Distributed Mind

I have learned something in the last few minutes: Gravity is a capricious, vindictive entity. Worse, it seems to have a particular dislike of me.

I think the last few years many of the animated films have been showing up "real" films. While their message or messages may often be simpler, I think in every other way they have shown themselves to be worthy competitors. All of the ones I would cite as competitors for top spots have been distirbuted, ironically, by one of my corporate nemeses, Disney, though they were not all produced by Disney. The ones I am thinking of are all of the Pixar films, especially Monsters, Inc. and the Toy Story films, Lilo & Stitch, and the Disney imported Hayao Miyazaki film Spirited Away. None of these are traditional Disney fare, which, it should be obvious, I am inclined to think works immensely to their advantage.

Dulse (Palmaria palmata) is a red seaweed (actually an algae) from the Atlantic that is "tasty and nutritious," to be cliche. When eaten unwashed and raw, it has a salty taste, with a vague vegetable taste; it does not taste as bitter as most green vegetables, though, in part probably because of the salty taste (it can also be cooked, of course, though I have yet to actually try that, since it is so good raw; dulse is one of the few seweeds that can be eaten raw). It is high in several important nutrients: fiber (9% RDA per serving), iron (19%), Vitamin B6 (42%), Vitamin B12 (23%), iodine (243%). Iron can be hard to get as a vegetarian, especially one who dislikes vegetables, and B12 is almost impossible to get as a vegan, so this is a good supplement for vegan and vegetarian diets, like mine. The dulse they sell here (at Bloomingfoods) is from Maine Coast Sea Vegetables. Dulse is unfortunately rather expensive; it costs me around $4 for 2 ounces, but it does go a long way too, and in my case, it is definitely worth it for its dietary advantages.

What Maine Coast Sea Vegetables sells as Kelp is also known as kombu. Strictly speaking it should be cooked, though, I used to cheat and eat it raw. You do have to be careful with it that way though - you can get sick, I suppose, and it is, ahem, very chewy. I am sure it would be good cooked properly though. Frying, is the way to go, I suspect. It is used in a lot of recipes as a tenderizer, so it has uses other than just plain eating, but what's the fun of that?

Try dulse; you will like it.

From the makers of the excellent BBC series "Walking With Dinosaurs" and "Walking With Prehistoric Beasts", comes another FX-heavy trip through prehistory, "Chased By Dinosaurs", now out on DVD. This time, there is a host (Nigel Marven) who walks us through a variety of ancient worlds. Having a human among these huge beasts gives us a better sense of scale than the previous series could do. You can also imagine that a human among the monsters of Earth's past presents many opportunities for danger, which the show joyfully exploits. Basically the result is a fun and even humorous cross between "Walking With Dinosaurs" and "Crocodile Hunter", complete with Australian accent. Marven is surprisingly convincing as an enthusiastic and daring explorer. His exploits are almost always foolish (e.g. prodding a 40-foot prehistoric gator) but of course in the spirit of "Crocodile Hunter", it makes for some exciting entertainment and more importantly, a lot of humor. Lest you think its all entertainment, there is a fair amount to learn. Though certainly much of the series relies on speculation, not all does and the speculative portions are generally based on science, not the producer's musings.

The series includes 5 episodes. The first one tackles the largest land animals ever, including the largest land carnivore, Giganotosaurus (larger than even T-rex) and the largest land animal Argentinosaurus (large does not do this beast justice, its skull is about jeep size). This episode entertains the hypothesis that packs of Giganotosaurs hunted Argentinosaurs. An excellent 50-minute documentary included on the disc explores these two dinosaurs and their possible relationship in more detail. The second episode has Marven searching for Therizinosaurus. In reality, we only have a few bones of its arm, most notably a truly massive claw (the size of a man's arm). The episode's conclusions (which I will not reveal) about Therizinosaurus' habits are science-based, though I don't believe its quite as settled as presented. The final three episodes take place at sea and therefore do not deal with dinosaurs at all. Instead, we are treated to a countdown of the top seven most dangerous seas of all time. This refreshingly involves moving throughout time from as early as the Ordovician (some 250 million years before the first dinos) up to the Pleistocene (about 2-3 million years ago). We meet a variety of nasty creatures including the largest shark ever (Megalodon), the Giant Orthocone (a truly alien beast), Dunkleosteus (a heavily armored fish), and my fave, Liopleurodon (the massive carnivorous marine reptile featured in one of the "Walking With Dinosaurs" episodes). Many other marine creatures are visited as well. I think what I like most about these latter episodes is the exploration of times earlier than the dinosaurs which are unfortunately not tackled often in science shows.

I highly recommend this DVD, especially to fans of the "Walking With..." series. To my eye, the special effects are improved. In particular, they have finally actually animated to some degree scars as they are inflicted in fights (in earlier shows there was always cutting away or other hokey ways to avoid this). Also, the music in these episodes is done by Ben Bartlett who also did "Walking With Dinosaurs". As with the previous music score, this one is excellent and carries over many of the same themes.

So...get this DVD now! Here are some select screenshots from the first episode which hilight the humor and pretty beasts:

I first heard about this around a week ago, but could not confirm it, and in fact it suspected it was wrong, but it turns out that Gallup, for one, is not calling mobile phones for their polls, according to an article at Wired. Zogby started talking about this a while back; I thought it was market hype for his company, since I figured random dialing (which at least used to be common, to the best of my knowledge) would catch mobile phones with no problem. But Steve Hanway of Gallup confirms in the article that they are not calling those phones, based on anticipated antipathy from mobile phone users.

While this is sort of big news, the article claims that only 3% of persons in the country are using only mobile phones. If that number is right, it should have fairly little impact on the polls. I don't know the precise impact it will have; it will mostly be an issue for how confident one can be about the poll results. But 3% is not going to make a big dent in that. The article does mention that this 3% is not random, it is skewed toward a younger demographic, but, still, at only 3% (and as they again point out, among a group with lower voter turnout), it won't have a huge impact. I would be interested in seeing some numbers, or maybe if I suddenly invent some free time modeling it myself (which seems ridiculously optimistic regarding my statistical abilities).

It will be an increasing problem, though. But, I think for now it need not be a great concern, and I don't think any of need worry any more than usual about the numbers coming out of the current polls.

Discipline: Giving up one thing now in hope of getting something else later.

Contrary to the impression that some received about the proposal to the Southern Baptist Convention for parents to remove their children from public school, the measure was defeated, unanimously, in the resolutions committe. I have spoken to people who were there, and my impression is that the proposal was viewed as ridiculous by the vast majority of the attendees.

I know that at the time the news reports about this were not clear, and many were confused about the status of the proposal. I bring it up now because I recently spotted it in an otherwise interesting article by one Tom Sine about American evangelicalism and politics. (There is also a pdf available straight from the source.)

Everyone should own Garfield and Friends: Season One. (Though as Justin points out, if you buy one season, you will have to buy more.) Season two is due out December 7th.

Garfield and Friends was one of the greatest cartoon series ever. (Garfield was, after all, a more relevant philosopher than most published philosphers.) I am very glad to see it on DVD, and I am certain I will end up owning at least one season.

(Thanks to Justin for the tip, but evidently I type faster.)

They mix like oil and water. Sure good things come out of the relationship, but usually in spite of it. I was reading something that claimed that at the time "Star Wars" came out the mainstream press believed the special effects were what made it so popular. Of course, many would also point to the mythic qualities of "Star Wars" or even John Williams' score. The truth is, "Star Wars" would not be so popular if any of these ingredients were missing. The story was classic myth which has entertained humans since prehistory, but the special effects made it real and new, and the music amplified its themes. But the pundits say its the special effects that made it. It sounds like the kind of analysis a studio mogul wants to hear: that his large budget devoted to special effects produced tangible profit; that money in predictably gets money out. So after "Star Wars" we basically have an age of special effects and big budgets. Start with "Superman" and follow the stream to "Troy". When capitalists find something that gives money, they squeeze every last cent out of it. Again and again we see that when a piece of creative art is found to generate money, the big guys assume it was successful because its components were money-makers and so we get copycat art that uses some combination of those components. How many "Alien"-wannabes do we have? What about "Lethal Weapon"-style buddy-cop movies (assuming LW was even the first one)? "Matrix"-clones? Now how many of the copycat movies are actually good? On the flip-side, how hard is it for someone with an untested idea, a truly creative vision, to convince the capitalists to support it? We need look no further than "Star Wars" itself. Lucas took his idea to at least two studios before a producer at Fox agreed to fund it. And he agreed to produce the film not on its own merits (he didn't "understand it"), but because Lucas' previous "American Graffiti" was a money-maker! So he saw the director-component as being the money-making magic that could be counted on to produce more in the future. Indeed, that is how directors like Alfred Hitchcock, Steven Spielberg, and even Woody Allen have gotten free of having to beg - they are consistent money-makers.

Look at how much Hollywood trash we have to wade through to get the good stuff. Or pop music. Heck, look at television! Its a disaster, a wasteland.

So the real question, is art better off in a capitalist corporate system? Sure there is a lot more of it, but how much more good art? On one hand you have an artist who can make a living, but on the other hand you have the pressures of the market.

Via The Memory Blog, Alternet has a good article about the arrests made in the post-WTC attack sweeps. Evidently none of those persons were ever convicted of anything, save one, whose conviction has been overturned. I remember that incident being one of the scariest things I had ever seen in the United States: people rounded up en masse, no charges released to the press, held incommunicado, if I recall correctly. Of course, I have seen things almost as scary since, but that was the beginning.

A while back, I wrote about the end of Blade Runner. I said that "the transition that takes place in the two main characters (and antagonists), Deckard and Batty, from calloused enemies to fellow 'men,' is well portrayed and moving" and added the ending suggests "everyone deserves a chance, and no one should be forgotten."

I thought about Blade Runner recently, though, with the passage of time, I remembered it a little differently. I remembered it as Deckard and Batty learning the value of human - or, in Batty's case, something like it - life. But that is not the whole story.

As my original phrasing suggests, there is something that Batty needs to recover from. Roy Batty is not a nice person. He isn't someone we want to like, either. Having already killed, presumably, many persons already, we see him kill Tyrell - his maker, "a crime against nature" - and we know that he kills the innocuous Sebastian, to whom we are led to be very sympathetic. Finally, he injures Deckard. But in the end, after saving Deckard's life, and dying pathetically, the viewer is led to want to forgive this - or forget it.

I wonder which we actually do though; after sometime I had forgotten his crimes, but of course they were fictional crimes with no impact on me. The real challenge would be to forgive Batty. Deckard seems to do that, or maybe he to merely forgets. After all, Batty does very little damage to Deckard himself; and in the end he saves his life. But, it seems clear the writers want us to pass over Batty's previous actions.

So the question is, should we? The killing of Sebastian seems especially harsh, for example. And we pick up at the end of Batty's killing spree. What did he do prior? But, in spite of that, I think the writers are correct, at least in part. Whether Batty repents at the end or not may not be entirely clear, though it seems like he does. But even if he doesn't, there is nothing to gain in continued conflict at the end. Batty is already dead. There is no one in this case to carry on the conflict after Batty, but what if there were? It is not always the case, but sometimes the best way to bring peace is to ignore the harm another has done to us. Whether forgiving or forgetting, both have value. Throughout history so many wars could have been prevented if people had just been willing to let past crimes go. It is not our inclination, but sometimes it is the right thing to do, and more often, it is the only way to peace.

"But I tell you, don't resist him who is evil; but whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:39, WEB)

The current coolest song, based on lyrical content anyway, making its wat around the pop charts is "One Thing" by Finger Eleven. The lyrics can be found on their page. Musically it's alright but not exactly Beethoven; well, or the Beatles. But I like it anyway. See, pop music isn't all bad.

As a note, I find it very amusing that this song sounds, lyrically and musically, like it should be a CCM song, but it isn't. Not even close, actually. You'll have to dig up Switchfoot (one of whose songs is also getting major airplay right now) for that.

(English teachers may now hate me for using "cool." I prevented them hating me for excessive paretnthetical comments by moving this note to the end.)

And at the end of the day, you realize that everything you did accomplished nothing, because your effort was in the wrong direction. And you knew that, but failing was more entertaining, so you did it instead. And now you have nothing to show for it. A waste of time, a waste of life, a waste of love. And worst of all - you do it over and over again. Your weakness pulls you down again and again.

This is why we need God, but, man, do we make it so hard to accept his work. I just... keep... walking away... even when I need the help so badly.

Slashdot did an interview with Michael Badnarik, the LP's presidential candidate a few days ago. Although I would still never vote for him, he does say some interesting things, and a few that strike me as sub-evil, despite my intense dislike for the libertarian ideals (well, I do have some sympathy, but in large part I try to avoid admitting it lest it give any ground to them). For example, he appears pro-immigration. That blew me away, and I dare say I wish most liberals were willing to be that reckless (and reckless it probably is - but then maybe most freedoms are). And, hey, he is a third party candidate, so he gets points there.

This is messed up, pretty much all the way around (Cole writes about (1) the deportation of Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam which is messed up presumably, but (2) also about Yusuf Islam's support of the fatwa against Salman Rusdhie, which is every bit as messed up, I suppose).

Pop music played on the radio is edited. Pop music sold through iTMS is not. Duh. Ben continues to be embarassed by things he didn't realize were in the song, because he is not used to hearing that version, and he is not intelligent enough to search for the lyrics first.

I was just reading a post about how the United Nations has become useless. I instantly dismissed it, and still am inclined to think it was missing something. Whatever, the details are not so important. What did give me pause though was that the author mention this was a position he had only recently come to, and "as recently as within the last decade," he believed something else. I too have often found my old positions antiquated. What if, it turned out, I eventually thought the same thing as this author? Would my current smug, dismissiveness be correct? Obviously not. So for thought: How can we communicate with persons holding a variety of ever shifting viewpoints? We need to be trying to learn (they may know something we do not, after all) and teach - which is also to convince, usually, I guess, but how do we do that? Perhaps some positions we need not fear are correct (I think the KKK has been permanently banished from the intellectual culture of our nation - and with good reason), but how do we teach them over to our side? Obviously, some will always be lost causes, but maybe many are not.

This has been mentioned enough other places (e.g. NY Times via, ugh, Instapundit.com), but I think it is still not getting nearly the attention it should be. Women, who were considered to be a Democratic stronghold, now favor Bush. That is, I think, major. It shows that (1) you should never take your constituencies for granted, (2) either that it may sometimes be hard to decide for which resons you have supprt or that politics is sufficiently complex that predicting the future is more difficult than many assume (who would have thought? I guess we never learm, even me).

The question is, where do we all go from here? My strategy for splitting the vote in 2008 may be taking a hit with this one. Fortunately, whatever happens, the probability of having to go up against tough-guy George W. Bush in 2008 is very remote. But, if it is true that it is national security issues causing this new trend, that still does not address the real base issue. How do we convince people that a independent, non-traditional split with progressive leanings really is the safest? And, before we even get there, how do we insure that it is? (In some ways, it clearly already is, but that is a long term trend, not necessarily a short term trend. Furthermore convincing people that restraint is necessary almost never works as well as running around frantically blowing stuff up. Oh, well.)

Time has an article about Christians in Iraq. In short: Christians in Iraq are now facing persecution; things were much better for them before the invasion, when they were tolerated peacefully; Christians are disproporitonately represented among refugees from Iraq. The article quotes one Christian wondering why the United States came, if they were only going to make things worse for them.

It is an interesting article. I did want to add a few things, though. It is true that Christians were tolerated under Saddam Hussein. However, that was not to say that Christians have true freedom of religion as we understand it, even within their faith. Persons had to be born into Christian families; those born Muslim who covnerted could face death, evidently. And even for those who were legally accepted Christians, there evidently was some interference by the government in the church, though the exact mechanism whereby that occurred I am not certain, but I have been told. [Maybe if I have some more time, I will try to dig up some independent documentation, instead of my own, gasp, anonymous source.]

Basically what it comes down to is that freedom of religion does not exist in the Middle East (post- or pre-Saddam Hussein), sadly, even in the most liberal countries. Some are better than others, but not live up to our standards. Furthermore, the switch in governments has changed who is being persecuted, and by whom, but persecution itself has remained constant, though perhaps at different rates. And, finally: the Christians lose, as they so frequently do, all over the world. Which is not to minimize the persecution others face, but, speaking as one myself, it should have, I think a special impact. We can, however, look forward to a day where there is no persecution - though I don't think it will be on this earth.

Other virtual schools do not compare to the only graduate school (virtual or otherwise) in the world dedicated to world domination! (The School of the Americas is a pathetic wannabe.) Coming soon!

Alright, last random post, I hope. Didn't anyone see The Andromeda Strain? Look at those pictures of the crashed Genesis. Scary resemblance.

Caffeine is evidently bad for me. I've been trying to figure out for the last half hour why I am bouncing off the wall. But I think I am hooked. Now I can be addicted to chocolate, driving, the Internet, and caffeine. (In my caffeine-doped state I almost started inventing embarrassing addictions so I could sound cooler. Unfortunately, that's pretty much it. There were a few things I used to be, but I gave them up. But I haven't had a video game relapse in a long time, for example.)

I would like to put together a network of some really old technology. Good technology (286s are icky compared to 386s, even though they are weaker) but weak technology. I am thinking nothing more powerful than a 386. I would like to put some old 16 bits on it, like an Amiga 500 or 600, or maybe a 2000. I would definitely like some 8 bit systems: e.g. an updated Commodore 64, or maybe on of the newer 8 bit systems. Maybe make an old PDA a server or something - that one would be really twisted. It has to be actually networked, so the C64, for example, would have to be running an "advanced OS," not the 64 ROM, but such things do exist. Maybe throw some really old Unix-type systems on there, like an old Sun, or something. Something on it has to have NetBSD. I think it would be fun, and it would be an interesting experiment. Most of all, I would like to see how useful it could actually be for end users. What do you really need to be productive? (Of course, we could answer that question by putting together a bunch of NetBSD machines in concole mode, but that is too mainstream.)

Reminded by discussing the Medicare bill, I pulled out the list, as best as I can remember it. These industries better hope I never become supreme dictator.

1. The Pharmaceutical Industry

   The worst exploiters of some of the most vulnerable, for all their good they do a lot of harm too, and even their good seems done with a close eye on profits. Ask the Africans with AIDS, or seniors, or any of another number of countless people being gouged. Part of the problem is the drug regulations, but the Industry is the most directly culpable. If (if?) I was a communist, this would be a good candidate not for better regulation, but for nationalization.

2. Oil

   These guys have so much to answer for it isn't even funny. Environmental damage direct and indirect, sabotaging alternative energy, putting profits before our national safety, these guys won't get regulated, broken up, or even nationalized. I hope to throw large, heavy fuel cells at their heads someday.

3. Media Conglomerates (and especially Recording and Movie)

   Thank you for owning everything I have ever read, seen, or heard - or in effect vast portions of my memory. Thank you for putting the entire executive and legislative branch at your beck and call, despite your economic insignificance. Thank you for holding a gun to the head of everyone in the technology sector. Thank you for attempting to control all technology via extremist Digital Rights Management approaches. Thank you for making my world that much more miserable of a place. And your news coverage was terrible.

4. The Big Three Auto Makers

   These guys qualify almost more as merely obnoxious, but they have a lot to answer for too. Aggressively marketing (usually) unnecessary and destructive SUVS, insisting on bad emission standards and sabotaging legislation to improve them, stonewalling on new energy technologies, and backing big oil, and I am sure somewhere they probably shot down some attempts at public transportation, not to mention the traditional problems with safety and so on. Oh, and did I mention the part where they try to prevent consumers from buying better made, more efficient imports? Bye guys, wish I could say I will miss you, but no. I do like cars, but I look forward to a future with less of them, and none of them made by you.

5. Steel

   Steel is probably just obnoxious, but they are obnoxious. Stop raising consumer prices, and upgrade already. And please stop trashing our water. Maybe, maybe I will take you off the list.

6. Somebody else, or maybe several, I forgot

I dare say we will dance on their graves. Viva la revolution.

I Have Finally Figured Out My Political Classification: Anti-Libertarian

I was talking with the resident elf today, and I raised the question of how the Iraqis felt about being invaded, since the party line is either they are free or they are miserable (specifically, I was playing conservative for the moment and going after the assumption the Iraqis must clearly hate what had happened). So, I decided, feigning humility for a second, to look. Turns out there have been national polls. Oxford Research Institute did one in March, and Gallup did one in April. Assuming these studies are not wildly inaccurate (and they do agree where they ask the same question), turns out Iraqis are not as bad off as some people would make them. Shoot, not even close. In the ORI one, 75% of Iraqis were saying the things like electricity, health care, security, schools, jobs were as good or better than before the invasion. Makes me wonder exactly what the press is doing over there. Or rather, not doing over there. Not that I want our reporters ro be risking our necks anymore than I want Americans to be risking Iraqis necks, but just keep in mind the kind of perspective we get can be a little skewed. (My favorite number, by the way, was 80% of Iraqis reported being afraid to worship before the invasion, and only 5% said that they had been afraid since.) One last note, Justin is right, this isn't justification for a war, but I think it should all prompt us to consider, besides the quality of reporting coming out of Iraq, how we will think about future analogous situations. For all you utilitarians out there, my recommendation is you go find someone to invade now. For us pacifists (or near pacifists in my case), we need to think carefully how we will respond.

(Justin did make some somewhat vague suggestions, and suggested others needed to do some research, perhaps he will write somethine here later. Eh, Justin? I did find an article about the Iraqi Committee for Missing Persons though, which was claiming 8 million people killed by Saddam Hussein in a country of 25 million. So, one wonders about embargoes. Not quite ready to return to being a utilitarian though.)

"Market Dominance, Ben Goodger, Firefox Developer

Napoleon I vs. George III. In an American election. Which one?

Let's say biotechnology advances far byeond where it is today, and in the extremist future that we all know is coming, the Republicans resurrect Hitler and the Democrats resurrect Stalin, and they both nominate them, respectively, as their candidates. Which would you vote for?

Is my title controversial enough? If Bush were to get to win, and if two [liberal] Supreme Court justices were to retire within the next term, word on the street is that we could be looking at an overturn of Roe v. Wade and its ridiculous assertion that the right to privacy somehow grants a right to abortion. Ah, I love our judicial system. The point being that even as a "liberal" I still am evidently conservative enough to like the way conservative justices handle things. In short the liberal justices look like cracked pots sometimes. Judicial activism is real, unfortunately, and although it has occasionally brought some good, more often it has allowed the courts to do whatever they feel is best - regardless of the opionions of a majority of elected officials and voters - and worse, with seemingly precious little respect for the law they are supposed to uphold. Oh, well.

The situation is even touchier though at the Supreme Court level. Abortion is the biggest issue in danger evidently. Whether Bush or Kerry would really have an impact is uncertain, but it is definitely a possibility. This is also probably one of the main reason a lot of people I know are voting for Bush. So, as I often mention, once again I have to choose between the environment, ill-conceived wars, civil rights erosion, support for corrupt megacorps, usw. and abortion. At the risk of sounding like a utilitarian, the number 300,000 once again comes to mind. Bush would have to start a war with China to beat that. (Or maybe just let drug companies continue to be drug companies; they do manage to let a lot of poor people die after all, evidently. I suppose we could argue about that point.)

Not enough to make me vote for Bush, but food for thought anyway. For some peculiar reason, I have started to have this dream where on election day my hand moves past all the candidates for president to that little line and starts writing something. If I figure out what it is I am writing, I will let you know.

[Though in all fairness, one should not assume the Supreme Court is the end of the world; a Constitutional amendment is not beyond reason, and would be less controversial in the long run. It could take much longer though, and the road there would be much bloodier.]

By the way, even conservatives don't necessarily buy this sort of argument for Bush though. E.g. this article at National Review Online which argues Bush wouldn't be able to make a difference - though the author does say Kerry would, in a way he finds unpalatable.

The Washington Post has a fairly random article about the supposed non-specificity of Bush's religion. It suggests Bush actually hasn't revealed a lot of his beliefs despite being the most openly religious president. I think they for the most part miss the mark. The things they pick are actually comparatively small issues, at least in my opinion, and they try to make Bush less certain that he comes across. They say Bush has not said he thinks homosexuality is sinful, but I would dare say I would not feel in too much danger of losing money on a bet about that. Furthermore, I probably would not make public declarations - know, I know I wouldn't - about most of these issues, especially if I was a public figure. Finally, they miss how much a lot of Bush's silence is actually fairly transparent evasion - take for example their mention of Bush's apology to the ADL, which basically just said that his personal views were personal, not his views as governor, which in no way muddied the issue.

Anyway, I am not sure what the point is, and I think they are trying to make an issue out of a non-issue, but I wanted to mention it since it provides a somwhat different look at Bush's faith than the Frontline documentary I had mentioned previously.

Okay, I know I already know the answer to this, but how about if anyone is actually still reading this, perhaps you could post a comment here, and (1) tell us you exist, (2) tell us what you do or do not like about Distributed Mind. You might also join in in lobbying Justin to write an article that is not about politics. Or for me to be less verbose. Or both. And, as one last note, if you do like this, um, whatever we are here, make someone else - er, I mean, tell someone else about us. Thank you, you may now resume your normal lives.

Not really sure what to say about this article by Peter Winn, written in response to Sojourners' campaign "God is not a Republican ... or a Democrat" (though I think we have little doubt how the Soujourners editors will vote...). Winn implies, I think, despite his disclaimers, that any right-thinking Christian should vote for the Republicans in 2004. It is at some level disturbing, especially to someone so conditioned to see the un-Biblical values perpetuated by Republican officials, in their votes if not in their rhetoric. In all fairness, though, Winn has a point about the Democrats' bankrupt support of abortion. I guess the question, as always, is is abortion a trump issue? Certainly at times in my life I have felt it was, though now I don't, especially since I don't think the Republican position on abortion will have much to do with whether or not abortion is overturned in the near future. On the other hand, the Republicans will be able to pass a lot of things I don't agree with. So, I don't know. This article feels very much like the politicization of the church, one of those things that makes me want to turn Mennonite, and give up voting, and let God take care of it without me (frankly, I think it is a legitimate question how God feels about voting - but that is another story). What I do know is that whenever we have to chose between these two parties who really, really don't care how we feel, we lose. (Conservative Protestants, Catholics, and even Muslims and I would assume Jews, agree on enough issues that they probably could vote as a block - if there was a candidate or party that actually agreed with them - say one that actually opposed abortion and exploitation of the poor. If that happened we would instantly have about as many votes as Bill Clinton did in 1992 - in other words, enough to win an election. This is a crucial point Winn does not explicitly oppose, but does ignore: the alternative to Democrat need not be Republican - and I think our best bet is if it was not.)

[And in case you were wondering what is up with Mennonites not voting, this article, courtesy of Google, discusses it briefly. The article also discusses Mennonites who do vote.]

Even before the end of the Cold War, American journalists and politicians were looking for the next big thing, and "rogue states" were it (remember they were talking about rogue states back when we were first in Iraq - before the collapse of the USSR). Somehow the Middle East and terrorism got mixed up in the whole thing too, though I am not sure of the exact chronology. A certain event three years ago changed the emphasis from rogue states to terrorism, though our president got a few shots in at the aforementioned rogue states as well (and in the case of one of those states, the shots were not merely verbal). So now we have not the Cold War but the "War on Terrorism." And, like the Civil War and World War II and the Cold War, this war necessitates, according to some, the suspension of certain constitutional rights. In this case, freedom of religion seems to be taking quite a hit.

I have seen and heard more and more, or at least it has seemed to me, remarks from conservatives - of all people - in reference to Islam and how the government should respond to it. Now, references to Islam on the international scene, while it might be questionable, I suppose it might be harder to argue is unconstitutional. Though technically the language of the First Amendment could, I suppose, be interpreted such that our government cannot discriminate against religions outside of the United States, I doubt anyone would dare argue that, and I doubt enough people would care in the first place. But, on the domestic scene that is another issue. Most of what I have read was just in poor taste and a little bigotted (though if I wanted to give the benefit of the doubt, I suppose I could concede they may have a point, but I don't think we could say right now that they do for certain), but when I read something like this column by one Tamara Wilhite, even I know for certain we have crossed a legal line:

Anyone who registers as Muslim should be required to take a loyalty oath. The U.S. or Islam. ... Anyone who chooses the U.S. shall be registered with the government. If they continue to show loyalty to this nation, they may stay. ... Anyone who chooses Islam is to be considered a threat to this country and put in confinement. ...

(She adds in rather poor taste "Old Japanese interment camps work." If I were anyone less verbose, I am certain I would be left speechless.)

I only wish this article were satirical, but, alas, it does not appear to be, but that is another issue. I was supposedly talking about the First Amendment. It should be immediately obvious that everything Ms. Wilhite is arguing flies in the face of the Constitution. Even if you think she is right about Islam, even if you think her measures are prudent if Draconian, which I don't, there is no doubt she faces some severe legal obstacles to their adoption, as will anyone who wants to single out Islam as asecurity risk. Now, Ms. Wilhite does argue that Islam is unique among religions, and specifically absolves Hinduism, Jainism, Christianity, Buddhism, and Sikhism, but her tolerance toward religion is not the point. Constitutionally, she can't do that. As a conservative, I didn't think she was supposed to want to, which is what "surprises" me more. I am not really surprised because I know that the religion clause has frequently stood in for freedom not of religion but for freedom of Christianity. Don't expect me to say I am bothered by that fact, but it is a fact. Although I tend to think freedom of religion, secularism (definition 1, not 2), separation of church and state - whatever you choose to call the concept - is a good idea, as long as they don't go around killing people, I can't really feel that bad about an officially Christian state. That is my bias, and I will choose to keep it. However, political conservatives in this country have chosen to stand behind the American Constitution and our founding ideals, and they say absolutely no establishment of religion of phrohibiton of the free exercise thereof by Congress. No exception for Islam. This particular brand of conservative must make a choice; will they choose to give Islam special status and throw out the First Amendment and the American conception of secularism, or will they put up and shut up and find ways to oppose violent extremism without resorting to religious persecution?

Update: Okay, so rereading Ms. Wilhite's comments I can see that she could perhaps claim they are not unconstitutional - because after all she is not prohibitng the practice of Islam, but simply requiring they swear loyalty to the United States before their religion, and after all, that just means they will follow the laws, so no problem there, right? Specious, I don't think the courts would like it, but who knows. I doubt you could get many Christians to swear it though. I know I wouldn't. So in substance it still looks like prohibition of free exercise to me. Anyone who thinks that the free exercise of Christianity is safe only when the practice of all other religions are safe should be worried by this sort of thing. (If you really truly believe that Islam is some sort of insane suicide cult, you could have a leg to stand on perhaps - at least outside the United States. That would be an uphill argument considering the 1300 year history of Islam and the hundreds of millions of believers, a small handful of whom have chosen to blow themselves up. And if instead you are more worried about the fact that Muslims in some countries go around killing people of other religions who don't agree with them - well, religious wars elsewhere have never been an argument for over-reaction here. Besides, that might be to forget several centuries of Christianity's histroy. After all, "crusade" is still an obscenity in some parts of the world.)

I didn't really intend to leave my last train of thought where I did, but real life intervened. I hopefully will eventually come back to it, this time with something more positive to say.

For years, I have fought vehemently against the "When Harry Met Sally position": Men and women can't be friends. Unfortunately, I am losing confidence in my opposition to that claim. The only thing that prevents me from giving in is that it would violate some sort of deeply ingrained feeling I have about the way the universe should really work, as opposed to what experience is telling me (yes, that makes me an ideologue - as far as relationships are concerned). For, experience tells me I break every relationship with every women I know who could be even remotely available. Note that does not apply to women too young, say 5 years younger than me (too much younger than that and we are in really dangerous territory, so don't argue about that line); much older, say more than 7 years older than me; or in relationships that are in any way serious. All those relationships are pretty much safe (yeah, I know that doesn't fit with the original statement made in the movie, but bear with me, anyway). I am worried here about friendships with my single peers.

I seem to destroy these relationships in the following ways:

1. I demonstrate some sort of romantic interest in addition to friendship, and they clearly (i.e. they say so) are not interested, resulting in the worst case
2. I am not interested, but they think I am and so avoid me
3. The above does not happen, but I think it is happening (this seems to be the most common case - unless the above is actually the most common case, which clearly must be considered as a possibility; I have been sort of conditioned to expect this by now)
4. So afraid one of the above will happen, I stress out over every word that is exchanged, and eventually turn this case into one of the above cases (okay, so maybe this is really the most common case)
5. I fell perfectly confident, but then begin to suspect they are interested, which would be fine if it was not for the experience in the first case which seems to have left me emotionally unavailable, but I don't walk away because I feel like everybody has to like me, and after all I like everybody, especially nice women, and so we and up in a really big mess where nobody is happy, there is the possibility of this degenerating into the above case, and, finally, I get nominated for the title "Player"

So, based on the fact that almost (almost?) every single relationship I have with an available female of appropriate age seems to have degenerated into one of the above cases, I am beginning to think Billy Crystal's character was not so far off the mark after all. The scary possibility is that maybe my urgent hope that the claim that men and women cannot be friends may be in large part the problem. So, in other words, the problem may be intrinsically set up such that it will fail while the whole time we try to convince ourselves it is not true, though it cannot be anything but true. Whew.

So seriously, anyone have any words of wisdom to rescue the anti-When Harry Met Sally hypothesis? I sincerely hope so, because based on my experience I am failing miserably. And also, if any women actually read this blog, which I know they don't, are men the only ones with this problem? Or maybe I am the only one with this problem... Oh, and finally if any of those single women who happen to know me are reading this... ummm. Beats me, I guess now you know where I have been lately and why I seem to get flakier all the time. If you can save me, hey more power to you. And if you run, I guess I can't blame you.

Finally, notice how self-absorbed all of this seems. I always tend to think that is related to these kinds of problems. The balance is delicate - after all, I think we do have to consider relationships - so in this case I have not really worked through to what degree I should or should not be worried about this, but right now I am, so I guess it makes more sense to be honest and admit it bugs me than to pretend that I am not self-absorbed and that I never worry about how people feel about me, and so I can safely go about saving the world.

Disclaimer: I have seen like 15 minutes of that movie many, many years ago, so don't take this as some serious discussion of the film; that was not my intent.

This may be the most shocking thing I have written here yet. Warning: This is macabre and cold.

I think this point is more disputable, but probably some thought needs put into this, and I don't mean by the US government, I mean by the voters who think that the "war on terror" is such an important topic. Who are the terrorists? How do we define them? (Hint: Saddam Hussein is not a terrorist - though he did evidently support terrorists, though Osama bin Laden is a terrorist.) How do we identify them, and what do we do with them after we find them? Think hard before you answer. Make sure the people you think are terrorists really are (especially if they are Americans, since you have to worry about due process - or at least in theory you do). And, remember, being of any particular ethnicity or even religious belief is not enough. Being an Arab Muslim is not enough, even being a radical Arab Muslim is not enough - they have to be advocating or attempting violence. If you disagree with that point, then, I would like to point out, you are running against the spirit of the Constitution. And, simply claiming it doesn't apply to non-citizens - which it doesn't - will only get you past disagreeing with the so-called "letter of the law," not the spirit.

Also, just because terrorists are mean, evil creatures, doesn't remove repsonsibility from our leaders when they goad them into action. Anybody dumb enough to kick a rattlesnake - all moral authority aside, since rattlesnakes don't care - after they have already heard that it is there, deserves what they get. Unfortunately, in this case, they do the kicking and we get the biting. They must be held accountable for their actions. I don't want to discourage our government from helping people outside of our country - I am the first to say we should, but let's make sure that is really what we are about, and we aren't just in it to let off some steam. The pain we will suffer as a result is not worth that.

Between the Republican speeches full of references to the "War on Terror" and events in Russia, I wanted to say a few words on combating terrorism.

Terrorism can't lose. Terrorists have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Like the Indians fighting the British troops, or the Viet Cong fighting the American troops, once they have us on their ground - we don't have a chance. And, right now, we are doing just that with terrorists.

I have said since, oh, at the latest when we invaded Afghanistan, that Osama bin Laden wanted a war. By giving one, we played into his hands. I doubt even he could have predicted our next step. We not only played into their hands, we took it a step farther.

"The War on Terror" is a war we can't win - at least not the way we are doing it now. The real war is not on the ground in Iraq, but in the hearts and minds of people - especially Muslims - all over the world. And the way we are going right now, we are losing on that ground.

We need to take the battle to our high ground. Right now we aren't doing that. And as long as we continue to fight on the terrain they know best - we will continue to lose, until we have to give up. Let's take a lesson from General Braddock's experience.

Where have all the elves gone?

In John 16:33 Jesus said, "In the world you have oppression; but cheer up! I have overcome the world." He was referring to persecution of the church, but it carries over to an extent. Paul writes,

For the creation waits with eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to vanity, not of its own will, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of decay into the liberty of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and travails in pain together until now. Not only so, but ourselves also, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for adoption, the redemption of our body. (Romans 8:19-23, WEB)

I noted that two french journalists have been taken hostage in a protest against the foolish French ban on religious symobls in schools. And, of course, the group threatens to kill the hostages if the French don't change their law. Right, like that would happen - even if the French had changed their mind. How now could there be any sort of compromise? Violence, especially the terrorist kind, is almost always self-serving (in the case of suicide attacks, that may require a slight shift in thinking, but it is still true, if not for the terrorists than for the sponsoring groups). It's cliche but true: violence never solves anything. In fact it makes it harder to fix problems, which is what will happen in this case. Shoot, as much as I am opposed to the ban, if I lived in France, how would I be able to support removing it until after the hostages were realesed - or killed. Otherwise, every two bit group in the world would start taking hostages in an attempt to change French policy. Just like al Qaeda in 2001 - they've forced France's hand in the "wrong" way. This time only two people's lives are at stake, but still.

Ever feel like the doctor at the end of Bridge over the River Kwai? It's days like this I am glad I don't ascribe to post-millenial eschatology. And we wonder why the Enlightenment failed... (well, okay, post-modernists don't).

We live in a depressing world. E.g. the current hostage situation in Russia. Praying for the children and families at this Russian school. Hopefully this will end better than the hostage situation at the theater this seems to remind everyone of.

Update 1

Resolution: Not good, but it could have been worse