. Back home, start boiling a pot of water - half full. Tear the box of Kraft open and remove the powdered sauce packet. Get a colander out and place it near or inside the sink.

3. When the water is boiling, dump your pasta into the water and reduce the heat a little. Just enough to keep it from boiling over. Stir immediately to prevent the pasta from sticking to the bottom of the pot. Use a large metal spoon. This will become important later.

4. Cut a slice, about 1cm thickness, from a stick of butter. Do NOT unwrap the stick, just slice right through the paper. Set the slice down on a cutting board and unwrap partially, so the slice of butter is resting on top of the unwrapped paper.

5. Check the boiling water frequently. It's important not to let the pasta become overcooked. The pasta is ready to be drained when it is slightly softer than al-dente. Not chewy, but still tight and springy. Overcooked pasta will not soak up flavor sauce, and will cause the sauce to become thin and flavorless.

6. Before draining, cut the butter into smaller slivers or chunks, keeping it on top of the paper, as best you can.

7. By this time you should be ready to drain. Drain into the sink, and be quick about it. Time is now a factor.

8. While draining, pick your butter up by the paper, and shake out the paper into the empty pot which until recently held the boiling pasta. Drop the empty butter paper into the trash. Immediately dump the drained pasta on top of the butter, in the pot. Stir quickly! This small about of butter should provide the bare minimum of lubrication to our cooked pasta.

9. Next, dump the powdered "cheese" sauce over top of the pasta. Start to mix, but it will quickly become mealy. DO NOT ADD MILK. Milk has no place here. We use water. Hold the pot under the faucet and give it a quick spritz. Stir. Repeat as necessary, but don't add too much water. The end product should be wet, but not overly soupy. All the powdered mixture should be liquefied, with the possible exception of a powdered clot on the back of your spoon. Knock that clot in with the rest and stir.

10. Your Kraft Dinner is ready to eat. Consume it QUICKLY. It will congeal with startling rapidity. You have a 5-10 minute window for best results. Storing or reheating is right out. Leave the product it in the pot, take the pot with you, along with your large mixing spoon / ladle, and a potholder or kitchen towel.

Do not share with family. Do not eat with family. Do not engage in conversation. Do not talk period. Turn on TV and recline. Open or remove your shirt and place the pot of Mac and Cheese onto the potholder, resting on your naked gut. Consume.

Thoughts on Nun-Non-Controversy

First of all, there is no controversy. An American Catholic Nun (very well educated in theology, btw), wrote a book about sexuality that contradicted Catholic teachings. Obviously, this is a problem. That should come to no-one as a surprise. However, despite being decidedly uncontroversial, it is a matter of note. Disagreements within large organizations always are, regardless of their nature. So, it should come as no surprise to Catholics that the news outlets are reporting it, and that folks of all statures and means are giving their opinions about it.

In other words, there's not much to dispute, but we're talking about it anyway. That's pretty common in American news media.

I've heard John express a sentiment of annoyance with the media in general over how this is playing out in the papers and online outlets. The criticism is generally centered around how the Church hierarchy is beating up the poor nuns, and how free thought is being suppressed by "overlords" of the clergy.

My response to that is: Well, yes. That is indeed what's going on. Nuns in general aren't being attacked, but a particular set of individuals (and one individual in particular) are having their opinions and teachings (one could say false teachings) suppressed.

That's all perfectly legal and permitted of course. The Catholic Church in the U.S. is a private organization. They have their own rules, and can remove anyone from they wish from the roster, for whatever reason. That means, as long as you want to attend mass, you do so under their rules. No ones rights are violated by that, since individuals are free to leave the organization at any time. People should understand that. I hope they do.

But even if people understand that, they still find this business justifiably disgusting. The mainstream is moving farther away from some Catholic mores - particularly the emphasis on obedience. Mainstream observers find the notion that distant authorities can flex their muscles on a small strand of unorthodoxy to be crude, medieval and somewhat cowardly. Perhaps it's the Protestant influence, but I don't know.

This is what happens when cultures fall out of the mainstream, and choose to entrench instead of adapt. The minority stands still while the majority moves on. As the image gets smaller in the rear view, it becomes harder for either group to understand or sympathize with the other. In this case, the majority is finding disgust with some aspects of Catholicism (particularly the protocols of the Vatican), while the Catholic sub-culture can't understand why everyone is turning on them. They feel under siege.

Strictly speaking, neither culture is wrong or right.

It's not the apocalypse, and it's not a conspiracy, it's just.. a natural consequence. Popular values have changed. Independence of thought is more important than obedience to authority. Patience and "open-mindedness" is more important than maintaining orthodoxy. That all sounds very self indulgent and self congratulatory. I didn't mean it that way. But my point it, some of the values which the Church operates under, no longer reflect commonly accepted values in American culture. The Church and it's adherents have a right to hunker down and resist the change, but they should get used to the feeling of being misunderstood. Fringe elements are, after all, commonly misunderstood.

Hallelujah

http://www.salon.com/2012/05/24/my_break_with_the_extreme_right/

Changing Seasons & Shifting Gears

A long time ago I picked up on a personal truth. When it's cold outside, I'm not necessarily depressed, but I am more introspective and reflective. When it's warm, I become more outgoing, and I have less tolerance for stillness and thinking analytically. Summer is a time for aggressive expansion, winter for consolidation and reorganizing.

Maybe that's not true for everyone, but it's true for me. I figured I'd fall into that rhythm with my writing, and I think that's happening now. I like the idea of writing non-stop, but I don't want to fight this feeling. There are a lot of topics I've been thinking about for the past several weeks. I'm eager to get them out of my brain, but they're really not ready and I don't feel focused enough. It's just not time for that. The summer is for growing ideas. In the fall I'll begin to harvest.

I still intend to write, but I don't want to feel obligated. So, I'm writing this by way of an explanation. I'll get back to work when the time feels right. Now is the time to cook and garden and frolic in the meadow.

Score One For The Old Testament

Early Evidence Of Biblical Cult Discovered [Link]

This is still somewhat premature, but this archaeological discovery lends some credence to the narrative of Israel in the Old Testament. I highlight this, because I'm presently in a discussion with Kermenoo regarding the historicity of some Biblical Events.

The evidence found consists of shrines discovered that carbon date to around the supposed time of King David. Unlike other sites, there are no animal or human figures. This indicates a cult similar to the one described in the Old Testament. I was and remain skeptical of the accuracy of the near 2000 year history in the Old Testament, but I follow the evidence. We'll see how it pans out.

Another note is that there were no remnants of pig bones at the site, unlike others in the area. Indicating that no pigs were slaughtered there. Again.

Open Question: Capitalism and Media

I've been hearing more and more about entertainment studios and cable providers using muscle (in the form of property rights to popular movies and TV shows) to influence and control the evolution of the internet as a media delivery platform.

Netflix has been unable to negotiate much new content for their streaming service. It's sounding as though studios are playing hardball, trying to reduce netflixes threat as an alternative to traditional service.

Hulu (which was created by entertainment studios like NBC) may soon begin requiring cable subscriptions in order to access content.

Although there is no technological barrier, it is not possible to order cable service ala carte, picking which channels you'd like, and paying a flat fee per channel.

If this is the case, and the media giants are trying to "squash" the little guy of independent, internet based media, in order to protect the current business model, then...

1) Is that a problem? Is there something "wrong", or at least regressive,  with that picture?

2) Does it indicate a problem with the "market-based" system of capitalism? Where big guys can control or prevent the "march of progress" as it were?

3) If so, should something be done? CAN something be done, without violating fundamental rights to property or commerce?

4) What entity should take action? Should the government intervene?

This is a topic that I find interesting, and pressing, but one which I don't have an answer to. I've been wanting to write for the last couple of weeks, but haven't felt like "lecturing". So, let's mix it up a bit. I'd like to farm this out to the "brain trust" of my readers. Let me know what you think, and I'm hoping this will spark a discussion, and some interesting conclusions.

The Consititutionality of the Individual Mandate

Interesting:

"The founding fathers, it turns out, passed several mandates of their own. In 1790, the very first Congress—which incidentally included 20 framers—passed a law that included a mandate: namely, a requirement that ship owners buy medical insurance for their seamen. This law was then signed by another framer: President George Washington. That’s right, the father of our country had no difficulty imposing a health insurance mandate.

That’s not all. In 1792, a Congress with 17 framers passed another statute that required all able-bodied men to buy firearms. Yes, we used to have not only a right to bear arms, but a federal duty to buy them. Four framers voted against this bill, but the others did not, and it was also signed by Washington. Some tried to repeal this gun purchase mandate on the grounds it was too onerous, but only one framer voted to repeal it.

Six years later, in 1798, Congress addressed the problem that the employer mandate to buy medical insurance for seamen covered drugs and physician services but not hospital stays. And you know what this Congress, with five framers serving in it, did? It enacted a federal law requiring the seamen to buy hospital insurance for themselves. That’s right, Congress enacted an individual mandate requiring the purchase of health insurance. And this act was signed by another founder, President John Adams."

Mustard of Glory: Endgame

Who gets it?

For new readers, we've got a horse race on this blog to name the GOP Presidential nominee. History of the contest, here and here. As it just so happens, John and I placed the exact same bet on Romney, so we've got a tie.

Who will possess the all-important Mustard of Glory? We need some kind of secondary contest to determine a winner. One idea I had was taking turns naming VP candidates, and hopefully Romney will pick one of them. That's a little unwieldy though. We'd have to go several rounds.

Another idea is to stage some sort of silly contest (pin the tail on the donkey, or pie eating or something) during my annual Labor Day BBQ, which John attends.

But I thought I'd open this up for suggestions and comments. John, what do you think?

The Future of Conservativism And America

I've written several blogs over the past year that have covered the topic of "Today's GOP". I'll try not to retread ground that I've covered before.

I was reading this article by Jonathan Chait (left leaning writer/blogger). It's subject deals with how GOP and Democrat's presidential campaigns will frame the economic debate this fall, and the strengths and weaknesses of both. I doubt this was his intended effect, but the article left be feeling very depressed. Here's the reason why:

"The Republican strategy has real strengths. The party’s sheer bloody-minded refusal to compromise, and its devotion to ever more radical policy agendas, has helped it to shift the terms of the debate steadily rightward. Even keeping tax rates at Clinton-era levels is now a position too left-wing for Democrats to advocate."

I believe that this statement is true. The Republican strategy has been successful in reframing the debate further right.  And while I believe that Obama's probable counter-strategy of showing himself as a centrist probably does have the virtue of being true (if you take politics as a whole for the last 20 years into account), I'm not so sure it's going to work. Maybe for him the in general election, by not too wide of a margin. But probably not for Democrats in Congress.

If that is indeed how it plays out this November, what does it mean for politics? It means that while there's no guarantee that you'll win every election, your party has a better chance of sustaining power if they: 

• Entrench deeply on ideology.
• Refuse to compromise on policy.
• Hold your opposition in public contempt.
• Accuse your opposition of being radicals, regardless of the policy proposals on the table.
• Consistently lie about what is being said, and what the facts of the matter actually are.

 Finally, and most importantly:

• Never acknowledge or apologize for any of the above.

It's not so much that liars aren't going to be punished, as they should. I can cope with that. The real worry, for me, is that this will make a good precedent for politicians in the future.
 
The life of every politician is a mix of governing and planting the seeds for the next reelection cycle. Hopefully more of the former than the latter. But if you have a base group of supporters, even if it's a minority, you can use this strategy to keep enough of the poorly informed middle of society to keep yourself in power, with little to no effort made at actually governing.
 
Governing requires some level of cooperation and compromise, if you want to get things done. But keeping public perception skewed off center lets you appear to be attempting governance, when really that's not the case at all. This is really bad.
 
I doubt that the Democrats could attempt such a strategy. Radical leftists are too few; the coalition of the Democratic party is spread too thin. But it appears to be fitting the Republicans like a glove. While that's good for party politicians, it's certainly bad for the country. We need practical decisions, and practical solutions. This strategy grinds government to a halt.
 
If you need evidence, look to the attempts by Congress to pass budget reform. GOP politicians fear being ousted by Tea Party activists if they make concessions. So, as a result, they'll only vote for budget cuts any measure must include tax cuts. Democrats are willing to give in for some of those ideas, but they want all options on the table, including raising taxes on the rich. But since Republicans refuse under any circumstances to raise taxes, the effort is essentially dead.*
 
Assigning Blame
 
It's my belief that the political climate as a whole is responsible for allowing this to happen. So in a sense, none of us are responsible and all of us are. To be more specific, I believe it's the commonly accepted notion that all political arguments boil down to "he said, she said" bickering, with both sides being equally culpable for the sad state of Congress.
 
In other words, cynicism. This is being fueled by a cynical (I might even say, post-modern) attitude to truth in politics. "All politicians are cheats and liars", "The media is too liberal", all of that contributes to the idea (perhaps subconscious) that truth is never a relevant factor in modern politics. Or that, to determine the truth you take the left and right wing positions, and find a median between the two. Sure, that's an easy way to appear moderate, but it's not a good way of getting at the truth.
 
Positions and dogma of The Left and The Right are both completely arbatrary points in a vast political plane. They aren't fixed cornerstones; in fact they change all the time. It's easy to forget that.
 
Each election, the country alternates back and forth between these two options presented to us, but we hopefully choose between them based on facts. Either the economy is doing better, or it's getting worse. Tax cuts either help that or hurt it. That's not an endorsement or rejection of ideology - it's just truth. It makes no sense, and does no good to insist that the media treat both positions with kid-gloves when they either work or don't. But that's exactly what's going on. Both sides are presented as equally valid, because the most serious media outlets are afraid of being of labeled as "biased". That is not not the right way to go.
 
I know that to right-leaning ears, I'm sounding biased myself. I'll freely admit that both parties, at various times in the past, have manipulated and distorted facts. Absolutely true. But before, it was something that they could be called out for and exposed. Now, you can just deny, deny, deny and create your own proprietary version of reality. I'm sorry, but honestly what I'm seeing right now is the Right deliberately exploiting this cynical attitude to the truth in order to move the goal-posts in their own favor. And this does nobody any good. Certainly not the country, and not conservative policy either. **

 

 

 * I anticipate a challenge over which side is being reasonable (if any) when it comes to the budget showdown. That's perfectly fine. I stated some things matter-of-factly without really making an argument. I did that because I didn't want to detour from the general flow of this blog by stacking arguments. But if anyone wants to broach it in the comments, I'm game for a discussion.

** I've been gathering notes for the past couple of months for a blog on MY definition of conservativism. What it is in essence, what I'd like to see it return to. I don't know when I'm going to start writing it, but I'm going to try to make it my big project for this year (what with the election). I'm thinking of preceding it by two polemics. One against libertarianism, describing the flaws in that ideology. Another listing the classic complaints against modern liberalism, and the necessity of a conservative alterative. I'm not 100% sure that I'll do the polemics, or when I'll release them. The main blog I'll probably aim for in the summer or early fall.

Mental Health Breakdown

Top Comment: "Speaking at Fashion Week on Cardassia Prime, captain Picard implored Gul Madred to upgrade his wardrobe and 'Wear our fall lines'"

Mea Culpa

What I wrote previously is not sufficient. I owe John an apology. I rigorously hold others to standards, as a matter of standard procedure. These usually constitute what I consider "honest" dialog. I justify this by claiming to hold myself to an even more stringent policy, but I'm almost certainly clouded by ego in judging how strictly I police myself. Like a dieter justifying a pint of haagen-daz by pointing to the salad he had for lunch, I suspect I'm dishing out more than I'm taking.

I feel that I have an argument to make against John's views on the contraception battle, but I'm too tired to adequately make it. But I read his blog compulsively, and comment compulsively. I know what I want to say, but I don't have the energy to mobilize.

What I should have done is stated that fact openly. Instead, I acted immediately on impulse and baser emotions. Worse yet, I insinuated that I was sick of fighting an uphill battle and would quit a lost cause. That's dishonest. Also cheap. It's just a very base rhetorical ploy to inspire sympathy. I owe John better than that.

I apologize.

In the future, I'll try to remember that unless I'm prepared to see an argument through, while keeping within the limits of acceptable civil discourse, I should essentially keep my dumb mouth shut. I stooped too low. I will try my hardest not to do it again. If I do, I should be called out for it.

Break Time

I've been writing fairly steady since mid-December so I'm going to throttle back for a little while.

It's unseasonably warm in Cincinnati, and I feel like doing outside things. I've got ideas floating around, but I haven't been able to motivate myself to write them, and the feeling of obligation is starting to get counter-productive. It should feel like a treat, not a chore.

So I'm going to take a few weeks time.

UPDATE: I should comment on the brouhaha over at John's blog too. My energy for this endevour is, at the moment, very low, so I'm coming off pretty poorly. I'm motivated by baser feelings of revulsion and outrage, but not any of the more aspirational impulses that often accompany them. I'm just going through the motions over there.

I can't muster the will to do it right, so I might as well recharge the batteries. I'm partly feeling dispirited because John's anti-my-position positions are getting deeper entrenched, in spite of my efforts. The contraceptive battle is getting louder and more vitriolic, and we seem to be reflecting that situation on our blogs.

I'll respond, of course, still. But I'm not going to campaign offensively until I can recharge and regroup.

Also. I'm done following the GOP campaign until the convention. Mitt's got it. We're just going through the motions. Be thinking about good tie breakers for the mustard of glory...

On Truth and Self-Awareness

Introduction

I'm feeling a little sick of myself. On my best days, I write because I want to try to inform myself and others. When I react because of outrage, and the desire to smite mendacity - that's slightly less noble. Worst of all is when I act out of the desire to contradict, and enhance my own ego. In reaction to John's blog event I started off pretty well, but degenerated quickly into anger and wrath, ending with my gorging myself on self-gratifying conjecture. I believe I had a point, but that's not so important. I made recently made a commitment to lead this blog in a positive direction, describing what is good, not merely railing against what's wrong. So far, I'm failing miserably.

What is it so hard for be to describe what I value? If I want to persuade anyone, this is a skill I need to master. People don't vacate a position because it's invalidated. They need to be shown greener pastures in which to relocate. I must describe a better way.

Truth

My principle value is truth. Although I was religious for a relatively short time, I can't shake the effect of religion from my mind. I still picture myself serving an external force, like God. Of course, I don't call it God anymore, I call it truth. This is deceptive, and probably counter-productive. I don't actually believe that truth is accurately described as a value. Values come from someplace else. One doesn't devote oneself to 2+2=4. Similarly, one cannot serve the principle behind 2+2=4.

Still, everything I have that's any good is thanks to the pursuit of truth. Besides physical goods that are the fruit of science, mathematics and technology, the benefits of true understanding are manifold. Without it, honest relationships, ethics, and self-awareness are impossible. I don't need truth like I need clean food and water; but still, I'm utterly dependent on it.

Truth is the wellspring of all good things. I horde true understanding for myself and those I love. I deny it like a miser to enemies. With it, all things are possible. Without it, things fall apart.

Self-Awareness

Carl Sagan described science as more than just a methodology for arriving at fact. He described it as a special way of thinking. A way of skeptically interrogating the universe, which is inherently good and wholesome for human minds. I share this notion.

This special way of thinking is something unique, that sets us apart from other life on Earth. It plays to our strengths as thinking animals. It is uniquely human. To engage in it is do something intrinsically right and good, because it is so tied to our special nature. It's an affirmation of everything human.

And what are we? What does it mean to be human? What is our nature? I don't claim to have even a fraction of the answer to this. I will say this. We are perceiving animals. We are a collection of "stuff" that is self aware. We're aware, not just of what our senses and instincts tell us, but of how things truly are. We are capable of understanding. We can see the way that truth manifests itself in nature, through interrogation of facts. And we're aware of what we ourselves are. We are stuff. We are a collection of organic matter that  is aware that we are merely organic matter.

My "poetry" leaves a lot to be desired, but these facts are, to me, simply amazing. The wondrous miracle of a single human mind. The potential is staggering. When a religious person says something like, "I am nothing compared to God", or when an astronomer says "We are tiny little specks compared to the awesome vastness of the universe", I find the sentiment disturbing. A human mind, however small and temporary, is astonishing. When a human being makes a valuation of something, anything, it is astonishing. To teach a single person to reason, to enable him to think and expand and grow for life - is a greater feat than moving a planet. If I can help to provoke that in one single human brain, I'll die happy.

Self-awareness, like any kind of understanding, is an open-ended process. There is not absolute certainty in scientific inquiry. One gathers more data, finding more and more consistent evidence, attaining more certainty - but total and absolute certainty is not possible. Similarly, self-awareness is a process that human beings must struggle to attain. This is a constant, never-ending struggle for more and more. There is no goal post. There is no "nirvana" or total state of enlightenment.

Like natural science, self-awareness is earned through constant, rigorous skeptical inquiry. It involves interrogating every nook and cranny of one's sense of self. Ethics, values, assumptions, insecurities, petty foibles, strengths, weaknesses, desires, ideals. Everything must be held up to the light and examined, constantly, with a deliberate effort at objectivity and consistency. This sometimes means putting efforts at cultivating self-esteem and gratification aside, if only for a while.

We all make an effort at this, to varying degrees. But we don't always do this consciously or deliberately. We do this as a part of attempting "maturity" or "virtue". We try to align ourselves to what we see as good principles. I give western religion some credit in encouraging this. Those who truly accept the call to "serve god" are probably rarely narcissists or sociopaths. Their vocation demands rigorous personal inquiry, which those individuals are incapable of performing.

Conclusion

I don't want to give the impression that I have mastered any of this. I am not giving instructions from inside my ivory tower. I fail at this discipline - constantly. I'm making an attempt here to flesh this notion out. For myself, and readers.

This is what is in my life, filling the void of religion. I firmly believe that there is something very important to this, and I owe it to myself to explore it fully. To refine it and find a way to package it and disseminate it.

I would appreciate any help.

Blog Event: Greatest Threat to Religious Freedom?

Like Leslie, I'm going to have to go with radical Islam.

I'm worried about the state of theocracy in the U.S., but I can't say that I consider it a legitimate threat yet. Islam, on the other hand, is already a theocratic sitation in many countries. Islamic states like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia exist, with little to no separation between church and state. It's not illegal for non-Muslims to live in these countries, but it is not permitted for Muslims to convert.

So, there's that.

While that's the case, I don't think I can advocate any course of action to take. It's not simply the case of an evil dictatorship stripping religious liberty from the people. The people seem to want at least some restriction of expression and religious demonstration. I was reading a poll several months ago regarding which "democratic" scenarios they would like to see permitted in the future. At the far end of the scale was something like "People should be allowed to mock the Prophet Muhammed". No takers, at all. 0%. Some kinds of expression are simply too much to be allowed.

So, in as much as Islam is the chief offender, it's hard to get too worked up on it, except when Islam leaves it's own home territory to bomb cartoonists and journalists. That's not understandable or acceptable.

That's all I got.

Rush Controversy: Enough

Quick points.

• I despise Rush Limbaugh. Every couple of weeks I catch a whiff of his filth and it makes me sick. The fact that he commands so much sway over conservatives is a disgrace.
• He apologized for what he said. It's over. It doesn't matter if it was sincere or not, it's over. I've heard many other similar comments from Limbaugh that didn't catch fire, and thus didn't demand an apology. Anyone that is genuinely shocked over this hasn't been paying attention.
• Intimidating sponsors into leaving is perfectly legal, but bad form. If you claim to support free speech, then confront Limbaugh's message but don't try to manipulate the system into silencing him.
• This is not news anymore. News outlets should move on.
• I don't believe that the "liberal media" invented this controversy, but their addiction to sensational news blew it out of proportion. That's happening more and more. In controversies of all kinds, but especially to fringe right-wingers.
• I don't really care whether Rush suffers as a result. I hope he does suffer, actually. He sucks. I don't want to make loony right wingers feel secure and happy, I just don't like the general idea of unconventional ideas being mocked and skewered for the sake of ratings. It's a moral hazard, it encourages mainstream orthodoxy and homogenous patterns of thought.
• Kirk Cameron is being called a hate monger on the interwebs because he responded, as any other evangelical would, to a question on homosexuality from Piers Morgan by saying that it's wrong. I, along with many Americans, find that statement to  be backwards and wrong. It doesn't make him a hatemonger, though. That's ridiculous.
• I feel that after the Tea-Party led backlash, the pendulum is beginning to swing back to center. Opportunistic liberals, as well as weak-minded individuals who can't help going with the flow (like me) are trying to use the momentum to score some points against the religious/social right. That's a bad idea. It's just sowing the seeds of backlash for the next cycle. The viewpoint that "wins" is the one that holds the middle, by being moderate, temperate and fair in it's outlook. Scoring points against Rush Limbaugh and Kirk Cameron doesn't result in real progress. It makes you feel better, while making your side look unfair, intemperate and mean.

Super Tuesday

Tomorrow is Super Tuesday, and I live in Ohio. Ohio is a major battleground state, and it has open primaries.

A few months ago I described my moral dilemma over who to nominate for the GOP in this year's presidential race. I won't rehash all of my motivations but it basically boils down to supporting someone that I sincerely like (Ron Paul), or supporting someone I think the GOP base identifies with (and consider a "true conservative"). Right now that would be Rick Santorum, who I despise.

I still grudgingly admit that ethically speaking, I should play this straight, but I don't know if that's what I'll do.

I've been watching the race closely for the last several weeks. The pattern that I've noticed is this. Up to a week before most close contests, people latch onto a non-Romney candidate. Mostly Santorum. The polls start off with a strong lead for that candidate. Then the Romney campaign begins carpet-bombing the state in question with ads attacking that candidate. Within the span of a few days, the gap narrows and Romney manages to squeak by. I've seen it happen in Florida, Michigan and now Ohio. It's neck-and-neck here.

I feel that my vote matters. Which would I regret more: being stuck with an ideologue because of my cynicism, or being stuck with someone who most Americans don't actually want, and whose defeat (or victory) means nothing, all because of my own naivety?

I guess I'd rather be cynical than naive. I doubt that comes as a surprise to anyone reading this.

On Authority

For the past few months I've been trolling around the blogosphere, and I'm being exposed to points of view that I don't usually get exposed to. It's been good and bad.

I came across a kind of... literary style in radical libertarians (like, the kind that believe that basically any state presence is too much). When analyzing whether a particular government action is good or bad, they'll use the phrase "put a gun to your head" to describe the execution of government authority.

Example: "I don't believe it's right to tax people for anything other than what they themselves need. They're putting a gun to your head and screaming 'Give me your money!'"

On one hand, this isn't a bad, or totally erroneous shorthand for state authority. The power of the state is the power to make certain kinds of violence legitimate. Remember the scene in The Dark Knight when the Joker was explaining how some kinds of violence are all "part of the plan"? Same deal. State and military (and/or police) are tightly bound together.

So, on the one hand, that quote is kinda true.

However, on the other hand it's hysterically absurd on it's face. Yes, ultimately total disobedience will result into you being carried away to prison. If you violently object, you may be shot at some point (however, you've almost got to be trying to be shot to reach that point). But that's not the reason why people submit to authority. People buy into the notion of legal authority. They willingly enter into it like a contract. Even if it's just an intangible, abstract notion, authority is still very real - violence aside. As an idea that we all share, it has weight in the real world.

It's easy to forget, but when we grow up we make an implicit decision to accept or reject our society. We go into this thinking we'll play ball (and accept the judgement of society's "authorities") or we go in thinking that we reject it all as bull (I mean "we" as in Charlie Manson, perhaps; Not "we" as in "people reading this blog"). That doesn't mean we have to agree with everything that the authorities do, but it does mean that we have to acknowledge it's right to exist. It means we look at it as real and legitimate, not just some sort of phony illusion.

We collectively legitimize the notion of "Authority", vested in the State.
The State thus legitimizes certain actions taken against individuals or other states.

It's not a case of threating each individuals life everytime you need to get something done. That's not even being implied. It's not the hidden message behind the laws. It should be the case that people obey because they bought in, they accepted their role.

I wish it were possible to institute exile as a "corrective action". It doesn't make sense to force a criminal into a prison life because of their willful disobedience. If they don't want to obey, expel them. See how they do without the benefits of a cooperative society. Send them back to the jungle. Let them fend for themselves in a place where might makes right. As long as they don't find their way back here.

Or, if they don't want to be exiled, they could choose (of their own free will) to go to prison, and freely accept whatever term the court decides is necessary to rehabilitate.

For that matter, it would be nice to make explicit that "decision" that we all implicitly make, regarding whether to accept or reject society. It could be a kind of coming-of-age ritual. Entering the world as an adult and a citizen.

But, the world's too small and too crowded. There is no place that's sufficiently "away" to send the banished. It's just not practical. But it seems like the most just way to correct the system, in response to anti-statists - or, alternatively, anti-social personalities - who believe state power to be illegitimate.

On Identity Politics: They're Bad

There's a fine, faint, and sometimes indistinguishable line between "telling it like it is" and stereotyping. I'm going to try and walk it, bear with me.

About 8 years ago I often found myself in the company of people who identified as "Conservative", who were often nodding their heads in agreement to what I was saying. Now I often find myself with people who identify as "Liberal" who also nod in agreement to things that I say. Or I them. One thing that has stayed constant, though, is my general disgust with those who are "fashionably liberal". I'm using the liberal stereotype here, not the actual political orientation. What I mean is, those who slavishly participate in vaguely political causes, not to acheive political ends, but to be a part of a cultural thing.

Matt's Abortion War of 2012 has brought up some of these old familiar feelings. In and about myself, not anyone else. I've questioned my motives, regarding my own position on abortion, and ultimately found them to be acceptable - but there have been times I had to pause and stop myself from seeking fashionable acceptance and refocus on the fundamentals.

Those who emphatically endorse policies as a means of identifying as part of a collective are engaging in identity politics. They are putting their identity as part of a group (In the case of liberals, an enlightened group; In the case of conservatives: a genuine, down-to-earth group) ahead of the correctness of the policy to which they subscribe.

Those who stereotype political opponents into a narrow identity, based on support of certain particular policies are also engaging in identity politics. They are forcing opponents into an oversimplified description, which is easier to dismiss and ridicule.

These identities come in conservative, liberal and apolitical flavors. But the flavors are entirely artificial. Like grape soda is to an actual grape, the "Liberal" identity has little to do with actual liberal politics. The identity itself may not even exist, in it's entirety, in the mind of a single person. It may simply be an amalgamation of various liberal-ish ideas, images and stereotypes (The shirtless, barefooted, dreadlocked white guy playing acoustic guitar on a college campus, to an audience of rapt young ladies is my fav), all spliced together into a single large, fictitious tapestry.

Yet today's Conservative movement seems almost entirely defined in it's opposition to this "ghost" of a political ideology. Which makes this "Conservative" incarnation just as phony as the "Liberals" it seeks to vanquish. Add to that confused identity the liberal stereotyping of conservatives as illiterate, gun-stroking, fundamentalist rednecks AND the conservative movement's recent, middle-finger-firmly-raised embrace of that stereotype for themselves (Palin - PALIN!) - And the practical definition of Conservative policy is hopelessly confused and lost.

What does it mean to be conservative?
To be a hawk?
To seek tax cuts, period?
To seek less government, period?
To be Christian?
To crave a certain kind of pre-1960's culture (which may have not ever existed, in fact)?
To see yourself and your preferred culture as under siege by an unfairly biased media?

Three of those points aren't even matters of policy, just culture. The other three are technically advocating a policy, but are so inflexible and intemperate that they can't be compromised, and thus can't be achieved - in any real sense - in a democratic setting. Besides that, they're not really desirable to most Americans. Most Americans don't want to go to war with Iran. Most Americans want to pay for at least some government assistance.

Yet these points are the litmus test which any aspiring Republican politician must at some point pass. The reason why is this "Conservative" identity that has taken control.

Liberals have the same problem, to a certain extent. American liberalism is constantly defined, for good or ill, by it's role in the social and political changes of the 1960's and 70's. Those changes were relevant, but America has moved on. The conversation is changed. Hardcore left-wingers are just as intemperate and irrational as hardcore right-wingers, and they should be careful not to claim Democratic political gains, or skepticism on war in the middle east as an affirmation of their own agenda.

But I don't really care about left-wing identity politics. For one, because it's not one that I share a lot of affinity for. For another, because it's been firmly rejected for a long time. The "Liberal" identity isn't really used by many Democratic politicians anymore. The name itself has become toxic. Very few people have any tolerance for the kind of freaks that glitterbomb GOP candidates, or get naked for PETA. Successful liberal activist groups (such as those campaigning for gay rights) take a tone of moderation, and attempt to appear "normal" and reasonable, without using extreme or hyperbolic rhetoric. In short, the "Liberal" identity is, and has been, on a long slow decline. Conservative identity politics are, on the other hand, just hitting their stride.

What can you do?

Identity politics is a lose-lose proposition. You lose some of your representation when politicians try to pander to a cartoon image of you, rather than the real you ("I'm a severe conservative"). America loses because it gets either gridlock or non-sensical policies that most people don't even want, as opposed to real governance. Politicians who engage in it, I suppose, get a win because it makes their pandering that much easier.

Identity politics is a weakness. It allows us to give in to intellectual sloth and complacency. It allows us to shut out dissent without addressing it. It allows us to focus on a stereotypical opposition, and thus relinquish our own political responsibilities to our country.

So what can we do?

Define your own politics in positive terms. Never, even for an instant, define yourself in terms of what you are opposed to. This is the mark of a phony. If you can't describe your agenda in terms of what you want to see done, then you don't actually have an agenda.

Focus on policy. Nothing else matters except for what you want to see done in real, practical terms. If you understand want you want and why: write your congressman. If you don't know what policy you want: shut your mouth and study until you do. Or just shut your mouth.

Build on values, not "principles". Principles are often invoked in a political discussion as a way of avoiding an explanation or persuasive argument. There's nothing wrong with principles (in principle..) but it's gotten to the point of just being an excuse for laziness. Instead start with core values - for yourself personally and for your country - and build a political agenda around it. Let the labels fall where they may, all that matters is the substance of your ideas.

Make practical decisions. Vote based making progress, even if it means compromising on some issues in favor of others. Try to get a net gain for yourself. Support politicians who make clear promises about what, specifically, they intend to do. What policies they will champion, and how they would implement in the real world. This is exactly what politicians do not want to do, because policy ideas can be scrutinized. Given the choice between a candidate who is clear about policy, but most of the policy is against your agenda and one who has made no definitive statements - choose option A.

Hold yourself to a rigorous mental discipline. Do not allow yourself to stereotype opponents. Give them the benefit of the doubt, and react to the substance of their statements. Not for their sake, but for yours. Anything less is a weakness that will hurt you in the long run.

As is American tradition when dealing with a trend we don't like, I'm declaring war. I dedicate this as the "War On Identity Politics", and I will describe it the most aggressive - and therefore best - rhetorical terms. I want YOU in my ARMY. I want us to SODOMIZE identity politics. I want our JACKBOOTS SMASHING THE FACE of political stereotypes - FOREVER. I want to use Al Sharpton's rhetorical entrails to GREASE the WHEELS of our TANKS. I want Sarah Palin's rhetorical identity DEAD. I want it's RHETORICAL FAMILY DEAD! I want it's RHETORICAL HOUSE BURNT TO THE GROUND. I want to go there tonight, and I want to PISS ON IT'S RHETORICAL ASHES! I want to CRUSH IDENTITY POLITICS, SEE IT DRIVEN BEFORE US AND HEAR THE LAMENTATIONS OF IT'S WOMEN.

Framing the "Religious Exemption" Debate

Reading this post by Zach Beauchamp, an intern at The Dish, I find myself nodding my head. I had a similar take during a discussion with John some months ago, but I don't think I expressed it as well.
Money quote:

[T]hese "voluntary communities" aren't the Rotary Club - they're employers that wield a significant amount of financial clout. The market, though we refer to it as the "private sector," is in a certain sense very public: we all have to participate in it. Because in capitalist economies no one has much of a choice about getting a job, all but the most extreme libertarians accept that the government has to set some standards about how employers treat the employed. Allowing "conscience" exemptions whenever an employer doesn't feel morally clean when complying with regulations in principle neuters all regulation. The argument for allowing Catholic hospitals a pass on covering birth control has to rest or fall on the specifics of the case rather than a general commitment to protecting "voluntary communities."

I had hitherto taken the stance of understanding where the legislation is coming from, but hoping they make the exemptions a little more general, just to put the issue aside and move on. No more. I'm doubling down.

The whole point of universal health care is that there is consistent participation from all consumers (individual mandate, with everyone paying into the system up front), and consistent standards of coverage from all providers (government regulation of coverage, to provide a guarantee of bare minimum coverage to qualify as medical insurance). Allowing people to protest their way out of whichever points of coverage they wish basically removes any accountability from the provider side.

Like Mr. Beauchamp mentions, the Health Care market is - just like the job market - something that we all have to participate in. It's not like the electronics market. One can decide to do without an iPhone. One cannot decide to do without health care. If the consumer side of the equation is constrained, so must the provider side.

How many times have I heard the whining about how, if religious affiliated hospitals can't follow their conscience, then well, maybe they'll just take their toys and go home? See how you do without their charity and hard work!

Good. Go then.

Believe it or not, religious organizations are not required to run a health-care system. "Catholic" hospitals are still run as businesses, because they are. Patients with insurance pay; Those without pay later, or not at all. It's the same everywhere. If the Catholic - or any other - Church wants to give up it's share of the market, I welcome it. I'm sure there are plenty who would be happy to buy your unused real estate, and hire the medical staff you're forced to lay off. And I'm sure that whoever buys in will be willing to play ball.

You are not providing a public service. You are meeting a consumer demand. And you are replicable.

Thoughts On Komen

First off:

1. Susan G Komen For The Cure was within it's rights to direct funds to Planned Parenthood.
2. Pro-Life individuals and organizations were within their rights to publicly criticize this.
3. Susan G Komen For The Cure was within it's rights to cease sending funds to Planned Parenthood.
4. Planned Parenthood was within it's rights to publicly critize this.
5. Pro-Choice individuals and organizations were within their rights to publicly critize this.
6. Susan G Komen For The Cure was within it's rights to reverse their decision about Planned Parenthood.
7. Susan G Komen For The Cure was within it's rights to fire any of their employees over this.
8. Pro-Life individuals and organizations are within their rights to critize these moves.

So, are we clear then? No one's rights have been violated in this. There really is no controversy here, except that Komen didn't anticipate the reaction of pro-choice patrons and clients. I don't buy their excuse about the investigation, but that's nitpicking. It really doesn't matter what their reasons were, they're free to do whatever they want for whatever reason. And the millions of people who donate to them are free to take exception, for whatever reason.

Is there anyone out there who doubts whether Komen makes these decisions based on which party is willing to donate more? It's a simple equation: money from one party versus more money from another party.

The ideological debate lies - as it always has - between the Pro-Choicers and Pro-Lifers with money to give. Not the charity itself. And each and every one of us is guilty of exactly the same "crime": having an agenda beyond helping people with cancer. If we want to be pissed at someone, let's be pissed at each other.

The Post-2012 GOP Narrative

Journalist George Packer shares my worry about how a Romney loss in November will be interpreted by conservatives.

"To be a sane Republican today is to hope that Romney can hang on in Florida and beyond. Not simply because he’s the most “electable” candidate—parties make a mistake when they choose based on assumptions about what other people think (remember the Democrats in 2004). A sane Republican has to want Romney as nominee in order to rule out any possibility of having Gingrich as President.
But what if Romney wins the nomination and loses the election? This scenario is still the odds-on favorite. To deduce the consequences among Republican activists, let’s imagine a counter-factual from 1972: pit Nixon against Humphrey or Muskie or Jackson, a candidate imposed on the liberal Democratic base much as conservative Republicans feel Romney is being imposed on them. A Nixon win would have convinced the liberal base that the party had not been true to its core. The theology would have hardened a little more. Next time, they’d nominate a real liberal, a candidate of the grassroots.
It’s easy to picture hard-core Republicans coming to the same conclusion: Romney and the party élite betrayed the party’s principles (again, after McCain) and gave the country four more years of the hated Obama. Never again! Next time, a real conservative!

A Gingrich rout in November might have the same effect on Republicans—it might drive their party back toward the center, and toward mental health, in 2016. But if Romney wins the nomination and loses the election, the party will continue down into the same dark hole where Palin, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Santorum, and now Gingrich all lurk."

State Of The Blog 2012

"A hushed silence has come over the assembled crowd, as the Emperor Dungy makes his way through the rank and file of the Army and Guard delegates. And I've gotta say, Ted, we couldn't have asked for a more beautiful day. Don't you agree?"

"Oh, absolutely, Dan. The clouds over our capital are, of course, a perpetual jet black, but they've been uncharacteristically dry today, and many are interpreting that as a good omen."

"Mmhmm. During our coverage of this morning's traditional Emperor's Day Expulsion of the Albinos from the Holy City, the examined entrails of the final victim were said to be the cleanest seen in many years."

"Yup. As the Emperor makes his way up the Stairs of Mourning, the delegation from the Senate can be seen nominating a leader by lot to give the Invocation today."

"Chuck, can you go back to camera two? Yeah, as the Emperor comes into frame, just look at the detail on what he's wearing."

"Gorgeous. In keeping with tradition, the Emperor is wearing the Mantle of the Annointed for today's speech."

"Yeah, and it's rare to see it up close. It's kept under lock and key all year long, but today, through the miracle of broadcast, we can bring it to you, the viewer."

"Take a look at the elaborate decoration, Dan. Originally a large burlap sack used to dispatch the last remnants of the old political system, the mantle has received an ever increasing number of alterations and new ostentation. Today, we can see emeralds, rubies, and of course, many diamonds and gold inlays."

"That and the holes, of course."

"Of course, the fifty-seven holes, through which the fifty-seven traitors received the ultimate justice. Ah, the Emperor has completed his climb, and the representative of the Senate approaches the Imperial Dais to give the Invocation..."

"Salutations. Today, my peers have granted me the... The privilege of delivering to the people the Holy Invocation of our Beloved Leader...

In the name of our ancestors, may my blood be upon you. In the name of the motherland, may my blood keep and preserve you. And... Oh, God... May the blood of my children... keep and preserve... our most Beloved Emperor Dunglemagne the First. For a thousand year reign!"

"And he's off! The guards are exiting to pursue, and what a runner they've chosen this year, Ted. In keeping with tradition, the Emperor has pledged to open the granaries to all if he's butchered before reaching the city walls. His Grace approaches the Dais..."

Comrades. It is imperative that we crush the freedom fighters before the start of the next rainy season! And remember, a shiny new donkey for whomever brings me the head of Colonel Montoya...

What? Oh yes, by that, I of course mean that it's time for this year's State Of The Blog...

It's been a little over a year since my good friend, friend-of-the-blog-John-Stegeman started his own writing project, thereby encouraging me to write, as a means to bludgeon him and inflate my own ego. Er, I mean "Express myself". And it has been a good year. We've covered a lot of ground, yelled a lot of words, and done a lot of stuff on things.

But we must keep going, ever upward. That's why I'm announcing Dungy-Blog 2012's 12 month plan! For a more prosperous blogging future.

First initiative: More Contributors
Our mutual acquaitance, Matt Kilmer started his own blog last year and is contributing more and more frequently. Three blogs starting in a year is a fair amount of progress, but we must expand. More voices. Well, more worthy voices. I propose we do whatever it takes to make this Triumvirate into a Tetrarchy by the end of this year.

I ask this, not to enhance our prestige with more attention, but to enhance the conversation with more points-of-view. I would like to see a Christian (maybe a protestant to balance things out), but I'd settle for anyone with an interesting voice and the will to contribute.

Also: Try to be less of a jerk
I'm beginning to believe that sometimes I cross a line of smarminess in my pursuit of John The Catholic. I believe that my points are usually valid (or validish), and my motives are generally good, and I certainly don't think I'm being too venomous. But, there may be times where I'm greatly motivated by being a combative contrarian. And that's not healthy.

I should be motivated by trying to express the truth (or at least just my point on a subject), but I do get a kick out of just trying to "win", and too often I'm doing it "for the kicks". I've found it to be usually true that one should never base one's identity on a negative. That is, don't define yourself by what you're "against". The Constitution doesn't describe the government of the US in terms of opposition to Facism or Communism. Instead it describes the system on it's own terms. So be it with this blog. I'll still write "Against [blank]" blogs, but I want to try to write a few more "For [blank]" blogs. That would be a step in the right direction.

Better Writing Style
Last year's "Breaking My Friend, John" was my first experience writing something that felt totally fleshed out and clean. I didn't write recreationally much before then (there were a few blogs from 2009 as a kind of first attempt, a fledgling killer's first effort at transformation), and it was the first time it felt really good to write. Writing that one was easy, because I had a lot of pent up creative energy that was ready to come out. But as it went on, that fire burned a little less brightly. I'm putting up a lot of energy to keep a steady stream of ideas coming out of here, and I've reached a pretty stable level, now.

My problem is that I'm not putting the same effort into quality. I'm usually publishing my first draft, and I often don't review or tweak it before publishing. I should be able to point to progress in this area. So, for 2012 I want to put a renewed emphasis on writing that is thoughtful, but also well written. The late Christopher Hitchens was a joy to read, no matter what he was writing on. I can't hope to reach that level, but I'd like to create something that gives a fraction of that same feeling.

So, with that in mind I make this pledge: In 2012, I will write one "good blog" per month. For these I will do at least one rough draft. If I have difficulty thinking of a topic, maybe we can do another blog event? Something to consider.

Final Pledge: More Topical, Culturally Relevant Humor. Less Abstract Kookiness.

Isn't that right, Cactus Chef Playing We Didn't Start The Fire On The Flute?

That's it folks. Thanks to John and Matt for being the only people to read this, and for their constant input to "Our Conversation". That reminds me, can we change Our Conversation to "Our Thing"? Because, in Italian it's "Cosa Nostra". Which is both cool, and neat.

Here's to a terrific 2012 and more heated debate.

NOW VOLK RISE UP AND STORM BREAK LOOSE!

"The cheers of the crowd, and discharge of firearms is almost deafening as the Emperor leaves the dais! Truly an awe inspiring, if characteristically cryptic, speech. Wouldn't you agree, Ted?"

"Absolutely, one can never totally comprehend the -"

"Oh, gotta cut you off there, Ted. I'm receiving word that the Guard Captain has returned with the head! Yes, we can see it there. Oh, wait. His Grace is dipping the head in signal. Once. Twice. Three times - the signal for a fete! A FETE! DO YOU BELIEVE IN MIRACLES? The granaries are opened, and DOWN ROLLS THE HEAD! Rolling down the Stairs of Mourning!"

"Absolutely stunning! A wave of ravenous, barefooted children is dispersing onto the city streets as the fete commences! Tonight, we eat! And I don't know about you Dan, but I'm not sticking around for the post-speech analysis..."

Congrats To Mitt II

Or not. The networks are projecting that Gingrich has won South Carolina. Hoorah for the victory of not-mitt.

I don't even care that it's Gingrich. If Gingrich were to get the nomination, at least it would be an interesting contest. I don't buy the B.S. about Newt being a superior debater, a clever intellectual and that. But at least we could watch pure, immoral lies and creepy dirtiness instead of watch Mitt pretend to believe whatever stuff that he thinks >50% of Americans and want to hear.

Next stop: Florida, Jan 30th. I don't pretend to know who will win it. We'll just have to watch the polls and see who dangles enough shineys to capture the attention of the polling electorate during the next couple of weeks. I'm really rooting for Paul to distinguish himself from the rest of the jokesters, though.

Congrats to Mitt

According to... well, almost everyone at this point - Romney has the nomination well in hand.

Polling seems to indicate he's got a healthy lead in South Carolina, and Florida to boot.

Perry apparently will not quit. Paul is all about advancing his libertarian ideals, so he won't quit either. Nor should he, since he's showing himself to be consistently the next strongest (must not write "#2"). I believe that Gingrich will stick around for as long as he can, if only to continue throwing molotov cocktails at Romney. Santorum is already significantly weakened (no surprise to anyone there) since his near-victory in Iowa.

Huntsman is, well, irrelevant.

I could easily see this unfolding as a three way race between Romney (for the "establishment"), Santorum (religious right), and Paul (libertarians), with Romney dominating because of his "electability", despite the fact that hardly anyone seems to like him much.

What I would like to see is as many also-ran candidates to step out now, so their voters will have time to think about which non-Romney-who-could-also-win they'll back. I have no doubt that Romney will go into super tuesday with the frontrunner status, but I'd like to see Ron Paul get the bump, so he can be seen as a viable alternative (if not "last man standing") on super tuesday.

Otherwise, this is just going to pan out as Romney mopping up state after state. A victory for play-it-safe, passionless, heartless, gutless politics.

Against Faith

You awake and find yourself alone in the woods, with no memory of how you arrived there. In fact, you have no memory of your past at all. You could have been living there for years, or recently been moved there against your will. You have no relevant survival skills. You do not know how to judge direction by sun or stars. You do not know how to track game. The woods are vast, seemingly without end. You walk for several hours in one direction to find yourself no closer to an exit into civilization. Then you recognize footprints in the mud. The prints match your own shoes: you've been walking in circles. You're hungry and cold. You feel that your situation is hopeless, and with all probability you won't survive more than a few days. You're afraid.

How would you cope? It's probably fair to concede than many would allow themselves to lapse into despair, and more or less await the inevitable. However, I believe that many more would eventually summon the courage to keep trying, learning as much as they can about their surroundings and trying to muddle their way through the situation and find a way out of the woods, or at least find food, fresh water and shelter, so they can continue the struggle.

One thing that hope none of us would do: deny the reality of the situation. Simply because we have no knowledge of life before the woods - or present knowledge of a way out - does not imply that this is an illusion. As great as the human capacity for denial is, I doubt any of us would believe that if we sit in the dirt and focus on a warm house, cable TV and a pepperoni pizza, we can make that a reality through force of will.

Well, you can see where this is going. The setting of the woods is our life on earth. The struggle for survival is our own spiritual struggle. I mean this not in a mystical sense, but in an ethical an metaphysical sense. Being born into this place and time means we have full bellies and warm beds. But we still struggle to find meaning, fulfillment and a understanding of truth, goodness and badness, rightness and wrongness in our daily lives.

My thesis is this: In as much as these concepts aren't readily apparent or easy, the reaction of turning to faith for answers is wrong. Not just unwise, but wrong.

In my judgement, the first thing one must accept is the existence of physical reality. In order to do so, one must accept the basic correctness of ones own perceptions. As fallible as they are, one must trust one's own eyes, ears, sense of feeling and touch, and one's own mind. With these basic assumptions acting as a foundation, a super-structure of theories about ethics, metaphysics and philosophy (not to mention scientific knowledge of the physical world) is possible. Without them, a person is capable of any wild, random action. They could lapse into solipsism, believing that theirs is the only real experience, and that it means nothing to shoot a thousand people in the face. They could choose to ape the behavior of others, without really accepting social mores, becoming a narcissist or sociopath. Etc, etc.

Faith is, in essence, preferring one type of knowledge (gnosis: spiritual or revelatory knowledge) over another (material knowledge). It doesn't necessarily deny the reality of material knowledge, but it insists that gnosis take precedence when there is a conflict. That doesn't mean that a believer is a dangerous sociopath (for the most part), but it means that the "foundation" has been compromised.

My own understanding derives entirely from sensory information, and any rational correlations my mind might derive from that information. To a believer, that material data has competition, from a "higher power": another source that is both apart and above the physical world. In the case of one who believes he himself is a prophet, with direct access to gnosis, the wrongness of his faith will become immediately apparent when he tries to sleep with your wife and start building a holy army (see Joseph Smith). In the case of one who merely has faith in the words of dead prophets, the wrongness will be less obvious, but still there. Dead crazy is more inert than living crazy, but the possibility for unreasonable action is still there. If scripture has anything at all to say about current events, it probably will provoke believers to take actions that they wouldn't otherwise take.

Everything that we have in this world - an understanding of how the universe works, how to efficiently grow food, how to live and work with each other, how to organize a society with laws and courts, how to build a roof that doesn't collapse and kill the family living within - we owe to rational, clear thinking. Faith is a corruption of that. Faith is an appeal, a deference, a yielding - a surrender - to the not-rational. At the bottom, faith is the insistence that by concentrating on an idea, with enough will-power, one is capable of making reality - that if you focus your Chi hard enough, you can make that lightsaber leap off of the ground and into your hand.

For what? What does the believer gain? Quite a lot, I must admit: A sense of purpose, fulfillment, moral certainty and comfort in an afterlife. These are the "higher values" that one seeks after finding food, shelter, a mate, and security. These are the values that rationality alone has difficulty providing in the long run. Faith makes it easier. But Faith has many hands, and while it gives with one, it takes with all others. The cost of comfort is the loss of an ability to judge for oneself, challenge assumptions, and hold opinions outside of orthodoxy.

Other than that, I do believe it actually erodes one's capacity to think critically. If one spends a portion of his life training to ignore or suppress doubts or judgements that are rooted in materialism, during a religious frame of mind, that cannot but have a deleterious effect on the ability to return to that more rational method of thinking when the situation demands it. When trying to parse and understand an essay written by a theological scholar, I cannot help but be boggled by how complex and nonsensical it is. It reads that way because the arguments aren't rooted in a common, tangible world that we all share, but in a supernatural world that cannot be explained without ridiculously convoluted analogies and parable, and even then, poorly.

Faith in general, especially organized religion, and in particular Abrahamic religions cripple the minds of human beings by training them to turn off a critical part of their brains. It says, basically: "You are, as of the moment you were born, scum that has no right to breath air or live freely - no rights at all, as a matter of fact. Despite this, you may be given some of the things that you want if you freely give yourself up. Give up your free judgement, give up your autonomy, be totally obedient in thought and action and you will be given the comforts you desire in return".

Say what you want about the limits of pure reason. If one reviews the works of philosophy from Socrates onward, and you'll see the arguments, counter-arguments, refutations, revisiting and reviewing of ideas long abandoned, affirming, denying, affirming and denying again - the footprints crossing each other in the woods, circling the path again and again. But progress is being made. Today we know more about the world than we ever did before. We know more about our past - and our potential future - than ever before. We're living better than ever before. We're treating each other with more decency than ever before. In spite of the limitations of reason, and the difficulty of living in this universe, we are managing. We're muddling through, to the best of our ability. And I have reason to hope that the trend will continue. Tomorrow means better knowledge of fact, truth and value. Better perspective, a better life. But every moment spent in belief of the supernatural is a moment squandered. A few minutes in the woods, pausing to try one more time to will that house/TV/pizza into reality is a moment not looking for real food, real safety. Beyond that, the demands of obedience from faith put our real achievements in jeopardy by causing random, irrational, dangerous and, yes, immoral behavior. That is why when I say that I am an agnostic - I reject gnosis - it is not with a shrug but with resoluteness and confidence.

Who Won Iowa?

Santorum, I think. For Romney, a win by 8 votes is hardly a win at all. Romney may still end up taking the nomination, but the public need for some (any) Not-Romney candidate is stacking one humiliation after another on Mitt's back. His ambition must be bottomless to keep going after 3/4 of right leaning people have clearly shown that they don't want him, don't need him, don't like him.

So, Bachmann is out. Her votes will go to Santorum. Perry is (most likely) out, his votes will probably help Mitt more than anyone else. Gingrich stays in, for now.

It's important to point out that Santorum's recent surge is entirely thanks to timing. Focus turned to him at the last minute, and he got a well timed boost. He, his past and his positions have not yet been scrutinized like Gingrich/Cain/Perry/Bachmann, so he may lose a lotta starch once that blowback hits. He won't place high in New Hampshire, though, so his next best bet is South Carolina.

Paul may do well in NH, but I have no clue how SC will swing. I know that Huntsman has bet everything on NH, and is polling well there. If he wins NH outright, he'll get some focus, but anything less than 1st place won't be good enough. If he doesn't win there, I expect him to drop out.

Overall - I wouldn't bet on Santorum lasting for long, especially in super tuesday or open primary states. He's way, way too socially conservative (read: theocrat). I see this shaping up over the next couple of weeks as Paul/Romney/Gingrich. If it boils down to Romney and Paul, I think that would look extremely good for Ron Paul. But I dunno if that'll happen. Either Gingrich or Santorum will stick around to give the crazies someone to vote for.

Mahalo.