One of the best friends I’ll ever have died on October 31, 2006. Eric Shockley drowned in his own body fluids in a hospital bed, in his early 30’s. A couple years ago his aorta started to balloon. They were able to patch it and replace the damaged valve, but we always knew it was going to kill him. We just didn’t think it would be this soon. And I promised I’d say this at his funeral, but I didn’t find out he’d died until afterward. So here goes:

Eric had a heart of gold. Shame about the shitty aorta.

Our friendship started randomly, as all great ones do. On a ford focus discussion board of all places, debating politics. Eric was a dirty socialist. I was a hardcore conservative. But by the time he died we were both converging on a kind of conservation-centered pseudolibertarianism. The politics weren’t important, except that they were the way we met, and a microcosm of our entire friendship.

Sometimes, I still think it’s some kind of sick joke. That there’ll be a gigantic 300lb crate on my doorstep when I come home from school some random day. That upon prying the lid off, out will pop a heavyset 6′4 white guy with a stupid beard who’ll shout ‘Surprise’. I’ll scream and have a heart attack and then we’ll both have weak tickers and moronic facial hair.

Which is exactly the kind of thing Eric would do. But he probably wouldn’t let me stew this long. At least I don’t think he was that much of a bastard.

Anyway, the point is, Eric and I were like brothers. We fought constantly, usually because one or the other was being pigheaded about some opinion or another. And then we’d make up. Heck, we were worse than brothers. If you’re a Scrubs fan as I am, you probably find great humor in the pseudo-homosexual relationship between JD and Turk, epitomized by the touching and beautiful song, Guy Love. That’s about where we were.

I’m known for my gay jokes around school, but Eric definitely holds the title for ‘gayest thing ever said by a straight man’ when he in all seriousness told me that the only time he ever smiled anymore was when we talked. But that was one of the great things about our friendship. Self consciousness was never an issue. We were ourselves.

People have a lot of layers. Some more than others. Myself? I collect layers as a sort of hobby, not to mention as a defense mechanism. I can’t say that too many people know the real me. Eric did. Hell, without Eric I don’t think I would know the real me.

In a post I made about a week before he died, I all but named him specifically. And I’m glad he commented, because it would turn out to be our last interaction. Around Eric, and perhaps a couple others, Nick came out. Not the jock, not the clown, not the nerd. Just the guy.
————————————————————–

You know how all 5 year olds have that annoying ability to ask you ‘How Come?’ until you’re blue in the face with frustration and are starting to contemplate just how far you can hurl 40lbs of annoying kindergartener? That kind of doggedness was Eric’s greatest gift to me. He forced me to push my understanding of the world and myself. And whenever I’d get to a ‘Just because, dammit!’, he’d force me through it and out the other side into deeper understanding. I’d like to think I pushed him too, which is probably why he was slightly less of a hippy by the time he died. And why I’m slightly more of one.

We have a concept in hinduism known as maya–the veil of illusion. The thing about reality is that we will always have trouble perceiving it. It’s concealed from us by our imperfect sense, by our prejudices and our preconceptions. But if we’re aware of these imperfections in ourselves and in our view of the world, we can come closer to finding reality.

In science we develop models of the world, and these models are based on certain assumptions. A model is only as true to the world as its assumptions are. The more accurate the assumptions, the more accurate the model.

Eric wasn’t a hindu or a scientist, but more than any scripture (and I’ve read them all), or any science book (and I’ve read thousands), he was the most instrumental in helping me to acknowledge the veil, and start to lift it. Because of Eric, I’ve pushed back the boundaries of simple belief and replaced it with knowledgeable understanding.

And that’s why even though I’ll never be lucky enough to see that giant crate on my doorstep, will never again hear him say something so gay that even JD and Turk would be embarassed, I know that Eric isn’t dead.

Eric’s gift is still with me, pushing me, demanding more of me. Like that 5 year old, his memory tugs on my pant leg, asking why? I’ve still got my ‘Just because’s but today it’s a much different, much smaller set of them than it was before I met him. And I keep pushing through, finding explanations for things I’d taken for granted. Changing my opinions, seeking to find not internal consistency, not some assumption upon which to build a castle in the clouds, but the truth. And it’ll never stop. I owe that much to Eric.

Eric was larger than life. And he was taken long before his time. But I take solace in the fact that everything I do, he does. That whatever I manage to do with my life is in no small part his doing. That if I can push people the way he pushed me, to find themselves and in so doing find each other, that if I accomplish nothing else, it’ll still be a life well spent.

So in memory of Eric, I’ll ask you. Where does your understanding end, and your blind belief begin?

the only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace things, but burn like fabulous roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars and in the middle you see the blue center light pop and everybody goes “AWWW!”
–Jack Kerouac

I’ve been arguing with anti-gunnies for a few years now. And the one thing that strikes me about these people is they have no fear of being violently attacked. Whether or not this fear is rational is beside the point. The thing is that they are unable to understand why others don’t feel that way. But more importantly they see no need for others to have a means of self defense.

I’ve made the confession several times before that carrying is not one of my top priorities. Because like those anti-gunnies with their heads in the clouds, I too have almost no fear of being attacked. The closest I ever came was while in England, fearing not being mugged, but the legal and criminal repercussions of defending myself against the mugger. Like the silver spoon leftists I went to school with, I live in a very nice area almost devoid of any crime. Which no doubt contributes. But I do go to school and spend much of my time in as close to a ghetto as Oklahoma City has. And that’s where my youthful arrogance and over-reliance on size comes in. One of the funniest examples of not understanding the need for firearms in self defense I ever encountered was in a Canadian bouncer. The guy was close to 250lbs, and paid to be able to beat people up, of course he saw much less need for a gun than others. I’m a dark, well built guy with a little training in boxing, grappling, and tae kwan do. While I’d likely get my butt kicked by any similar-sized guy with even a moderate amount of more disciplined training, I’m simply not that worried about your average mugger. I’ve taken them down before, and would not be surprised if I had to do it again.

Like I’ve said since the beginning, I’m far more obsessed with the right than doing so myself. In Men Like Me I talked about my schizoid tendencies just a bit. And maybe that’s why I’m able to put myself in others’ shoes. I’ve known guys with my strength and intelligence who lacked a moral code; and the results were uniformly ugly. Sometimes a friend will make a joke or hassle me a bit and I’ll say “I could end you right here, right now.” And they’ll laugh, and I’ll laugh, and someone will probably say “You’re harmless” or “Nick, you’re just a great big teddy bear”. But I know my capabilities, and I’ve seen the results when I got just a bit too into it when I was sparring with a buddy, or when someone threatened a friend. And it isn’t that far from the truth.

I think about what it would take to stop someone like me, if he was determined. A tazer? Probably not. Mace? Hardly. A wooden bat? If swung right, perhaps. A gun? Every time. Tazers and other deterrents like mace rely on luck and an easily discouraged–rather than easily enraged–perp. Bats, batons, etc still pit the potential victim against the criminal in a contest of strength and fighting ability. Not to mention that many of those are banned in the same places that ban the carry of firearms for self defense. A gun is literally the only thing that completely negates an attacker’s size and ability. And if a loved one had to go up against a guy like me, I damn well hope they’re armed with one.

The silver spoon kids are unable to put themselves in circumstances where self defense may be necessary, where you’re outweighed, outnumbered, outmatched. Where a gun might make the difference between your life, your virtue, and your property, or the rape and theft of what and who you are. So they say things like “Well, there’s martial arts” or “That’s the police’s job.” What if I were like them? What if I said “Well I don’t really need it, so no one else should either.” What if I were so selfish, so childish, as to condemn people to suffer a horrible fate at the hands of a violent criminal, simply because I was unlikely to be one of those victims?

With the growing popularity of concealed carry licenses has also come a ballooning number of establishments that prohibit firearms upon their premises.

Employee and customer alike must obey these dictates. And–often angrily–they wonder why their ‘right to bear arms’ doesn’t extend to these places of business. The answer of course is that this is the essence of the right to own property. What good is owning something if you have no control over it? Much like the 1st amendment, you can criticize their position, but not their right to hold said position.

And just as entertainers and celebrities often pay a price for opening their mouths a bit too wide, these proprietors may pay a price for the positions they take. A guy on Kim du Toit’s forum shared a letter to the editor in American Handgunner with us that illustrate’s this point perfectly:

Thought this may be of interest to Handgunner readers. Today I received the following letter:

”Dear Mr. *****, Today, while in the bank, you were noticed wearing at your side a pistol. Unless you have some specific duty or reason to enter the bank with your pistol, we appreciate your leaving all firearms in your vehicle.
Thank you for your understanding and cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely John Parker
Vice President & Branch Manager
Troy Bank & Trust Company
Troy, AL 36081”

After receiving this letter, I immediately called the bank president and asked if he knew of the letter and agreed with it’s content. He assured me he did, saying there is not much crime in Troy and we don’t thin you need to be carrying a pistol. After a few words advising him of my position on the issue, and the fact Alabama has open carry, I proceeded to seek out local banks who would recognize my right to self protection and the exercising of my second amendment rights. Wachovia advised they would not permit any armed individuals in their bank. Colonial Bank never got back to me.
Regions Bank advised they would be happy to recognize my carry rights, my status as a retired LEO and would welcome my money. By close of business that day, I had closed several accounts at Troy Bank & Trust, with several more to go, and deposited over $480,000 in the Regions Bank. You just got to do what you feel is right. Oh, by the way, I’m also getting much better interest at the new bank.
Thought this would be of interest in so far as gun owners need to know where the gun friendly banks are.

Name withheld by request
Via email

This is pretty much a classic example of how things that are neither bought nor sold still have value. This man chose to make a statement about how important it is to him to be able to carry. And perhaps what he thought of a place of business whose idea of ’safety’ was to disarm the people who follow the rules, yet do little to make sure rule-breakers weren’t armed. Works for me, and maybe got the bank to think for a second or two. Certainly if a substantial portion of the 2nd amendment supporters in Troy followed suit anyway.

Not all second amendment supporters are classical liberals, but I certainly am. And the essence of our philosophy is that we should be free to act as we wish so long as we do not interfere with the freedom of others. Demanding that we have a ‘right’ to carry our firearms on someone else’s property is imposing our will upon them. But we can always make our displeasure known, as this gentleman did.

My first contribution at the Liberty Papers in months

The essence of the post has been seen on this blog a hundred times before. Intellectimpure will soon be complaining that I’m not saying anything new. Which is true.

But liberty papers now gets more readers than I do. So I thought I’d say it anyway lol.

anyway, quick snippet

In today’s political climate, Kennedy’s famous quote has been reversed. It is now not about what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you. In this climate, freedom has been redefined as comfort. Into this environment you invite millions of people who through no fault of their own better qualify as ‘have-nots’ than ‘haves’. And as the ‘have nots’–together with the cultural elite–have shown themselves all to willing to do, they will vote from others’ pocketbooks. And they will vote for other egregious restrictions and legalized discrimination.

Like leftists, many libertarians seem to suffer from what I can only call perfectworlditis. The major difference being that while libertarians’ idea of what the perfect world is, probably is the platonic form of our own world. Whereas what leftists think the perfect world is doesn’t make sense at any level.

I have no illusions of how perfect the world is and more importantly I understand something called the Tragedy of the Commons. Which is one of the reasons I’m a hardcore conservationist (although I don’t think global warming has been proven, deforestation and other environmental destruction due to man certainly have). And why I support some kind of government regulation/funding in education. Unlike many of my fellow classical liberals and libertarians. But much like plenty of them.

It’s something I’ve seen time and time again with people looking for philosophical and logical consistency while failing to anchor themselves against real world concerns:

“I’m more internally consistent than you!”
“Not going to deny it. But as the surgeon said to the patient with gangrene, ‘would you rather die with two legs or live with one?’”
“Yeah, well, you’re right. But I’m still more internally consistent.”
“And I’m still breathing. Later”

Post on perfectworlditis tommorrow.

Amazingly enough within a couple of hours of writing yesterday’s post and heading to school, I was assaulted by yet another piece on the horrors of debt. This one in the OU student newspaper.

Apparently ’some students don’t realize future implications of frequent credit card use.’ Not going to deny that. But yet again I’m amazed by the tone of the article. If I were to write the article, it’d very much have a tone of “Quit screwing up you idiots!” Sovereign individuals over the age of majority are making bad choices. They need to stop making them.

Instead of course the article is fairly typical in its pleas for sympathy and understanding.

Moyer, a National Merit Scholarship finalist and letters major, applied for his first credit card at 18 with a credit card company set up on campus at UTD.

He did not understand the problems he was going to face.

OU gives full rides to national merit finalists. I think UTD does too. So unlike a good chunk of this country, this kid’s tuition and general living expenses were heavily subsidized. If a National Merit Finalist isn’t smart enough to understand how debt works, who is? And even more problematic, if people of above-average intellect can’t even be expected to manage their own finances who can?

“He didn’t know how he got into all of this debt and didn’t know how to get out,” she said. “He felt like a failure.”

He didn’t know how he got into all of this debt? He did it by ignoring the consequences of his actions.

Since Moyer’s death, his mother has become an advocate for groups working to change the way people get credit cards.

She has joined the advocacy group, Americans for Fairness in Lending (AFFIL). The group is pushing Congress for change.

“We are asking for credit cards to be based on how much you make and how much you owe,” she said. “I don’t understand how all of these companies can give credit cards to someone making $5.15 an hour.”

Mother loses son. Mother wants to blame someone for son’s death. Mother then seeks to change the law and restrict freedom to somehow honor her son’s death or find purpose in it. Nope, never seen that happen.

Here’s an excellent quote from a kid with a good head on his shoulders in the same article though:

Although he is stuck repaying every dollar of his loans, he said he doesn’t regret what he is doing with the money.

“It is definitely worth it,” McCroan said. “People take out 30 or 40 thousand dollar loans to buy a car. I’m getting an education with the money. In our society, education is expensive, but it is worth it.”

Course, McCroan does whine a bit about the cost of education, but then again so does everyone. I definitely bitch and moan about the 60,000 i’ve amassed for just two years of med school. But like McCroan I grin and bear it.

I know I’m beating a dead horse here but I really don’t like ‘consumer protection laws’. And I really don’t like the intimation that we’re too stupid to make decisions for ourselves. But more importantly if we are too stupid to be masters of our own lives, what business do we have telling others how to live? Democrat, Republican, and yes even Libertarian. All of us support the right to vote and some degree of social coercion through government and law. But along with the right to vote comes the responsibility to choose wisely. To pick the right leaders who will take us down the right path. And if we can’t be responsible for ourselves how can we possibly be responsible for a whole nation?

Headline News had a little spiel about how more people are cutting back on holiday spending and are worried about credit card debt than this time last year. They blame the usual culprit: cost of living. What they didn’t ask was what level people are living at.

What I’d like to see would be a longitudinal study of income vs. ownership rates of 20k+ cars, 1k+ TVs, size/expense of movie collections, number of times people eat out at sit-down restaurants, stuff like that. Because anecdotal evidence tells me that the actual cost of living hasn’t really increased: I pay the same for Old Navy jeans as I did back in high school, bean burritos are the same price, and the only grocery I’ve seen increase are those damnably addictive Clementine Oranges. And I know for a fact that medical residents live much more luxuriously these days than they did in the mid 1980s. Same for college students.

Inflation has occurred, I’m not denying it. When I was a 1st grader taco bell burritos were 59 cents. Now they’re 79! And 20oz sodas were .75 out of the vending machine back in junior high. But then again so have paychecks. I’ve only worked entry level jobs. And I’ve never been paid minimum wage. Still during these sporadic periods of employment I’ve seen a significant rise in pay uncorrelated with the degree of skill or effort the jobs involved. But have increases in wages kept pace with inflation? Apparently, yes.

There are certain costs that are outpacing inflation. But for the vast majority of people worried about credit card debt and cutting back on their spending I wouldn’t be surprised if the reason for this fiscal bind could be traced back to the fact that these people are choosing to spend more on frivolous expenses, or simply spending more than they have to on necessary purchases.

The undertone of the pseudo-factual hit pieces we’re bombarded by about ‘making ends meet’ is that it shouldn’t be this way, that people shouldn’t be in this position. It amuses me then that the people of the self-proclaimed ‘Party of Science’ consistently fail to even remark upon what is in all likelihood a prominent factor in the rising debt of our nation’s people.

For just about any other kind of health problem, we talk about how lifestyle (diet, exercise, etc.) plays a huge role in the etiology of disease. Lifestyle changes can prevent disease, they can slow its progression, and in some cases even reverse it, depending on what we’re talking about.

Diabetes, cancer, heart disease…all are illnesses that affect a substantial portion of the population. And in each of these cases, a significant amount of time, effort, and money is allocated toward learning how to reduce the risks of developing such debilitating conditions. Furthermore, as a quick perusal of the ADA and AHA websites show, lifestyle modification is a crucial part of the strategy for managing these health problems. Indeed, as time goes on, doctors are emphasizing the fact that all the drugs in the world cannot make patients healthy if they make unhealthy decisions.

They claim that 47% of adults will suffer from a diagnosable mental illness during their lifetime. I take issue with the label ‘illness’ as that implies a degree of severity and irreversibility that simply isn’t the case. They also claim that 23% of us will suffer from clinical depression. By contrast, only 10% of the population aged 20 or older has diabetes.

Psychiatric problems (illness or not) can be just as deadly and debilitating as any other medical issue. Why then is there little or nothing in the way of preventive education? Why then do primary care physicians prescribe antidepressants and psychostimulants often without so much as a referral to a therapist?

We are surrounded by messages telling us how we know if we ‘have depression’ or ‘have ADHD’, and what drugs to ask our doctor for. But have we ever been told how to prevent ourselves from becoming clinically depressed? Have we ever been shown how to deal with depression, ameliorate our anxiety, or learn how to focus better?

I find it hard to believe that unlike diabetes, unlike heart disease, unlike cancer there is nothing we can do to prevent ourselves from suffering from mental health problems. Indeed, the fact that some people appear far more resistant to depression and anxiety than others in similar circumstances, combined with the relatively weak heredity of such psychiatric problems, would seem to indicate that mindset and worldview play a substantial role in resistance to mental health problems. And, even more convincingly, depression is on the rise in this country. Which would point to something we are doing rather than something inside of us being the culprit.

Relapse rates for those treated with antidepressants alone are considerably higher than for those who received combination therapy or only psychotherapy; in fact, only about 1/3 of those who take anti-depressants alone see a full resolution of their symptoms while 1/3 don’t respond at all. Da Vinci, Michaelangelo, Edison, and countless other accomplished people fit the textbook definition of ADHD, yet never took a pill for their ‘condition’.

Simple logic dictates that if systemic disease can be prevented or at the very least mitigated by behavioral modification, then certainly mental health problems would too. Scientific evidence backs this idea up quite firmly. And yet it would seem that they’re far more interested in telling us we have a psychiatric illness, then telling us what we can do to prevent being so labeled or how to fix it.

Rosie O’Donnell made a comment today about how we shouldn’t fear the terrorists:

Faith or fear, that’s your choice. You can walk through life believing in the goodness of the world, or walk through life afraid of anyone who thinks different than you and trying to convert them to your way of thinking.

I figure most people are going to key in on the ‘we shouldn’t fear the terrorists’ line. Whatever. It’s expected from her. What I personally find noteworthy is how in one short sentence she has exposed both the hypocrisy and the innate instability of the leftist worldview.

“You can walk through life believing in the goodness of the world…” is the choice she wishes us to believe she has made. ‘Faith’ in her fellow man. I consider myself a freethinker. And a tireless seeker of the truth. Are people fundamentally good? Every day in the news they shows us otherwise; rather, greed, anger, and pettiness seem to be innate characteristics. Are people fundamentally evil? Thousands of acts of kindness both large and small–many going largely unrecognized and unrewarded–would seem to belie this assertion. I submit instead that people are neutral. Neither good nor bad until we make that choice.

To have faith in the goodness of the world is to invite yourself to become a victim. Should girls at college parties get drop dead drunk assuming that all men are perfect gentlemen? Should the elderly couple entrust their life savings to a shyster? Should a person walk down the streets of Camden Town at 2 am assuming that no one will assault them?

To do so is not only the height of stupidity, but if Ms. O’Donnell truly behaved in such a fashion and truly lived in the real world, she would quickly be disabused of such lofty and inane notions.

…or walk through life afraid of anyone who thinks different than you and trying to convert them to your way of thinking. Here Ms. O’Donnell seems to be talking about the Right, religious and otherwise. But what about herself and her own politics? She rails against firearms, yet if people were truly good, she would have nothing to fear would she? She bangs her meaty fist upon her desk screaming at the camera about the need for social welfare. Yet if people were truly good, would we have need for such things? Ms. O’Donnell compares Christians to the Taliban and tells us that Christianity is if not evil, at least a danger to be carefully guarded against.

She openly derides those who seek limited government, and seeks to impose her leftist will upon us through government. She campaigns for the erosion of freedoms that could be used to cause harm and demands that government force us to be charitable.

Rosie and her ilk have no faith in the goodness of people or they wouldn’t campaign so hard to limit our freedoms and coerce us into making the social choices they want us to make. They have no respect for opposing viewpoints or they wouldn’t work so hard to silence voices like mine. Or, at best, compel us to act as they would wish through the use of government fiat, making us unwilling cogs in their machine.

What is it they fear? The evil that lies in the hearts of men. The pettiness. The greed. Just as everyone else does. This is why they fight tirelessly to control how we behave. They fear that a morally neutral tool would inevitably be used against them. They see the freedom of others as innately threatening. They fear that left alone, we would let others starve as we pad our own pockets. They fear that we have no capacity for goodwill toward others. If they do not fear such things, why do they work so hard to legislate them?

What is it they have faith in? It’s clearly not the people, or they wouldn’t try so hard to direct our every move. Yet, feeling as they do about our capacity for evil, they willingly give power to government to control us. They find little to be apprehensive about in this granting of enormous power because it will be ‘used for good’.

And yet when non-leftists are in control they briefly don the anti-establishment cloak that never leaves the shoulders of liberty-minded individuals, wearing for a time the mask of someone who sees the implicit danger of concentrated power. Faith in big government by fellow leftists, but not in big government by those other than themselves. What is this but fear of others that believe differently from you. We are left to the inescapable conclusion that what the leftist elite have faith in is in their own ability to justly preside over others.

I choose neither faith nor fear, but simple rationality. People are neither good nor bad, but will act in either fashion as their own self-interest dictates. Unlike the leftists, I do not fear others to the point I wish to control them. But neither do I have faith in them to always act in a goodly manner. More importantly, whereas the leftist has faith in ‘the right people’ and their ability to rule over us, I have faith in no one to do so. I am not an elitist, believing I operate on a level of righteousness unparalleled by ‘the common people’. I have within me the same capacity for evil as they do. And so I wouldn’t trust myself with such power, nor anyone else of a like mind. I do not hold myself above others, as the leftist elite seems to.

We were talking about The 300 on the med school discussion board. Of course, a couple of the meatheads mentioned that we would’ve loved to be born in such a time. Which incited me to mention that the Velamas today are a far cry from our warrior past, namely engineers, doctors, and mid-level managers. Someone said that stereotyping isn’t ok, even if you’re stereotyping your own people. Which, umm prompted a response. Here it is.

Stereotyping isn’t bad. The human brain (all higher mammal brains really) is designed for the express purpose of pattern recognition and categorization. All a stereotype is is a generalization concerning a given category. Many of these generalizations have considerable statistical validity. NOT acknowledging a statistically valid stereotype is irrational. Creation of stereotypes is essential to any kind of job or task that involves dealing with variability in your subjects. Without stereotypes we would be paralyzed by uncertainty. We couldn’t make assumptions. We couldn’t move forward. Because you can never be 100% sure of anything.

Stereotyping only becomes wrong when you make the mistake of assuming that everyone within a category fits the stereotype. For instance, BMI works well at the population level. As a population, people with a BMI higher than 25 tend to be fatter, have a higher risk of heart disease, diabetes, etc. At an individual level, BMI fails to accurately predict such things. Use of BMI is a stereotype. The BMI in and of itself doesn’t measure anything medically valid. It just happens to correlate well to something that is (namely body fat percentage and metabolic indicators).

A public health researcher can say “Oklahoma’s average BMI is on the rise. This is bad because this means that our incidence of heart disease, diabetes, etc will also see a corresponding rise.” Valid. Yet it’s a stereotype.

Misuse of a stereotype would be what would happen when I went to the doctor while I was still an athlete. I had a BMI of over 30. I also had a 31″ waist size. The doctor still told me I needed to lose weight because my high BMI was a health risk. BMI as I said is a population level phenomenon. And as long as it is used as such, no problem. But you can have fat people with a BMI under 25 (I’ve seen many) and people with BMI’s over 40 without an ounce of fat on them.

Or here’s another example. You’re walking from the BSEB to your car the night before a test at 3am and you see a 210lb dark guy in a black hoody walking directly at you at a fast pace. Do you make the stereotype of assuming this guy might mean you ill? If you’re smart, you do. Because at 3 am in a bad neighborhood, there’s a high likelihood that such a guy has a high possibility of being a criminal. If on the other hand you say “That guy right there is a violent criminal”, then you’ve taken it too far.

Can’t wait to see the fuss I cause this time. I’m honestly surprised the discussion board hasn’t gotten me into serious trouble yet…

Last week, I saw a totally thugged out guy with the whole huge jacket, saggy pants, and silver chains thing going on walking around my neighborhood. I thought to myself “that dude doesn’t belong here. He’s probably up to something.” I parked my car in the garage and left the family beater outside instead. And sure enough around midnight that guy and his buddies broke into several cars on our street. I live in an upper-middle class white neighborhood. And I do mean white. We are one of two minority families in the entire square mile.

I’m stereotyped the same way that guy is all the time. Back in London, after midnight people would cross the road to the other sidewalk when I was walking by. It doesn’t really bother me. Heck, I take advantage of it and am probably safer for it.

It really befuddles me that the self-proclaimed ‘Defenders of Science’ ™ are unable to understand basic logic and statistics. That they tell us we shouldn’t use the most basic element of animal intelligence when we deal with day to day life.

But what’s even weirder than that is that they go ahead and make racial stereotypes themselves with affirmative action.

It was a point I made to the new President of Cornell back in 2003. Lehman was notorious for the affirmative action supreme court case and I decided to bust his balls a bit when he had an open mic q&a situation on the quad. So I asked him why he’s such an ardent supporter of affirmative action when using income instead of race would be far more valid. I asked him how he could look at a black applicant and assume that their parents were low income and uneducated, then turn around and look at a white applicant and assume that they were privileged.

I have rarely been more popular with white people than I was that day.

Yeah, limited blogging until at least the end of this week. Possibly forever. *shrug*

Anyway, I heard an Orlando Magic fan had his season ticket revoked because he called Dikembe Mitumbo a monkey. Apparently that’s racist. I’ve had a lot of racial slurs thrown at me over the years, including pretty much everything you could call a muslim or a black person (which is funny, because I’m neither), but I’d never even heard of monkey being used as a racial epithet.

In fact, my nickname all through highschool and college was monkey. This might be because I’m an extremely gangly bastard and can touch my knees without bending over.

I’m not much of a sports fan, but one thing I know about Mitumbo is that he’s pretty much known for one thing: blocked shots. He’s not a bad rebounder either. Blocking shots and rebounding are two of the only basketball skills I’m mediocre instead of miserable at. One thing we have in common is being gangly bastards. It’s conceivable that he was called ‘monkey’ because of that.

Why I mention this is because it’s an example of how special protection laws erode the basic liberties we hold so dear. Whether it’s muslims in europe or minorities and gays here the end result is a limitation of the 1st amendment. Which I find rather strange given that it seems to be the only one leftists–the ones often behind such legislation–seem to remember exists.

This fan of an opposing team hurled an insult at a particular player. To my understanding, this is a regular occurrence. I would suspect that very few of us think insults should be illegal. Is calling someone a monkey somehow worse than calling him a loser or a moron? What if this fan had called Dirk Nowitski (also gangly) a monkey? Would he have been in the wrong then? No?

Strange. So insulting a white guy by calling him a monkey ain’t a big deal, but insulting a black guy by calling him one is? Seems odd to me. The black guy wasn’t hurt, his reputation wasn’t tarnished. I fail to see a crime. And even if there was one, how was it worse than if the player had been white?

Furthermore, they’ve managed to give this word a power it didn’t have before they made such a fuss. They’ve managed to turn a simple allusion, a simple comparison, into something hurtful. I wonder how many people like me would never have even thought monkey was racist before they heard the term.

I’m not a fan of special protection laws (such as ’sexual harassment’ or ‘age discrimination’ laws) as they take all objectivity out of the equation. It’s no longer important what actually happened but rather how someone interpreted it. Calling Nick a monkey wasn’t racist, because Nick didn’t interpret it that way. Calling Mitumbo one was, because he did. I realize moral relativism is ascendant in the children in adult bodies who are quickly claiming this world as its own, but is it really so hard to see the untenability in a justice system where the definition of crime is so capricious?

So. This is an ugly time in our Nation’s history. Far uglier than the Civil War and Reconstruction. Much worse than the Depression–although the seeds of today were planted by FDR, his four freedoms, and even moreso his massive ego.

Claire Wolfe puts it succinctly in the opening lines of 101 Things To Do ’til The Revolution when she says:

“America is at that awkward stage. It’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.”

That is exactly the situation we’re in. At this point it is all but impossible for one to vote for a party that supports the essential American ideal of liberty. The Libertarians who perhaps come closest still fail to acknowledge the basic pragmatism espoused by the founding fathers and which common sense when applied to classical liberal theory would suggest.

A vote for the Democrats is the same as a vote for Old Europe. Also known as the road to serfdom, socialist collapse, and totalitarianism. To vote for the Republicans is to vote for a strange combination of plutocracy, social authoritarianism, and a brand of big government all their own. Democrats fail to understand that if it requires coercion to maintain, then it can’t really be freedom. They also strangely see no problem with giving Government control of our economic lives, all the while whining about the problems faced by those without it. Republicans are unable to separate their personal moral views from their political stances. And neither party is able to understand the difference between political and economic capitalism.

Both parties are broken. The left irretrievably so seeing as the very definitions of important words like ‘freedom’ and ‘rights’ they operate under are flawed. Castles in the sand and all that. Democrats’ minds inhabit a world in which physics, biology, and basic mathematics do not obey the rules of the physical universe. They live in a world where ’socialism is a good idea in theory’. Despite the fact that it’s at the theoretic level that socialism is most flawed, failing to take into account the basic self interest inherent in all animals.

Republicans? I’d give them slightly better odds but not much better. This might be a personal bias though. Like most minarchists I’m more sympathetic to conservatism than neosocialism since although we push for legalization of many things conservatives stand staunchly against, many or most of us willingly choose not to partake in such activities. Firmly wedded to personal responsibility as we are, the liberties of excess are not objectives we are likely to pursue.

So what do we do with one of the few tools left to us? Our vote? Well, we’ve all heard the basic arguments, which basically boil down to two:

1) The Republicans are still better than the Democrats, so we should vote for them.

2) The Republicans need to be sent a message so we should…

2a. Vote Libertarian
2b. Vote Democrat

3) The political machine is completely broken so we should refuse to vote at all.

4) Give the Democrats some power so they can hang themselves with their own rope.

I think Michael Savage has taken option 3 (if you can overlook his egotism, he’s actually fun to listen to). Boortz has rejected option 1, but I don’t know if he’s committed to anything else.
Personally I’ll be using option 2a and 3 depending on availability and palatability.

Just a couple days ago I reminded people that this is not an either/or proposition. And that’s what we need to keep in mind. This isn’t about choosing between Republicans and Democrats but architecting the birth of a new party or three. About changing things from the top to the bottom. Perhaps the new parties will keep the old names, perhaps they won’t. The fact that the Democrats can call themselves the ‘Party of Jefferson’ proves that names are as ephemeral and irrelevant as can be imagined.

Not everyone will choose the same option. Not everyone should choose the same option. I will say that Option 4 is just plain stupid. The thing about government power is that once granted it is almost impossible to revoke. Bush, like the past 70 years of presidents, is operating under the ‘emergency powers’ that FDR bequeathed upon himself. His Rural Electrification Administration is still in operation. Which is strange. I’ve lived in West Texas, Oklahoma, North Dakota, and rural New York state, and have never had a problem with access to electricity. It’s just possible that that particular branch of government has outlived its always dubious usefulness.

Choosing Option 4 in other words is to accept that revolution–a true revolution–will be the only recourse. Whether it could be avoided in any case is doubtful. Still, as a young man who hopes to raise children as soon as he finds a worthy vessel, I’d like to at least try for a peaceful solution.

The other options boil down to a combination of geography, the individual candidate, and personal principle. I refuse to vote for a Republican. I can do this because I live in what was the Reddest state in the union back in the 2004 election. I’m also lucky enough to call Porkbusting Senator Tom Coburn my own. I get to have my cake and eat it too. Were I to live in a borderline state like Ohio or Wisconsin, my personal convictions might have some negative side effects.

My vote isn’t meaningless, but it is futile. Even if the libertarian party presented me a candidate who’s head wasn’t in the clouds, a candidate with a strong and popular following, some Republican who displayed ‘Christian Family Values’ would still win. But like I said, my vote isn’t meaningless. Voting for an LP official would send a message. 5% of the vote this cycle, 10% next cycle. It would remind the people at large that there could be a viable alternative. And it would remind the Republicans that they aren’t the only option for non-socialists. And there is a certain comfort in knowing that even though I’d be ‘throwing my vote away’, at least I wouldn’t be abetting a Democrat in gaining a seat.

In a similar way, the same goes for those living in California, New York, or any of the other neosocialist bastions. They similarly have little chance of changing the tides. They are free to vote for an alternative candidate with a clear conscience. And that is what they ought to be doing without a doubt.

Borderline states, it’s you who have the real dilemma. When elections hang on margins that measure in the low thousands, your vote does make a measurable difference. Not voting for a Republican could change the election. Then again, voting for a Republican doesn’t quite convey your disapproval of the GOP. And then there’s the danger of the message being interpreted wrongly. The GOP could always take your decision not to vote for them as a signal that they need to turn even farther left. All I can tell you is that just remember that Dems in power means yet more liberty all but irretrievably lost.

Maverick candidates offer the best of both worlds. Republican candidates who support the FairTax plan, are more socially liberal, or firmly stand against the growth in the Executive Branch are people we can give our full support to. Unfortunately they’re an all too rare breed.

Nope, I don’t have an all encompassing solution to this quagmire. And there is no one-size-fits-all voting strategy. Human power struggles are far too messy. Which is probably why the Founders sought to limit the power of government so much when they created the law of the land. Sadly, we forgot their lesson. And this is the mess we’ve inherited.

All I can hope for is that we tread carefully and prudently. Whether we merely prolong the seemingly inevitable or somehow manage to revive our ailing nation, either would be better than hastening its demise.

Ben Folds Five - Philosophy

Go ahead you can
Laugh all you want
I got my philosophy
Keeps my feet on the ground
And I trust it like the ground
And thats why my philosophy
It keeps me walking when Im falling down
I see that there is evil
And I know that there is good
And the inbetweens
I never understood
Wont you look at me
Im crazy
But I get the job done
Yeah Im crazy
But I get the job done

I find it hard to function without philosophy. Not that I always think things through on a metaphysical level before I do them. But that I can’t help but reflect upon the things I see and do in that way. It just kind of…happens.

“Just because,” the favorite explanation of everyone between the ages of 5 and 10–and seemingly the majority of adults–simply doesn’t work for me. “Because [authority figure] said so” is scarcely any more satisfying. “It shouldn’t have to be that way,” a favorite justification of the left (and you thought I couldn’t bring politics into this), is similarly without value unless it’s explained why.

I’m often half-jokingly asked if I was a philosophy major. Which is flattering because believe me this ego loves to be stroked. But it’s also disheartening. I’m saddened that in the circles I run in, people find the depth to which I take politics, science, even hobbies to be something unique. I don’t want it to be unique. I don’t want to be singled out for it. I’d much rather it be the initiation or the continuation of an ongoing friendly debate. Something that’s as much take as give.

For me, I’m nothing without philosophy. It’s what helps me stand alone. It’s how I know I’m my own man, not beholden to the indoctrination of culture, peers, ancestors, or society. Because under the layers, under everything those outside see, is a core I know to be my own. Take away the clothing, the degrees, the resume. Forget about the way people describe you, from those who’ve just met you to those who’ve known you for years. Take away the words of others who taught you what to do and how to do it. What’s left?

Sadly, it would seem that the answer is at best that most people simply don’t care what makes them tick.

Perhaps it’s because I romanticize, well, the romantic period, the enlightenment, and the renaissance. Perhaps it’s because for all my cynicism and anger, I’m really an optimist when it comes to the capabilities of humanity. Couldn’t say. I just think that people are capable of understanding themselves and the world to a much greater degree than they ever try to. And when they do put in that effort, not only do they grow larger in the making, but so does the world.

A coherent personal philosophy doesn’t just help you stand alone but also together. Spider Robinson’s Callahan series more or less revolves around this idea. Through the course of that marvelous series, the denizens of Callahan’s Bar learned who they really were, and were able to form a friendship so deep and so strong that though few in number, they were able to save the world. But here in the world much of the time I feel like part of a circuit that’s been cut, a charged battery whose frayed wires are uselessly flapping in the wind.

You may take this all for granted
Take the mortar, block and glass
And you forget the speech
That moved the stone
Its really not the you cant see
The forest for the trees
Youve never been out
In the woods before

Go ahead you can laugh
All you want
But I got my philosophy
Keeps my feet on the ground
And I love you
Youre my friend
But you got no philosophy
Now its time for this song to end

There are a few people I’m able to really connect with. And I treasure those friendships, because it’s the only time Nick ever has a chance to be seen. Everyone else simply sees one layer or another.

You know what pisses me off?

Being called conservative.

You know what pisses me off even more?

When pseudosocialists call themselves ‘liberal’.

Do you know what pisses me off more than either of those?

Being told to vote for Democrats since I’m fed up with Republicans.

That one exposes just how statist and juvenile the modern so-called liberal is.

Everywhere around me I see discontent with the political leadership of both parties. The only ones who fully support the Democratic Leadership’s 12 step plan to emulate Europe’s slow decay are the ivory tower academics, their spoonfed and sheltered students, and a bunch of rich white people who feel guilty about their economic success.

And I don’t think I’ve actually met anyone who fully supports the Republican leadership. And I live in the reddest state in the union. Then again, maybe that’s why…

Yet this November, people are going to get into the booths and vote for people who don’t necessarily represent their interests or their positions, and in some cases are directly antagonistic to them. They’ll do so because “it’s as close as they can get.”

Unfortunately, when you vote you can’t put down “only because you’re the lesser of two evils,” or “I’m not voting for Republicans but against Democrats (which I may do, we’ll see),” or “I’m only voting for points 1, 3, 4, and 8 of the party platform.” A vote is all or nothing.

If we persist in the mindset that there are only two options, what will happen is we’ll enable these people to continue drifting away from what we really support. This is what the Bush administration has skillfully done for the past 6 years. I would sooner have shot myself than vote for Al Gore. I was 16 at the time, so it was irrelevent. But my position wasn’t so different from the people who were of voting age. And the Bush administration pushed their retarded agenda, the only unifying theme of which seems to be the desire to increase Executive Powers as much as possible while helping business out (which isn’t the same as advocating a free market).

Bush’s approval rating amongst conservatives has been relatively low for most of his presidency and I don’t see that changing anytime soon. Yet he was voted in again in 2004. Not because people liked him but because he was better than Horseface.

And the same goes for Democrats. A lot of my left-leaning friends say they don’t support things like fully open borders, expanding social welfare, or enabling violent criminals by reducing our ability to defend ourselves, or a nanny state, but then they turn around vote for the people who do. Why? Because it’s ‘better than the alternative’.

So what do we have here? We have two political parties, neither of which represent their base all that well. And we have people that will continue to vote for one or the other knowing this. We are enabling the theocrats and the neosocialists by our unwillingness to tell them to go to hell.

A reformer, a new party, we need something. If Zell Miller and Ross Perot were to do their respective things right here, right now that’d be just about perfect. And we’re only get that if we encourage it. I don’t see any good options for 2006 but 2008 could be a very good time for an up-and-comer if we’re brave enough to break the hold the decayed and corrupt parties have on us. Don’t think of it as a vote thrown away, but as an investment on what could be something great.

At the moment we’re well within that 60 day period during which our First Amendment rights cease to exist courtesy of Sen. McCain’s insane publicity-driven political posturing. Which makes me angry. But I saw an ad air on TV that cleverly sidesteps that bit of legislative retardation. Which makes me smile.

Imagine an advertisement that starts out with a silhouette of what is clearly a female with a butch haircut (women should have long hair dammit). Imagine the advertisement explaining exactly why they can’t tell you what her name is or show you her picture. Imagine they tell you that this state insurance commissioner took tens of thousands of dollars from the very out of state insurance companies she was supposed to observe and regulate.

Now, imagine they give you a web address where you can learn more. This one right here:

www.oklahomasecrets.com

I don’t necessarily have an opinion on her. I already don’t like her. I don’t like her haircut. I don’t like her husband. As a former state employee I don’t like her abuse of expense accounts. And I don’t think the people who are supposed to be a check against something should be able to have their elections funded by that very thing. Could you imagine if Logan County (one of the nation’s largest meth hotspots) had a guy running for Sherrif who took campaign contributions from known drug dealers? Doesn’t make sense.

The advertisement could’ve been against Tom Coburn, who I would’ve voted for in 2004 if I’d been in the country at the time. I’d still have been posting about this slick little 30 second TV spot.

They found a way to bypass McCain-Feingold. And for that reason alone, I approve of their message.

Guy on a Focaljet asked this question and posted his top ten. Mine were slightly different. The one commonality, healthcare reform, showed just how different our ideologies and thought processes were. I wanted to reform it into a true market system with posted prices and employer-insurance decoupling. He of course wanted to go socialist. Which I found amusing since he supposedly likes math. And you have to be pretty bad with math to think socialist anything will work. Anyway, my Top Ten. There’s a fair amount of things you’ve seen before and these don’t necessarily go in order of importance.

1. Lock down the border
–simple logic says you cannot increase the size of your lower classes under a progressive income tax system
–furthermore, we are importing (and thus creating) an underclass, not good for them not good for us
–make English the official language. It’s the only way to be fair to all immigrant groups.

2. Tax Reform
2a. Eliminate Concealed Taxation
–the 7.5% ‘employer contribution’ to social security is a perfect example. It isn’t an employer contribution at all, but part of your paycheck deducted before you even see the stub. If you can’t see what taxes you’re paying you can’t know how badly the government is soaking you.
2b. Reduce corporate income taxes from sales
–this is effectively a concealed consumption tax, as their ‘profits’ are actually the money you spent on sales
2c. Initiate movement toward the FairTax plan
–income tax is both unconstitutional and unfair
–prebate plan ensures no one is taxed on necessities
–plus a lot more I’m not willing to get into. More here
2d. Decrease capital gains taxes
–possibly just for individuals below a certain income threshold to encourage saving and investing, reducing the need/desire for SS and government subsidized education loans

3. Healthcare reform (not what Hillary means when she says it)
3a. Decouple employers from managed care plans
–this is a form of concealed income. The employer doesn’t pay for health insurance, rather it subtracts the cost from your paycheck before you see the stub. The accountants consider health insurance just another part of payroll.
–this would increase competition as rather than having to sell to a single company, insurance companies now have to court thousands of individuals
*instead of pleasing the employer (by looking effective while being cheap), they’d have to please the person who wants to be insured.
–this would allow consumer choice as to whether full insurance is necessary or not. In many cases (especially single young people) it is simply too much coverage
3b. Push alternative coverage plans
–traditional health insurance is too inclusive, it’s like being forced to take no deductible comprehensive car insurance and a prepaid maintenance plan when all you need is high deductible liability
3c. Increase utilization of non-MD practitioners
–I’ve got a lot of respect for nurse practitioners and physician’s assistants. They could largely replace a lot of general practitioners
3d. Restrict medicaid and medicare programs significantly
–I’m very anti social welfare. It is not a good thing.
–Medicaid destroys market efficiency in healthcare. It gives too much coverage for some things and too little for others. And as eligibility grows, they become a larger and larger part chunk of the medical market. They can strongarm healthcare delivery systems in much the same way WalMart does with their suppliers.
–Medicaid and medicare encourage overuse of medical resources. You’re not paying, so why not go in for every little unnecessary thing.
3e. Allow emergency rooms to turn away non-urgent cases
–Right now ERs have to see and treat anyone who walks in the door, even someone with a simple cold
*seeing a kid with a runny nose in an ER is much more costly than in an urgent care or outpatient setting
–This is bankrupting them and increasing costs astronomically because many don’t pay, using it for ersatz primary care. This drives up your and my bill as these hospitals try to recover costs from us.
3f. Use tax incentives to encourage hospitals and pharmaceutical companies to provide indigent care
3g. Upfront pricing for medical care
–Allow patients to shop around
3h. In general encourage competition
–the current medical system is anything but a free market

4. Welfare reform
–major penalties for having children while on welfare
*not being able to take care of yourself is one thing, being derelict in your duty to raise your child is another
–couple welfare to working on government projects
*government can recoup cost of welfare by essentially ‘hiring’ these people, reducing the size of the civil service corps
–ensure that welfare is a transient safety net and not a lifestyle
–I toy with the idea of suspending their voting rights. If you’re not even taking care of yourself, what right do you have to tell other people how to live? But more importantly, if you’re living off of other peoples’ money, should you be able to vote yourself more of their money?

5. Move away from Social Security
–we will have to be weaned off of it as a 64 year old can hardly be expected to save enough money by next year to retire. Say anyone under 30 or so will not receive benefits and each year reduce the SS tax.
–private investment is a better alternative. Not government privatization of social security, but complete dissolution and moving to IRAs, 401ks and the like.

6. School reform
–competition is good
–vouchers ensure that parents are forced to spend money on their children (through taxation), yet allows choice.
–competition and government standards will ensure that even if parents do not choose school, school will still be decent
6a. Incentives to put elite schools in bad neighborhoods
–this worked well where I grew up. Kids who have little parental support nevertheless find themselves at schools with great opportunities.
6b. Accelerate the curriculum and provide public trade schools
–the answer is not dumbing down the curriculum but to smarten up the students. You won’t know what they’re capable of until you push them.
–some people can’t hack it. This is ok. There are plenty of well paying jobs for skilled labor, many of which can’t be replaced by machines.
–accelerated curricula might decrease the ‘college degree. any college degree’ requirement of many jobs.
*many jobs simply do not need a ba or a bs, they require these because the school system has gotten so crappy that they figure if you have an undergrad degree you’re up to high school standard.

7. Encourage research into viable alternative fuels–biofuels show great promise yet are underfunded compared to pie-in-the-sky tech that is often theoretically flawed, let alone impractical.

8. Remove ‘under god’ from the pledge of allegiance
–it just pisses me off and i’m running out of points to make. A 1950’s addition that undermines our founders’ commitment to a separation of religion and state.

9. Destroy the two party system
–there are more than two viewpoints out there yet sadly that is the choice we are forced to make
–The country would be better served by several parties who overlapped in ideologies. Voting blocs would disappear and there would be far less of this party line voting nonsense.

10. Shore up the constitution and its commitment to limited government–no more intellectual dishonesty about certain amendments (*cough* 2nd)
–return the Senate to state appointments rather than popular elections
*this would make senators part of state governments, and so reduce their urge to grow federal power.
–eliminate the executive powers first expanded by FDR and later by every president since
*reduce the size and power of the executive branch’s ’shadow wing’ (including FBI, CIA, ATF, etc). They don’t answer to the people and in many cases only nominally to the President. They have too much autonomy and not enough accountability.
–restrict federal powers to those areas envisioned by the founders as being necessary
–reform the judicial branch by increasing accountability and decreasing bench legislation
*there are activist judges on both the right and the left. With all too little justification they can drastically change interpretation of law even when original and/or commonsense interpretation is well established.
*term limits or at least periodic performance review periods

Thoughts
Schools and biofuels are probably the two things that pop out at you as not very minarchist. You’re right on the latter. And the former was cause for debate even in the formative years of our guiding philosophy.

I consider the environment a commons situation. And like all commons situations, self-interested individuals acting self-interestedly will result in destruction. I think that market solutions can work, but not without a regulatory framework. I see hunters, outdoorsmen, and the like as vital to preserving the natural world. I also know that we need to reduce our continued population growth and environmental impact. Not necessarily down from current levels, but control the growth from this point on.

On education, I think it was John Stuart Mill who said something along the lines of education being necessary for the maintenance of freedom. I happen to agree with him. Minarchists of all stripes tend to be very self-sufficient people and capable of taking care of themselves. These aren’t skills we’re born with, but things we learn. And it would be nice to say ‘It’s the parent’s responsibility.’ Which it is. But the truth is far too many people have children and whether through malice, indifference, or simple incompetence do not know how to turn those children into self-actualized adults. With a government education system (including a somewhat subsidized state university/college system), we can ensure that the opportunity to learn is there for all children and that they are exposed to it.

There’ll be disagreements of course. That’s kinda the point of political discourse. Anyway, that’s what I would do if I were eligible in 2008. Instead of 2020.

If you’re a firearms enthusiast you’ve probably heard of Norinco.

They’re a chinese manufacturer of a lot of weapon-related tech. What makes buying Norinco different from buying other Chinese stuff is that they are a profit center for the People’s Liberation Army. Who they’re liberating and who they’ve kept liberated I don’t know. But there you have it.

Buying exports sucks, but we all do it. But when you buy Norinco, you are directly increasing the coffers of the army of the world’s next big–probably inimical–threat. What makes it so tempting is that in several cases, Norinco offers clones of some interesting and highly sought after weapons.

They make the only forged M14/M1A receivers, Springfield et al. use cast receivers. And while they need a heat treat and some hand finishing, they are far and away the best new receivers available.

They also make a clone of John Browning’s Winchester 1887 lever action shotgun. Which is just plane cool. Also, Cowboy Action Shooting is fueling a resurgence of interest in clones of period longarms like the Taurus Thunderbolts. An 1887 would be a pretty cool piece to show up with at one of these matches.

They also do a clone of a Winchester 1897 ‘trench gun’, used in WW1 during the desperate and dirty fighting across the atlantic.

The M14 is the quintessential battle rifle and probably will always be regarded as such. The 1887 and 1897, while not exactly an improvement upon modern choices, remain interesting and fun (especially the lever-action) historical pieces and offer plenty in the way of desirability themselves.

Tempting, but worth it? To my mind no.

Most of us are well aware of all that. But a question I’ve seen come up time and again is “If it’s already in the store, then the PLA already has the money, why shouldn’t I buy it?”

Simple economics. It’s true that the chinese government has already benefited from this transaction. But importers and retailers typically decide what, how much, and how often to order based on prior sales. The faster those Norinco guns get bought off the shelves, the more of them importers and retailers will buy, and thus the more the PLA benefits.

There is one way to keep your conscience somewhat clear when it comes to these firearms, and that is to buy them used off of a site like gunbroker. The money changed hands long ago, and the person selling the firearm likely has no interest in selling more of them for a profit.

Still, this too can lead to increased sales of new weapons should these firearms become popular enough. Indeed domestic firearms manufacturers keep their eyes on sales of discontinued models, calibers, and options. When these used firearms become popular enough to start engendering a premium, manufacturers look into reintroducing these models.

You’re free to make your own choices when it comes to buying these products. After all, buying anything Chinese has a similar, but more mitigated, effect. I’m certainly not going to judge you for buying Norinco, just as I don’t judge my friends for getting drunk when I don’t. But you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

This is my personal take on buddhism, a combination of a strong spiritual upbringing and some scholarly dabbling in college. The Dalai Lama almost certainly has a different interpretation. I hope this clears up some of the misconceptions about Buddhism, and explains somethign of the differences between the Buddhist sect of Hinduism and other religions. It isn’t that this way is the only way, just that, so long as you remember the above lessons, it is incorruptible. If you live as a Christian, a Jew, whatever, so long as you, yourself are uncorrupted, the Hindu Gods really won’t give a damn which path you took to get there.

To understand the nature of Buddhism, and the purpose of Buddha’s life itself, one has to understand why God himself would come to Earth in mortal form, for the express purpose of telling people NOT to pray to Him.

Buddhism is a much misunderstood religion, often the biggest perpetrators of it of misinformation are Buddhists themselves.

The New Testament is like a ship floating aimlessly in the sea without the anchor of the Old Testament: You can’t understand Christianity without a basic knowledge of Judaism.

The same is true, even moreso, for Buddhism with regard to Hinduism. In fact, Buddhism is not a religion of its own so much as a sect of Hinduism. To understand this, we might as well start at Buddha’s birth.

A young queen has a dream that a six-tusked white elephant pierces her womb, an omen that the child is destined for great things. Eventually a baby boy is born: Siddhartha Gautama. The crown prince lives a sheltered and indulgent life until sometime in his twenties, he realizes that he has no idea about what life really is. So he kisses his wife and son goodbye and sits underneath a tree (a bodhi tree to be specific) and doesn’t move for 8 years.

He comes back from his trance enlightened. Now it is revealed that he is Vishnu incarnate. Other vishnu incarnations you might be familiar with include Rama and Krishna (as in Hare Krishna cultists…who I’ll save a tirade against for later). Buddha didn’t actually say anything new. But then again, neither did Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita. Buddha’s contribution was to remind us what the soul of Hinduism really is.

Hinduism had become (and is becoming again today) an empty religion of prayer for things– rather than guidance–and ceremonies whose symbolism was lost. To rectify this, Vishnu came down as Buddha, and preached the same central message that had been present in Hinduism since before the Vedas had been cobbled together.

Vishnu (as Buddha) reminded us of the central fact that you do not reach salvation through devotion to God. You reach it by living according to your dharma, your duty. Which isn’t given to you by god, but through obeisance to the Vedas. The Vedas were not God’s (or God’s earthly incarnation’s) words to us; they were an explanation of the world around us (epistemology), and an elucidation of man’s place in it (ethics). Hinduism, at its core, is about man living as a part of nature, respecting nature, and interacting with others and the environment according to the precepts of natural law.

Buddha reminded us of this through the simple expedient of declaring that the question of God’s existence is irrelevant. It isn’t that you don’t believe in god, or believe wholeheartedly in Him, it’s that said belief doesn’t change how you should live: agnosticism. It is a godless, but far from soul-less sect. Buddhism wasn’t the first agnostic Hindu sect, but it was originally the most widely practiced…until ideas of God, prayer, and ceremony invaded Buddha’s central tenets some years after his death.

Buddha once again espoused the ideas of karma (what goes around comes around), ahimsa (not harming other living creatures more than necessary), dharma (duty), reincarnation, and release from the endless cycle of birth death and rebirth through the attainment of perfect harmony with the natural order (nirvana). But he did so in simpler terms, leaving God out of the picture, and thus making sure the meaning of God was not perverted by the selfish actions of what we in Hinduism have termed Rajasics (or those who pray in order to achieve their desires).
————–
To be a Buddhist then, one is faced with the paradoxical belief structure of admitting the existence of God, yet having a religion in which God plays the most minimal role possible. Brahma still created the universe, and Vishnu, in his incarnation Kalki, will still destroy it at the conclusion of the Kala Yuga (the current age). Buddha himself was an incarnation of Vishnu. In adhering to Buddhist tenets you are obeying the word of God. But Buddha is to be thought of as a messenger, enlightening us on natural law, rather than dictating it. One of his many titles was The Teacher. And it is in this capacity we must accept him.

When a Buddhist meditates, seeking enlightenment, he is not asking for the answer of an omnipotent God, but asking for the counsel of his sagacious Guru, his all-knowing Teacher. His Mr. Feeney

When I attempt to meditate, it is not to ask Buddha for the answer, but for guidance in how to solve the problem.

Myself.

70 years ago, the Indian symbol for good fortune was appropriated by an ambitious German politician to denote his Third Reich. The symbol that had graced everything from doorways to jewelry for thousands of years was in a moment’s space twisted into a representation of one of the most evil regimes in history. Today, for me to display an important part of my heritage would send quite a different signal from that intended.

Also around 70 years ago, the transformation of the word liberalim from a doctrine of minimal interference and autonomy to direct interventionism and state-mediated privileges neared completion under Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his four freedoms.

“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under
the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist
program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without
knowing how it happened.”–Norman Thomas, founder of the American Socialist Party

I got in trouble back in middle school for drawing a Swastika on a notebook. The teacher demanded I throw the notebook out. I did. And then drew an even bigger one, in marker, on a new notebook. She tooke the hint. Hitler perpetrated so many evils against the Jews and other undesirables, as well as Europe as a whole. To allow him to further rob Hindus, Buddhists, and Jains of an essential part of our heritage is unconscionable.

It is for the same reason that we must not yield the name ‘liberal’ to our ideological enemies. To do so is to grant them a victory and a legitimacy they do not deserve. When I started this blog, almost a year ago now, I said that the war against the left wasn’t merely about issues, but about definitions. I still believe that if we are to win, we must show the world how hollow the word ‘liberal’ rings when it comes from their mouths.

Liberal–from liber, meaning free. Freedom. Autonomy. Non-interference. As 311 says:

do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law
until you violate the rights of another
respect the space of your sister and your brother

This is the sum total of what it means to be liberal, freedom to choose both good and bad, yourself.

To take the hard-earned fruits of labor from some to give to others. Not liberal, but statist.

To criminalize the possession of objects, rather than their criminal use. Not liberal, but statist.

To ban unhealthy foods, because people ‘don’t know what’s best for them’. Not liberal, but statist.

To seek comfort through government. Not liberal, but statist.

To view government as the creator, rather than a defender of liberty. Not liberal, but statist

Every time Boortz denigrates the deranged thought patterns of ‘liberals’, every time Michael Savage descends into yet another overly egotistical yet erudite tirade against the ‘liberals’, it rankles. Every time a leftist declares that he is a liberal, every time someone who supports social welfare insists he’s more ‘liberal’ than me, my anger grows.

And the converse is also true. I am not a conservative. I cannot be lumped in with the conservatives. Because although I and many of my ilk are more sympathetic to conservatism, we understand that ultimately that road leads to the same tyrannical and oppressive government as leftism does.

I am a liberal. I am proud to follow in the footsteps of Jefferson, of Paine, and of Locke. I revel in the words of Godwin and Voltaire. I nod in understanding as I read Hayek, Freidman, and Smith. I am but an insignificant part of a strong, proud, and long philosophical heritage. And I will not have my name taken from me without a fight.

…maybe we’d finally get included in these massive diversity initiatives all over the place.

Thanks to the apologists at CAIR who’d much rather guilt trip Americans than actually reform their own religion, the bleeding hearts who think that if we all just hold hands and sing Kumbaiah around a campfire world peace will appear out of thin air, and the appeasers who are so scared of Islam the word ‘Allah’ causes them to lose control of their bladder and their dignity, middle and high schoolers around the country are now being taught units on Islam.

I’ve got no objection to being educated about world religions and cultures. What I’ve got an objection to is the motivation behind this. It is a tried and true axiom that ‘diversity’ only becomes important when the group we’re focusing on becomes politically important. First in the civil rights era, blacks became an important political node. Black history month, Kwanzaa, and Levar Burton in a loincloth ensued. Hispanic immigrants become the fastest growing segment of the population through means illegal (mostly) and legal. All of a sudden these new immigrants, with no history of institutional racism, become a part of the Affirmative Action eligible population, which is bizarre since other recent immigrant groups (less numerous of course) are left out. National Hispanic Month, bilingual civil servants, and illegal immigrant havens that defy US law and principles rise to the fore. Terrorists become more than just a nuisance, killing in the name of Allah, and all of a sudden Muslim Americans are in the spotlight. And, inevitably, it is followed by obsequious whoring and the judicious application of lips to buttocks.

Looking at the data from the American Religious Identification Survey from 2001, the zeal with which schools across the country are rushing to teach children about Islam seems somewhat misplaced. Especially given that one of the oldest and largest religious traditions continues to be overlooked.

As one might gather, I’m talking of course about Hinduism and Buddhism. Which really can’t be taught separately; Buddhism lacks context without a discussion of Hindu philosophy and history, and leaving out the latest reincarnation of the Hindu conception of God (Buddha) is similarly awkward. Together they represent roughly 2.5 million people as compared to the 1.5 million of Islam. Buddhism alone is just about even with Islam at about 1.5 million, while Hinduism is just behind them with 1 million.

More importantly, whereas between 1990 and 2000 the Muslim population doubled, the other two saw substantially higher growth rates. Buddhist residents nearly tripled in number, while the number of Hindus grew by an even greater 237%. But of course, no rush to add us in.

We continue to be left out of diversity initiatives across the country, and while we’re included in some, all too often we’re simply left out of the picture or given merely lip service. Far more important is it to focus on the Abrahamic religions (of which Islam is one). As an outsider, I’ve found far more similarities in those three religions than I have differences (indeed, Mohammed saw his gospel as rather similar to that of the monophysite Christians and initially approached them in a spirit of brotherhood). All three religions trace their roots to Abraham. All three place man against nature. All three count their members among ‘the chosen’. And in all three, submission to God is one of the most important themes. The eastern religions differ from them in every one of these aspects. But apparently the largest and oldest Eastern religious and cultural tradition would add little to our appreciation of the richness and variation of human cultures.

Maybe if we rioted over the Simpsons episode where Homer dressed up as Ganesh and demanded Matt Groening’s head on a platter. Maybe if we killed Texans, citing their steak addiction as an abomination unto Vishnu. Or maybe if Buddhist monks and Hindu priests demanded that we be allowed to live under our religious law despite living on American soil, or face the terrible wrath of a holy war against the American devils. Maybe then we’d be worth learning about?

If I sound angry, I am. If I sound jealous, I’m not. Disgusted would be a better word. Disgusted that people don’t see ‘diversity’ and ‘multiculturalism’ for what it is: political posturing. Muslims might be fewer in number than other groups, but they’re a very visible one given the trouble intolerant Islamofascists are creating on every continent except South America (and I might be wrong there). And at the end of the day I’m simply not a fan of enforced cultural education. It becomes just another chore when you do that. I’d much rather people come to me and ask if we really do worship cows. It sucks that that’s the public perception, but their curiosity means that when I explain the true nature of Hinduism to them, they want to hear it.

For people who are more nuanced and intellectual than men like me, with our benighted concepts of individual liberty, leftists sure seem unable to understand that a weapon is never solely an instrument of offense. In fact, many of the most popular martial art forms began as a form of defense. Kung Fu, brought to China by the Indian buddhist monk Bodhidharma, was intended as a defensive art which would confer upon them some immunity from the predations of Taoist militants then in power. And martial artists are generally known for their reserve and unwillingness to escalate the situation, this despite the fact that their bodies themselves are weapons. Just this past weekend I found myself in a situation involving a guy who pretty much needed an ass kicking–mistreating and harassing females always warrants it. And the only reason I didn’t hit him was because I’d trained–briefly and poorly–in a couple martial arts.

Lets for a moment consider the leftist proposition that the world would be better off without guns. Suspend your disbelief of the impracticality and impossibility of such conditions ever coming to fruition. And stifle the desire to remind them that firearms are more than just weapons; they are tools, they are hobbies, and they are objects around which strong communities have developed. There was violence before firearms. There was violence before the first terrestrial vertebrates crawled onto land. And there would be violence after firearms were gone.

How would you protect yourself from violent criminals? Most of them never having had to fend off an attack, leftists confidently assert that mace and a ’self defence’ class are enough. Having dropped paint stripper in my eye, rubbed habanero-soaked hands on tired eyes, etc, not to mention knowing several people who’ve been maced as part of demonstrations (or by their girlfriends by accident…long story), I can confidently say those sprays will not stop a determined attacker.

And what of self defense? Pressure points are easy to miss. I’ve missed in fights, and had people miss them on me. And many throws, blocks, and holds rely on the principle of leverage and mechanical advantage. Actual force developed is limited by the person themself. Back in college we used to wrestle around every once in a while. Couple guys in my house were ex-wrestlers. Pretty talented, both at right around 145. I was exactly 50lbs heavier, mostly muscle, but one of the most untalented wrestlers you’ve ever seen in your life. These guys were both state level competitors, both unable to pin me. Funniest moment of a fight was when one had me in a “hold” which I proceeded to turn into a throw that landed him several feet away from me. Not through any complicated and skillful reversal, but simply by overpowering him despite his leverage advantage.

And that’s the reason the handgun is called the equalizer. Short of severe nerve, muscle, or joint damage, just about anyone can wield a firearm with more than enough skill to get the job done. Size, martial art training, and speed are all neutralized.

Although feminists would die rather than admit it, the truth is that women are weaker than men at a population level. And any female as strong or stronger than a 200lb attacker is on steroids or some other anabolics. That’s just the way biology makes us (you’d think the self-proclaimed defenders of evolutionary theory would understand the evolution of sex differences). I used to let my female friends try their little throws and holds on me after they took the ‘womens’ self defense’ PE class. Less than 1 in 10 even shifted my balance, let alone stopped or slowed me. In a world without proper defensive tools which prevent attackers from closing with them, smaller people are at a disadvantage. They will be more preyed upon, they will be hurt more often, they will be the victims.

Leftists base their entire philosophy around the idea of the ‘level playing field’, whether it’s bonus points for certain brown people (but not others) in college admissions or redistributive tax and budget policies. They also insist that they are the party of womens’ rights. Why then do they deny the rights of equality and personal safety to the very people they claim to represent?

I guess you could call it a benefit of living with your parents. Mom knocked on the hovel’s door where I was busy avoiding studying and told me to come watch a 60 minutes segment on the treatment of depression through deep brain stimulation.

I think she does this just because it’s funny to see me in a rage. Cursing, throwing things (like my 8lb miniature pinscher), and semi-coherent rants equally populated by erudition and epithets characterize these award-winning performances. I’ve been told that at the climax of one of these fits, no one’s sure if I’m going to stab whoever I’m screaming at or bludgeon them to a more symbolic death with logical debate.

I get annoyed with the perception of mental healthcare (both laymen and many practitioners), not the least because like leftists they seem unable to think of long-term effects. In the case of laypeople, it’s because they haven’t been educated enough. Not exactly their fault. When it comes to practitioners, they simply have no excuse.

Now, I am not criticizing these particular clinical investigators. I have only this news report to go off of. And if they were up front with their patients on how brains work and the potential side effects related to this particular procedure (not just surgery in general), I have NO beef with them as far as ethics goes. Theory on the other hand, I do.

These doctors are using a technique called Deep Brain Stimulation of a certain area of the brain that has been found to be overactive in people with intractable depression: Area 25 (part of the Anterior Cingulate Cortex which is itself part of the Limbic System).

The fact that they’re stimulating an already pathologically overactive part of the brain should be a huge red flag that dealing with the brain is not quite as simple as action–>reaction. By stimulating it, they actually tone it down through an induced negative feedback process. Which I’m not going to explain in full because I’m lazy.

What they’re doing is theoretically sound–in the short term. The question in my mind is the longterm stability, efficacy, and safety of such a procedure.

Virtually everything in physiology revolves around the concept of homeostasis, or maintenance of a constant environment. There are several great examples of this. One being the baroreceptor reflex which attempts to keep blood pressure fairly constant. If the blood pressure stays abnormally high long enough, eventually the receptors stop reacting to it. The reflex is reset at a higher blood pressure because the neural receptors have filtered it out as noise. And now you’ve got a chronic hypertension problem.

A slightly different thing happens with the hunger-controlling protein leptin and its positive correlation with body fat percentage. Eventually, body fat percentage can get so high that leptin release can no longer increase. In these individuals not only is there a mental disconnect between eating and satiety, but a physiological one as well.

The patient who they interviewed in this segment talked about how everytime they increased the frequency and strength of stimulation, she was better for a while, and then fell right back into the pit of depression. She was considerably better off than before, but was still significantly depressed. Is it possible that her Area 25 simply adapted to the stimulation after a while and went back almost to the way it was, just as in the barorceptor reflex?

But they also showed a patient they consider their greatest success story. She had the same overactive Area 25, but has been nearly symptom free for months now. The difference in her face before and after is just amazing (as it is in the other lady for that matter). Could it be that her problem was like the leptin-body fat disjunction? With her Area 25 simply becoming too overactive to be compensated for? It would explain why she reacted more permanently than did the other patient: the stimulation returned her Area 25 to a level where her brain could compensate.

The fact that neither patient is adequately described by the same physiological model is our first clue that we still dont’ know exactly what’s going on and that depression may be considerably more complex than just an ‘overactive brain area’ or ‘chemical imbalances’.

But what scares me more is that neural tissue is some of the most sensitive stuff in the body. It pretty much dies if you look at it funny. Which kind of sucks because nerve cells, like muscles can’t regenerate; you’re born with the neurons you will die with. And one of the well-known factors in this is excessive and/or unnatural stimulation. This is the etiology of meth psychosis, the ‘holes in the brain’ in chronic ecstasy use, and drug-related Parkinson’s. Many of these substances work by stimulating neurons to release more of certain neurotransmitters (norepinephrine, serotonin, and dopamine). Chronic use causes these sensitive cells to die. Just as higher baseline production of insulin in those genetically predisposed to Type II diabetes eventually results in the pancreas burning out and an inability to produce full amounts of insulin later in life.

The brain represents one of the most complicated feedback and control systems many will ever study. Fewer still will take the time to think about all the different ways the brain reacts to external and internal changes before they make the simple declaration that something ’causes’ something or something ‘cures’ something. Short term and long term effects are often completely opposite. What looks like one thing in two patients could easily be two different things presenting the same way. And changing mood through SSRI’s doesn’t result in a normal looking brain on PET but an even more abnormal one.

The complexity of this system causes me to have the opinion that most of these pathologies are rooted in the persistence of certain thought patterns. If they last long enough, they can reset the brain as in the baroreceptor reflex. If they get too strong, they can escape their feedback loop, as leptin does. But what we see in our initial workup, on the MRI or the PET must be treated as a symptom. Treat it, because it needs treating, but remember that the actual cause is at least one step removed from whatever you’re looking at.

So 1000 lawyers have shown up at the detention center at Guantanamo Bay to defend the 400 some inmates, for free. Screw the inmates, lets focus on those lawyers.

I’m going to go ahead and make the assumption that probably upwards of 90% of those lawyers are flaming leftists. With maybe the remainder made up of conservatives and libertarians who dissent with the war for whatever reason.

Why do I make this assumption? Because under international law, the only rights of enemy combatants fighting without uniform is to be summarily executed and/or hanged after a redundant battlefield court martial. In other words, just by being left breathing, they’ve been shown considerable mercy. And through leftist posturing, they’ve been given more amenities than I get. And more consideration for their religion too. Which is funny because Hindus have never tried to kill Americans in the name of religion.

What do you call someone who wants to give people ‘rights’ that are neither rights nor deserved? A leftist. Hence my assumption that these lawyers are leftists.

Moving on, that’s slightly more than 2 lawyers per detainee, all of whom vote for Democrats because they’ll ‘take care of the less fortunate’. These people likely call those who don’t support social welfare names like ’selfish’ or ‘greedy’ or ‘uncaring’, while they call themselves ‘charitable’, and ‘respectful’.

So here’s my thing. How many of these 1000 lawyers do you think have ever offered their services to the poor for a significantly reduced rate or for free? You think it’s even as high as 50%?

Leftists talk a good game about caring more about others than we do. Yet a look at their personal lives often reveals just how hollow their talk of charity and good will really is. As I’ve discussed before, they on the other hand simply vote for someone else who will so that they don’t have to.

What does it say about a person that they think service to his fellow man can be discharged by choosing a proxy, and then forcing everyone else to do the same?

Welcome to Tangled Bank #63. Probably a pretty good reason to start scienceblogging again. I was going to do a clever little theme, but I’m neither clever nor little. I thought about doing something primate-related. But I’m too obsessed with monkeys as it is; I research them with no funding, no position faculty or student, and no prospects. And then I thought about doing a country music themed edition. But I figured that in these circles, my musical tastes are possibly even more anathema than my political opinions.

So you’re getting a straight up carnival. Deal.

Phil B. presents Phil for Humanity: A Better Purpose for N.A.S.A. posted at Phil for Humanity. He makes the proposition that NASA research is best directed toward developing the technology to maintain longterm space colonies, rather than simple basic science. Personally, I like my weekly NASA wallpaper way too much to support ditching telescopes that can take pretty pictures, but it’s not a bad suggestion.

Wandering Visitor exposes a dirty truth when it comes to ‘ready to eat’ food. Thank god I buy fresh.

Avant News tells us about a study that Finds Human Brain Capable of Finite Number of Thoughts. Well, at least I have an excuse for my performance on last week’s midterms. Seriously though. I guess it turns out there is a limit to what human imagination can do.

…Ok, I guess I wasn’t so serious…but then again neither were they…

Dr. Kavokin continues his series on how pharmaceutical compnies use you as a guinea pig (Part III). Part I and Part II are also worth a read if you’re interested in the history and mechanics of how clinical trials work.

For a change of pace, Dr. David Ng brings us a very different entry titled ‘Be Very Afraid‘. It’s a fun stream of conscious romp through various aspects of science that currently have the public’s attention. Everything from GM foods to alternative energy to eugenics, he hits it all. If it were a book I’d buy it.

You know what pisses me off? The titmouse (Baeolophus spp.). Not because of anything it’s done, but because of its name. Its name is clearly British in origin, because the rather vugar colloquial use of those first three letters didn’t exist back when it was named. But the bird is American. And to make it worse, the bird doesn’t resemble either of its namesakes. Luckily, 10000 birds has come to my rescue. I’m still annoyed, but at least now I know what I’m so pissy about.

Apparently there’s something called plum pox. And at some point in the vague future, it might possibly threaten the plum production capabilities of this great nation. Sound familiar? *cough* Avian Flue *cough*

Anyway, genetically modified foods come to our rescue with the Honeysweet Plum, Guaranteed Pox Resistant ™. Brought to you by Genetics and Health. The story, not the plums. Although they may grow the plums too. They didn’t mention it in the conflict of interest disclosure form though. So let’s assume it’s just the story.

Never trust authority is my motto. In government, in science, and at home (the latter probably explains why my parents kicked me out of their house 3 times before I graduated). And RPM shows us exactly why in ‘On Somatic Variation of the Genome‘. Just because someone is more famous than you does not mean he necessarily knows more. And the founder of Wired magazine shows his ignorance about the nature of the genome writ large for all to see. The sad thing is that because he’s a figure of some influence, he will be taken at face value, setting science back a small, but significant amount. Kudos to an excellent fisking, RPM. I’ll use it if that misconception ever comes up amongst my peers.

Balancing Life brings us a discussion about why a Japanese crab’s carapace would resemble a Samurai mask so strongly, for reasons other than artificial selection. That’s a geographical coincidence if I’ve ever seen one. I mean, North Carolina blue crabs don’t have carapaces that look like samurai masks. Although the Blue Devils are in North Carolina…Now explain that to me.

Flocking behavior. Finally, something I studied in school. CPBVK of Rigor Vitae does an excellent job of bringing what can be a boring subject to life as he explains why selfish animals would group with their competitors. Some of the benefits aren’t necessarly intuitive, which makes them all the more fascinating. And he discusses monkeys. Brownie points.

Tim Abbott of Walking the Berkshires presents Thar She Breaches!, an account of a recent whale watching experience. Good background info and well written. Whale watching is definitely one of those things on my ‘to do’ list. There’s something romantic about mammals who chose to return to the sea of their piscine forefathers. The way they sing to each other across miles of empty ocean only heightens the image.

Libertarians can be green. And one thing that upsets this green libertarian is invasive species. They’re just so destructive and so hard to stop. And in many cases such waste could have easily been avoided. Perhaps the most galling is that I have to accept that humans are the most invasive, most destructive of any of these. Dr. Jenn Orth of the Invasive Species Weblog picked the time I was hosting the Tangled Bank to send an entry in about the controversy surrounding the introduction and control of Buffelgrass in Arizona. She’ll be receiving a bill for my aneurysm repair surgery.

The Hairy Museum of Natural History brings us news that Coelophysis might not be the babykiller we’d all pegged it as. I liked the piece, but I wasn’t even aware that Coelophysis had been pegged as a cannibal. Which is weird because I’m even more obsessive about dinosaurs now than I was at 4, which is really saying something. It does heighten my belief that these days paleontologists of all stripes (human and dinosaur especially) are becoming more and more obsessed with creating controversy. I blame Horner and Bakker. They started it all. And Alvarez too. And, come to think of it Cope and Marsh. And if we mention them we have to mention the real life Indiana Jones Mr. Andrews. Ok, maybe paleontologists have always been obsessed with creating controversy. Nevermind.

Lab Cat discusses the interesting, but difficult process of objectively measuring the color of various foods. If it sounds a bit dull to you, consider her excellent synopsis of its importance:

How many people remember the fuss when blue M&Ms first came out?

Physics nerds beware. This one will grab you.

Ouroboros discusses how the failure of normal cellular turnover (autophagy) may be linked to aging. He seems a little concerned with the ravages of father time as he’s sent me another post, this one dealing with oxidative damage and age-related hearing loss. As a future psychiatrist, I must caution him that such a preoccupation is frequently a marker of deeper insecurities that would be best addressed before they fester like an untended sore.

Dan Rhoads discusses the results from a new paper and compares two possible scenarios detailing how the results of said paper influence the polarity, movement, and cytoskeleton in motile cells. Hypothesizing is the fun part of science. Unfortunately that’s not what you get paid for. Which is why you blog.

Martin of Salto Sobrius takes a look at the unorthodox field of childhood treehouse archaeology. Interesting analogy between the development of one of these ‘archaeological sites’ and the development of the mind.

Diane Kelly of Science Made Cool points out a few good resources for bug identification. If I wasn’t the type to scream like a 6 year old girl and run at the site of a terrestrial arthropod, I might have been willing to try that out. But the saga continues. The caterpillar they identified in the first post spouted parasites! All in all a very clever way to develop your child’s interest in science.

Daniel Collins of Down To Earth discusses what a genetic algorithm is:

Genetic algorithms (GA) are types of computer models that incorporate processes inspired by evolutionary biology such as selection, inheritance, mutation, and recombination…GAs are used to find optimal solutions to complex problems, though in practice you can never be sure they find the absolute optimum instead of just a local optimum (just as in evolution).

and then he discusses how these algorithms can be applied to further our understanding of plant diversity.

Which segues nicely into the final entry of this edition of the Tangled Bank. Mine. Daniel discussed how other disciplines (especially engineering) could benefit by using genetic/evolutionary algorithms. I instead focus on the dire need for a pseudobiological discipline (Medicine) to learn to use an evolutionary perspective.

Well that’s it for this week. I hope my commentary wasn’t too offensive, or tiresome. And at any rate even if I volunteered again, you wouldn’t see me till February. Which gives you a minimum of 4 months to to recover from the psychological trauma.

Tangled Bank 64 will be hosted by the Neurophilosopher’s Blog on October 11. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to bed.

First science post in a long time. Expect more though. Because I feel like I’m in a political rut.

I get more than a little frustrated when doctors and fellow medical students tell me they don’t see how evolution has any bearing on the practice of medicine. Perhaps it’s because they’re taught to think of the body as a machine that on occasion malfunctions and needs to be repaired, and so find themselves inclined to think of Paley’s watch rather than Haeckel’s famous theory. Perhaps it’s because they view biology as a means to an end rather than the end in and of itself. Whatever the reason, Dobzhansky’s most famous utterance is lost upon far too many of them.

Learning
A knowledge of evolution makes understanding several subjects considerably easier. This applies to embryology perhaps more than any other. As a tutor for the dental students at my university, I’ve found phylogenetic comparison an invaluable teaching aid. I’ve also found it immensely frustrating since, being in Oklahoma, I have to preface it with “I don’t know if you’re a creationist or not, but this is an evolutionary example that helps me understand things.” When helping students to understand why the sclerotome of the paraxial mesoderm forms only axial skeletal elements but not appendicular (limb) bones, I invoke the humble lamprey. Possessed of the simplest body plan, the poor creature lacks both limbs and a true jaw. I tell them “The sclerotome is pretty old stuff, it’s only got enough material to produce a lamprey skeleton.” Vertebrae, ribs, and a skull encasing the brain and eyes. That’s about it. Jaws, ‘faces’, and limbs, being newer vertebrate features, have a different embryological derivation. And a lightbulb goes off. “Paraxial=lamprey”. Stupid simple.

Staying with embryology just a few moments longer, the development of the kidney is a rather confusing process. The embryo/fetus actually develops three different excretory systems in succession, the latter two of which are functional at various points of development. First come the cervical nephrotomes, then the mesonephros, then the metanephros. This developmental process is an elegant (and possibly the finest) example of the idea that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. And because of this, a sprinkling of evolutionary context can help to make sense of this process well enough for a student to keep things straight.

Perhaps the most fun use of evolutionary perspective comes when learning about physiology. Everything in physiology revolves around homeostasis. Maintaining a constant internal environment. For the most part, complexity of a given taxon is directly proportional to its ability to maintain its internal state at a constant rate. Mammals are perhaps the finest example of this ability, but all, from the simplest ball of Volvox to the lizard basking in the sun show some aptitude for this. And as to the nature of this internal state they’re trying to maintain? Blood bears a remarkable (or perhaps expected) resemblance to seawater in many respects. And this has prompted several of my physiology teachers to describe us as “a collection of cells that figured out how to take the sea with us.” Much like Wernstrom’s goldfish and his reverse scuba suit.

The greatest vindication of the use of evolutionary history as a teaching aid is the fact that although these represent extra–what mainstream physicans would less charitably call extraneous–information, they nevertheless make the testable material easier to understand. In short, the extra learning investment is more than returned.

Looking Forward
Evolutionary thinking also gives us a more stable platform from which to study the human body in sickness and in health. Understanding that the human body is an evolved construct allows us to better understand exactly what ‘normal’ is, and what conditions may bring on disease.

Anatomically and genetically, humans haven’t changed all that much in the past 100,000 years. Yet our environs and our lifestyles have shifted to the point that our current circumstances have no resemblance whatsoever to our past lives. More importantly, as technology, healthcare, and standards of living have improved, we are less and less likely to die before reproducing no matter how feeble or infirm.

What this means is that we have to treat the body as evolutionarily static at least from the birth of modern H. sapiens, and perhaps even as far back as H. heidelbergensis. And although I am somewhat critical of the view of the body as a machine, it remains a useful framework within certain limits. The heating element in your water heater would quickly warp if powered up in open air. And the coil on your stovetop wouldn’t function under water. Their failure under such circumstances is not an indicator that they are defective, but rather that they were forced to operate outside their design parameters.

I hate to use the word ‘design’ in such a context, but preventive medicine hinges upon our ability to ensure that our bodies are not placed in situations they haven’t evolved to cope with. Diet, activity patterns, and exercise are just a few of the areas in which we differ from earlier examples of our species. How does this deviation affect our health? In the realm of genetics, sickle cell anemia is probably one of the most well-known examples of the intersection of evolution and medicine. A potentially beneficial allele in one environmental context becomes nothing but a nuisance at best, lethal at worst in another. Type II diabetes is another example.

My personal agenda revolves around the basic proposition that the brain’s purpose isn’t whatever some psychologist claims it is, but rather that it is wired and coded with software that is designed for a certain environment. It is not a blank slate but an evolved construct optimally suited to certain physical and social contexts. When placed in a different social or learning structure, it can easily go haywire.

The latest area of medicine I’ve seen a place for evolution in is cancer. This might be because we just finished the unit on neoplasia in pathology class and I’d been studying it 24/7 for the past couple weeks. But everything about the pathogenesis of cancer hearkens back to lessons I had in undergrad on selective advantage, differential reproduction, and natural selection. Without getting into too much detail, cancer is essentially a progression of genetic changes, each of which allow these cells to escape the restraints that prevent normal cells from proliferating and spreading unchecked. The neoplastic cells that beget a tumor were often present 10 or 20 years before anything was clinically evident. This is because the immune system ruthlessly destroy those cells that appear genetically different from the host. Like multi-drug resistant bacteria, those neoplastic cells exist in an environment that consistently selects for the ones that evade detection, escape destruction, and reproduce faster than they can be killed. The ability of these tumors to continually reappear despite the immune system’s best efforts, and in many cases from apparently successful chemotherapy should thus come as little surprise when thought of this way. We are in fact selecting for those mutant genes that confer the ability to escape normal therapeutic and preventive methods.

We, our genes, our physiology, and our behavioral patterns evolved in one environment. They are a product of that intimate interaction between the organism and its surroundings. Changing the surroundings not only changes the nature of the interaction, but may substantially affect the fitness of said organism. While nothing so dramatic as the explosion of a polychaete worm when placed in a freshwater aquarium, there can be little doubt that much of the ’cause’ of human illness may not be rooted internally at all. Understanding the difference between our current environment and the one we evolved in will play an ever greater role in the prevention and treatment of disease.

Conclusion
Medicine has much to learn from evolution. It can provide us a foundation from which to better ground ourselves. And a scaffolding from which to reach for the sky. No other facet of the biological disciplines has remained as recalcitrant to simple Darwinian concepts as this field, and perhaps it’s time we were brought kicking and screaming into a mindset most of our colleagues found in the early 1900’s.

It seems a lot of people think that when it comes to Christianity, open hearts and open minds are only supposed to go one way. While I’m supposed to keep an open mind about their religion, they have no duty to return the favor, let alone even consider that Jesus might possibly be only one of several physical manifestations of God. Many of course do not behave in such a fashion, but it has been my experience that most do. They love to bring up archaeological and historical evidence that Jesus existed, but don’t have the time to realize that just as much evidence for the lives of Krishna and Buddha (to name a couple) also exist. They can verify parts of the bible, but refuse to consider that other parts of the bible might very well be false. And they of course, categorically ignore the proven veracities of other religious texts. If their hearts and minds were really open–they would, as a good scientist does–attempt to falsify their beliefs. ‘He clings to [evidence] as a drunk to lampposts–for support instead of illumination,’ seems to be an apt characterization.

I’ve got no problem approaching the study of religious texts in the same way one compares the literary classics. And it’s interesting what you find when you do so.

1. The immaculate conception is hardly a Christian original. Its similarity to the many times Zeus and his brethren impregnated unsuspecting ancient hellene females is just a little bit too much to be coincidence. Same goes for the conception/birth of Hanuman, Krishna, and Buddha, to name a few of the most poignant examples from my own religion.

This is particularly interesting considering all of these stories antedate the birth of Jesus, in two cases (Krishna and Hanuman) by more than a thousand years. And while I doubt the historical veracity of the monkey pseudogod’s corporeal existence, I have personally stood in the remnants of a domicile that Krishna once called home. And Buddha’s life is so well documented and verified that I simply won’t even bother.

2. The trinity occurs first and most prominently in Hinduism In the vedas, the idea of a single god (Brahman) with three aspects (Brahma, Vishnu, Siva) is very well developed. And if modern Hindus misunderstand it, thinking that we are in fact a polytheistic religion, their conceptions are clearly a modern derivation. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost correspond awfully closely to Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva respectively.

3. The idea of god/god’s son returning to earth to purge it of its sins is also not a Christian original. Neither can it be found in predominant strains of Jewish thought before Jesus beyond vague mentions of a Messiah. The idea of a terrestrial incarnation acting in such a manner is a fundamentally Hindu idea. And considering the religion rivals or perhaps even surpasses Judaism and Ancient Egyptian mythology in age, this is rather important to note.

Vishnu, specifically, is the aspect of Brahman upon which this duty falls. Of the 10 reincarnations (9 of which have occurred), Narasimha, Vamana, Parasurama, Rama, Krishna, Buddha, and Kalki all deal with the theme of coming to Earth to remove sin/restore order/show the way to heaven/nirvana.

Kalki, the last incarnation of Vishnu, is the bringer of the apocalypse. Which brings me to point 4.

4. The rapture is again an idea first seen in Hindu mythology. Kalki has yet to arrive. This is probably a good thing, since when he does so, the Earth will not be a nice place. He will make war–just war. He will cleanse the sins from this earth and take into his kingdom those who are worthy. This next quote is from Revelations, but it was just as I’d been raised to envision the Maha Avatar:

I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns [diadems]. He has a name written on him that no one but he himself knows. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.

Kalkin has been depicted since well before the birth of Christ in just such a fashion. The Rapture, the second coming. Even the flaming sword Gabriel wields as Azrael is eerily similar to the comet that Kalki has appropriated for a similar purpose.

5. Christ’s death, like those of several Vishnu avatars, came at the hands of sinning men. The Pandavas–Krishna’s cousins who he guided through war and peace–were exiled by an evil king and walked for 13 years alone and friendless before entering what was quite literally hell on earth. At their side remained a single loyal dog until the very end (I like that bit). Rama gave up his throne and lived in poverty in the jungle before being shot by a poacher, hunting in the holiest part of the forest (where prayer is the only human activity permitted). Buddha was poisoned by jealous men who feared that he was destroying the influence of traditional Hinduism (jewish mistrust of jesus much?).

6. Jesus’ teachings differed from Judaism in much the same way as Buddha’s teachings broke stride from its progenitor. Buddha spoke a message of tolerance and love. And underlying this was a strong desire to be as inclusive as possible. He spent his time with beggars, outcasts, and petty criminals. Several hundred years later Jesus would do the same. Both divine figures spoke out against the Pharisees of their respective religions. And both sought to give a more accessible and distilled message to the people. Both performed miracles yet both remained humble, almost to a fault, until the end. And both were killed by a Judas Iscariot of one sort or another.

I have used mainly Hindu examples because hinduism is the faith I was raised with and one I know intimately. I’m familiar with a number of other religions, but it was the similarities between the life of Jesus and those of the avatars that I found most poignant. Particularly as I found the early and late parts of the New Testament to strike a cord deep within me. Jesus’ message was one I’d learned as a child. The settings were different, and the characters may have changed. But the themes were the same.

I am an agnostic. I call myself a Hindu because my personal philosophy is derived heavily from that religion. And because Hinduism, unlike many other religions, shows little desire to throw me out for what would otherwise be heretical beliefs. It in fact encourages one to find divine inspiration from other sources, and freely acknowledges that Jesus was as holy a prophet as any. According to Hindu thought, God–should he exist–will not judge me by my (lack of) prayers and belief, but rather how I lived. And that, perhaps more than anything else, is why I’ve never seen a reason to drop the label.

Inasmuch as an agnostic can truly believe in the existence of prophets, I believe Jesus was one. Just as I believe Buddha, Guru Jain, and Krishna were. But looking at it with as impartial an eye as I am able, I simply cannot see how to hold one of them above the others. What makes Jesus’ story more compelling? What makes him the one true path where the others are nothing but moral teachers at best, and evil influences taking one away from the path of righteousness at worst? Especially when he supposedly insists that morality and right action aren’t as important as submitting to him.

And, given the similarities of life, message, and legacy, there is one fact that remains impossible for me to stomach. That Jesus, the man who threw the moneylenders out of the temples and berated the Pharisees for turning religion into nothing more than legalese, the man who above everything preached love for all, would turn around and be the most exclusionary of any of the aforementioned religious figures, clinging to so superficial a thing as prayer. And that this would somehow be superior to a god who judged us for who we were rather than what we said

There are two main conclusions I draw from this admittedly limited comparative study:
1. That Jesus was one of several who rejected the superficiality of religion, stressing the importance of morality and serving one’s fellows over empty gestures and rituals.
2. That the idea of the ‘one true path’ is more likely to be historical redaction than anything said by the divine figure himself. Far more likely is that he preached that there was ‘one true goal’, just as the others did.

We have a saying in Hinduism, ‘the soul is the thing and the whole of the thing’. It doesn’t translate too well, but I think the meaning is nonetheless crystal clear. I think the man who bathed with lepers, ate with beggars, and walked with prostitutes would agree with such a sentiment.

Chili’s locations nationwide are donating 100% of their profits to St. Jude’s today. Monday September 25th. 100%. The dirty, selfish capitalist pigs that they are, this is nothing but a marketing gimmick, the increased exposure will return monday’s ‘donation’ sevenfold. So it’s not really unselfish.

Seriously, altruism is nothing but an artificial construct thinly veneered over a scaffolding of the complexities of self interest.

And while I leave you to ponder that point, remember that even if Chili’s is profiting off of this, so are the kids at St. Jude’s.

And that’s the important thing. So stuff your face with an appetizer, one of the more expensive entrees, and then order an 8 dollar daquiri (virgin for me, thank you) or one of those other fru-fru drinks they seem to sell all the time. Because as a former frat party bartender I can tell you that the profit margins on those things are HUGE Heck have several, just have someone drive you home. If you live in OKC, heck, I’ll do it.

I’ve got a dirty secret. I don’t see the point in packing heat all the time. Or even most of the time. There. I said it. Don’t get me wrong. I’m a very strong second amendment supporter and the fact that I have to get a license to concealed carry pisses me off only slightly less than the fact that California still has an ‘assault weapon ban’. And don’t get me started on the BMG ban. I also believed that an armed populace is more important than jail sentences or a police cruiser as a criminal deterrent. But by and large I am and have always been far more interested in the right to keep and bear arms than doing so myself.

We were talking about it on the Life Liberty Property community’s mailing list after we got sidetracked from the initial subject of web traffic. Don’t ask me how. RG Combs was telling me about his experiences with the Guardian series, which I’ve been eyeballing after playing with (and enjoying) my Black Widow. I admitted that I’m simply not that worried about the personal safety aspect, expecting a torrent of distaste and angry statistic quoting. Instead it turns out I’m not the only one. Several in fact have never even fired a gun before.

And it occurred to me that the libertarians who make you feel bad for admitting the above are guilty of making the same exact mistake conservatives do. They forget that the important thing is the freedom to choose to carry, not that you yourself carry. As I’ve said before, I probably wouldn’t even own a gun if I hadn’t been attracted to the engineering aspects first, and the fun second. Granted, I’d still probably have a CCW license just so I could wave it at hippies and make them cringe in fear…

I’m a rather conservative man as personal habits go. Yet I support drug legalization and a host of other ’socially liberal’ things which I myself either look down upon or simply would never do. When conservatives hear that, they often make the mistake of assuming that I am somehow ‘for’ those things. Heh. If only they knew just how puritanical I can be. On the other hand, I hate seatbelt and helmet laws, but I always buckle up and wear a helmet on the rare occasions I ride. Which upsets the leftists, who claim I don’t care about people, unwilling to realize that I’m simply willing to give them the respect to allow them to make their own decisions about issues that only affect themselves.

What I’m getting at is that the biggest difference between classical liberals and both the right and the left is that the latter share the belief that personal opinion should be law. When we create an environment where other liberty-minded individuals feel like pariahs because they have little interest in firearms, we make the same mistake the mainstream does. The important thing is that–like us–they support the right to use firearms in defense, utility, and fun, not that they themselves do so.

It’s a common plot device in cartoons. Kid gets tired of being bullied. Kid learns karate/gets special powers/buys robot and neutralizes bully. Kid eventually becomes worse than old bully. I would say it’s gotten tired and old, but it hasn’t. And it’s yet again a lesson the leftist would do good to apply to his political thought process.

In 1789 the French stormed the Bastille and took a stand against the aristocrats, abolishing feudalism and theocracy in one fell swoop. In the 19th century, protests against the robber barons raged far and wide all over the West as workers and their children were exploited during the Industrial Revolution. And in October of 1917, the Bolsheviks took the words of Marx to heart as they usurped control both in Moscow and St. Petersburg. The common theme of all of these events was injustice. People had power they did not deserve, and they were exerting it over people who couldn’t defend themselves. Although I have little patience for socialism, even I must admit that something had to be done about what was going on.

The danger comes when a perception of wrongdoing turns into outright jealousy, and the desire to dispense justice turns into the bloodthirsty motivation to punish. One sees this most clearly with Marx’s–and his followers’–endless tirades about the bourgeoisie. When all is said and done, their greatest criticism of the fledgling middle class is that they are better off than the proletariat. And so they punished prosperity. The Soviet Union managed to function for 74 years after that revolution, but it never knew wealth. Could it be that the two are related?

It seems that along the way leftists found themselves unable to keep their eye on the prize. The point was to prevent men from becoming prosperous by taking it off the backs of others, not to prevent them from becoming prosperous. But by looking first at their situation and then assuming that a crime must have been committed, they have become just as oppressive in their own right as the kings of days past.

And I speak not only of wealth, but of any pursuit in which we will naturally stratify and separate into different levels of success and attainment. Of academic excellence and artistic fervor. In athletic competition. Even, sadly, in health. The left sees each of these things and believes that any differential amongst the various demographics cannot be tolerated. They punish out of jealousy and nothing more.

The founding fathers stressed the importance of reciprocity in government. In fact, it is reciprocity that separates the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and property from the coercive privileges demanded by the modern leftist. Civil rights weren’t created for the majority, but for the minority. Freedom of speech wasn’t for the eloquent but for the dastardly. If you took free speech away from him, you have also taken it from yourself. By the same token, by punishing someone else for their success, you prevent yourself from ever being rewarded for your own.

In a casual conversation the other day, we got to talking about traffic laws, parking tickets, university police, and other such travesties of justice when someone wondered aloud why law enforcement seems to attract the best and the worst people in society with equal frequency. I would think that the answer would be self evident to anyone. And it bothers me that in a few months, tens of millions of people are going to elect state and national leaders without understanding this basic aspect of human behavior and its political ramifications.

The purpose of government is to ensure the well-being of the people. But government cannot discharge this responsibility except through the projection of power. At its core then, government is force. Like any other potentially destructive implement, the determining factor isn’t in the object itself, but can be found in the character of the man wielding it.

As the old adage goes, with great power comes great responsibility. These ultimately inseparable aspects of any position of influence nevertheless attract two very different kinds of people. And therein lies the danger.

While being far from an accomplished woodworker, I do enjoy the avocation. For me it’s about watching a few pieces of oak or pine magically become a functional, and sometimes aesthetically pleasing, piece of furniture. At the opposite end of the spectrum we have Tim ‘The Tool Man’ Taylor. With his constant quest for more power and his animal-like grunting, and the fact that I don’t think I ever did see a finished piece of work on his part, one is left in little doubt as to where his interests lay.

And so it is with government. There are those who lust for power, and then there are those who desire nothing more than to fulfill their duty to their fellows. The Founding Fathers–and in particular George Washington–were perfectly situated to claim as much power for themselves as they liked. After all, even in their own time they were treated almost as demi-gods, and it was they themselves that created the government they would later lead. Yet they created a founding document intended more to curb and limit government, rather than empower it (the EU and Iraq could take a lesson from that. Washington himself was treated like a king, and indeed at one point they tried to make him president for life. Washington was never tempted, never took the gifts of power that he was offered, for he knew that foremost among his responsibilities was to set an example for the maintenance of carefully circumscribed government.

Compare this to FDR, who ran for four terms as president. Who by declaring a State of Emergency, gave himself more power than any president who preceded him. Who mocked the very soul of this land when he declared the Constitution a ‘horse and buggy’ document and proceeded to destroy the Fathers’ vision as surely as Orwell’s pigs learned to walk on two legs. Or to Bill Clinton, whose ego makes even this author look as humble as a saint. Or to George Bush, who though not as bad as the press and the left make him out to be, is clearly a power monger in his own right.

How then do we prevent the power-mongers from taking office, from becoming dictatorial bureaucrats, or from wearing a badge? Is there a good way? We can’t achieve this in medicine or in the clergy, why would government be any different?

Those on the Left seek a big government. They do so because they think government has a larger responsibility to do things for its citizens. But they forget that with greater responsibility will come greater power. And, inevitably, abuse of said power.

So apparently with the tightened border security in California and Texas, illegals are ‘being forced’ to traverse the ‘dangerous Sonoran Desert’. Funny, no one holds a gun to their head and tells them to come here. In fact, they pay other people to get them across. The fact that they’re taking more arduous routes tells us one thing: the potential profit is worth the risk. They make this determination on their own, using their own faculties. And if the desert claims them, then so be it. They knew what they were getting into.

Harsh? perhaps. But I have no respect for those who won’t respect the laws and the history of my country.

Journalists once again come to our rescue by using idiotic language. The vocabulary of coercion is dangerous, particularly when used in a political context. It implies an oppressor and a victim. It implies that something must be done. It begs for government to arrive, wearing the guise of protector. And just as serfs once bowed their heads to feudal lords in exchange for safety, so do we.

I am profoundly sick of hearing about ‘victims’ and people ‘forced’ to do things. If you use such language, I want to see the crime, I want to see the coercion. People choosing to do stupid, dangerous, or inane things do so at their own peril. And I’ll respect them enough to allow them their freedom. And in return I expect that people leave me alone to do what I will. Succeed or fail, it’ll be my own doing.