Distributed Mind

Seventy-one degrees Fahrenheit outside today, slightly cloudy. Absolutely beautiful.

An enigma for you literati out there:

I am Col. Brandon...

I had always wondered about (in terms of application to engineering, not veracity) the story about how NASA supposedly wasted a bunch of money developing pens that could write in low gravity, while the Soviets just used pencils, and I then read something today that pointed to the Snopes article about the story. Of course, you knew it wasn't true, right? Or I suppose we should have. Oh, well. It does make me feel much better about the competence of American scientists and engineers, though.

(I am pretty certain actually I read this story last year, but had forgotten it since then. Swiss cheese memory, what can I say.)

I was thinking a moment ago, somewhat mistakenly, that an important feature of liberalism - classic or modern - was that all humans were equal and deserved equal treatment. After all, classic liberalism gave us such statements as "All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Thus, things like the golden rule or the categorical imperative would be crucial guiding principles. Hence, in so far as modern conservatism claims itself to be derived from classic liberalism, it would be quite mistaken. For clearly modern conservativism - in its most common manifestaton, anyway - believes that this equality is narrowly contained within certain national boundaries, and it seems arguable that limitations on this equality may extend to socio-economic boundaries and ethnic and religious ones (I mean specifically to refer to Islam - not any other religion; I for one do not believe most conservatives want to quash all things that do not fall under traditional Christianity or Judaism, though they sometimes do go too far in such things). It would seem modern liberalism fails to take equality entirely seriously as well (the tendency to simply subsidize everything by taxing the rich is a possible example, though some might take difference with that suggestion, and I am not 100% certain I buy it), but at least it is willing to stand up for those of other nationalities and economic status (we will ignore its failings to erase racial boundaries in the first half of the last century, for the moment).

This is important in that, if one were to give equality its full due, one would have to consider the plight of the innocent person who might be tortured by mistake or the resident of the south side of Chicago who by mere virtue of their place of birth and their ancestry is demonstrably less likely to graduate high school, go to college, is more likely to end up in jail, and who can expect a much lower salary. Or, possibly even the resident of some foreign country that lacked democracy in that to point out their plight under a dictator is not the same as to really consider whether they want violent overthrow of that same dictator, let alone to decide for them. In so far as modern conservativism fails, apparently, to seriously consider any of these, it has merely co-opted some ideas and language of classic liberalism while putting it all at the service of a classist, xenophobic, elitist, small-minded traditionalism.

Of course, then I remembered, as one is so often wont to do in this case, that a significant portion of the people who lived in this prenatal country when the words "all men are created equal" were written did not believe them. In so far as it extended to women, almost none of them believed it, at least in the sense we would today (it is the case that they extended almost all rights to women - voting be a very significant omission, of course). Shoot, the author of that document did not believe this. The only people who came close to believing this for the most part were a bunch of strange religious types (as usual, I revel in the irony of that, as well as the irony that it is considered ironic). Is it any wonder that from such hypocritical origins we today suffer from such a failure to really believe and practice the equality we hold to be so foundational to our society? Thank you very much, Mr. Jefferson. (This is not to say that the United States was not an improvement in most ways over what else existed at the time, but we should also not look to the morality of 1776 or 1787 to be the epitome of human ethical development.)

Regardless of our moral origins, though, I think the only way forward is to take up the idea equality - even if it has never truly been in the past. That we are all equal in the eyes of our creator was a foundational idea of Christianity and Enlightenment morality. As a follower of both ideals (the former without reservation, and the second as a useful practical adjunct), I do not find radical egalitarianism to be such a shocking idea. That it is in our world shows how far we have strayed from the best of our intellectual and moral origins (which were so often limited to begin with).

[I note that in listing things conservativism would have to consider I may have overstated to a degree the case - I certainly have not held back the rhetoric - but I think the idea here is mostly sound, though I suspect it will sound offensive to many conservative readers. I understand that there are complex arguments on all three examples that I mentioned, but I think a careful investigation of at least the second will suggest that it is the case that conservativism is wrong in claiming that equality exists for such people. The first case can merit no serious argument, and I am adamant on that point. The third is my weakest example, but points to a principle I think is both important and deep - namely that violence is of very limited value. I would not automatically disregard any argument on that case, but I am not particularly interested in having such an argument either.]

[Oh, and the religious persons I am of course referring to are our good friends the Quakers. There may be some others that could qualify (the Mennonites and some Baptists among others came close in many ways, for example), but I am mostly thinking of them.]

We have been around now for over thirteen months (we started in early February of 2004). And we still have no regular readers, that I know of, more than the two active authors. Or, if we have readers, they never leave comments or write e-mails. I believe that thirteen months without any readers should be a new record. Oh, well. I will continue to write, since I enjoy writing for its own sake (at some level; I am a terrible practitioner of the craft of writing; it is the required thinking that I find of value). But, hopefully, we will actually be able to foist our ideas on an unsuspecting public at some point.

I told Justin we need a list of our top ten posts from the last year, maybe even revise them - a sort of reissue, if you will. You may note how much progress has been made on that count.

And of course, our site redesign which started in something like December has made so much progress. I did turn on the new style though; mostly because when updating our appearance I managed to trash our old skin, which resulted in all pages besides the main page lacking any stylization whatsoever. Thus, while the new design is somewhat crude, at least it is uniform.

So Mark Santos has made my, well, month. I was complaining to him last week that I needed to play some good racing games, so he sent me a Playstation and a bunch of games, which was very cool of him. So, since Monday, I have been playing a lot of games....

I was originally thinking primarily of Wipeout and POD. Well, no POD, but I do have Wipeout and Wipeout 3. Wipeout is still not quite the same as playing Wipeout on the PC, but Wipeout 3 is a lot of fun (it does throw me to be in a lower resolution though; among other things the displays are harder to read). Wipeout is a futurstic racer with these little hover vehicles - oh, and weapons. So far, my favorite mode in Wipeout 3 is "Elimination": laps on the track or kills count as points, so going fast and blowing other vehicles up are both worth points. There is also a mode where the ranking is determined by how many kills, so 3 eliminations is a gold. I hit 7 out of 11 once... I know, this is slightly violent, but only slightly (nobody dies, right? I think). I may never end up as a Mennonite at this rate though. Normally I would eschew violence, but (1) I realy like Wipeout from "back in the day," (2) it is not very severe violence, (3) it is a racing game, and (4) my judgment has been badly impaired recently. It does get worse though....

A new discovery was Driver 2. It involves carrying out various undercover missions (that look like they cameout of a '70s detective show) in, yes, a car. The first part of the game is set in Chicago, and a farirly convincing Chicago at that, so I was very enthusiastic. The missions are a kick too - so far my favorite was chasing an El train. I didn't get very far sicne I don't have any memory cards to save my game, but I will get some soon, and then... There is also a free driving mode where the player can drive around the city. The problem is it is almost impossible to not break the law (several times I had cops come after me for no apparent reason), and then the police chase you around. The "good" news is that if you can lose the police, you can get out of your car, and pull someone out of another car (or school bus or firetruck...), and steal it, and drive around some more. Yes, I know, somewhat questionable. The graphics are not excellent, but they are mostly convincing, and the gameplay (while not extremely realistic) is a lot of fun. Plus, it has Chicago. This is, I think, my new favorite game. The dubious thematic material is somewhat unfortunate, but, just as with Wipeout, I am having trouble resisting. I also have Driver, and in that game one of the cities is San Francisco. Since Chicago and San Francisco are basically the only two cities I think it would be interesting to drive in (sorry, Indianapolis), I was pretty much set there. If they had thrown in Amman, Jordan, I would have been really psyched. I do get Havana and Rio in Driver 2, though. [By the way, if Driver 2 had a more realistic physics model and more detailed cars, it would be pretty much exactly what I would have hoped for from the Test Drive 2 sequels. Alas, neither Driver 2 nor Test Drive (at least 4 anyway) quite make it.]

I tried Descent Maximum, but the controls are very hard to use - really need a keyboard for Descent. I need to try the Colony Wars games (space combat simulators), they looked good. Also need to try Ridge Racer.

My other great discovery here has been Colin Macrae Rally. This is exactly the kind of thing I was looking for. Straight racing (no weapons...), but interesting tracks, none of this NASCAR stuff. Among other things, it has tracks on snow in Monaco and it has tracks in Greece, which looked a lot like Jordan (both Meditteranean, so not surprising) except with more grass and rocks, which was cool. I was happy when I raced that.

I also have been playing some PC games that are even mroe dubious, I finally tried Descent 3. Not as exciting as Descent 2, but it is ok. I probably won't play very much of it though; it didn't really hold my interest. I tried Ultima Underworld, very old but very cool, but my video is way too dark to see anything, unfortunately. I also finally played Age of Wonders; somewhat disappointingly boring. I wanted to play POD, but it hates my computer. I also considered playing Alpha Centauri, Civilization 2, or Colonization, but, I decided not yet. Most of all, I wanted to play the Baldur's Gate 2 expansion Throne of Bhaal. Okay, so a violent RPG in a fantasy world influenced by all kinds of pagan ideas - we have really strayed frmo the kind of games I have played in the last couple years. I wanted to sit down and play an RPG for a while though, just to refresh my memory of the experience (and the rule hacking - I will have the ultimate party of six!). I don't really intend to play very far in, though. I got bored with this game before, as I recall.

So, there is a record of my unproductivity. I suspect in a couple weeks, I may feel guilty about all these violent video games. I will let you all know...

A bill by Rep. Markey of Massachusetts, H. R. 952, which would prevent the the government from sending prisoners to countries where they are likely to be tortured, was introduced on February 17. The bill would require a list, based on the State Department's list of countries that practice torture, to be made and submitted to relevant Congressional committees once a year. Persons held by the government could not be submitted to those countries, or any country that they would have reason to believe might be put on the next list, unless they have some way, beyond the mere word of that country, to ensure that the prisoner will not be tortured.

The bill is hardly perfect, but would be a vast improvement over nothing. It is currently still in the House Committee on International Relations. I doubt this would ever pass - shoot, it may not make it out of committee - but I certainly hope it does.

The issue of torture and rendition, issues covered here many times in the past, have apparently been getting some serious attention in the press and on television lately, as Body and Soul reports. Hopefully, this will build some impetus for change, though I am somewhat skeptical.

(Image credit: NASA/JPL/Space Science Institute.)

(Tip to image by Justin/Earendil.)

NASA has released a large (4256 by 1744) map of Titan's surface, composited from images acquired at various times. While many parts are still rather low resolution, some areas are much better off:

(Image credit: NASA/JPL/Space Science Institute. Image courtesy of NASA/JPL-Caltech.)

I am not an expert in the subject, but, as I understand it, around 400 years ago, the first permanent English colonies were established in what was to become the United States. Sometimes, they bought the land from the indigenous residents, though frequently for unfair prices; sometimes, they took it via military means whether punitvely or preemptively. Eventually, the larger part of the current area of the United States was acquired by such methods.

Around 150 years ago, the United States won some rather vast territory in the war with Mexico, which was considered by some (including apparently U. S. Grant) to be a war primarily about expansion.

Regardless of the legal technicalities of early American immigration, a case can certainly be made that in a greater moral sense, and even frequently in a broader legal sense, that the pattern of settlement by citizens of the colonies, and then the States, was illicit. In short: we came, we took the land.

Don't talk to me about illegal immigration; we were illegal immigrants. Lest you ever be tempted to look down on some Mexican or Central American who entered our country illegally, think of the natives we uprooted and shoved to Oklahoma. Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone, no?

And just for the record, most of my ancestors were legal immigrants, and they never took land from anyone (there was not really anyone to steal land from in turn of the century Chicago, as it happens). Not that any of that makes me a better person; but if you think that one's ancestors should determine one's status, well, I'll claim moral superiority on my side, in a self-righteous sort of way.

Oh, and isn't it ironic that all that land we got from Mexico is precisely the area we are all worried about illegal immigration today? (Although I realize many in those states are less worried about ilegal immigration than many people in the rest of the country, and to those people, I salute their patience and open-mindedness.)

If that were not argument enough, we might look at the fact that almost every person in this country has broken some law at some point in time, and we do not demand they cease to be citizens, at least in general. Now, perhaps entering the Untied States illegally is substantially worse than a moving violation, but then again, maybe it isn't that much worse. Either way, people heading north in the hopes of making some money to send to their families living in areas where poverty runs rampant - at least their motives are good. The case becomes even stronger if you believe, as many do, that the United States and its corporations is in part responsible for many of the problems in Mexico. Add to that that I for one believe that the right to movement is almost as fundamental a right as the right to free speech or protection from illegal search and seizure. Borders seem to me inherently undemocratic. Considering all of this, whether these people are right or wrong, I am willing to cut these people some slack. Are you?

Now, having said all of that, I do not claim that immigration will have no cost in the long run. It may or may not. I hope it does not, but I cannot claim that I know that or even have good reason to believe that will be the case. Indeed, given that I opened this argument by bringing up the settlement of this land by the English in the seventeetch century, it would be naive of me to ignore the kind of impact that had on the native population. Frequently - not always, but enough - when a new group of people settles an area previously occupied, the native populace develops a sever resentment of the new people, and this resentment can often last for centuries. This is true regardless of how the land was settled, though the more violent the means, the more likely and deeper the resentment. I find it quite likely that white Americans will resent hispanics for some time to come, if they do soon come to be the largest single segment of the population (of course, many of those hispanics will have come from places other than Mexico, or have lived here many years, but, how well people will be able to recognize those facts is an open question). Nor is there necessarily no reason for this resentment. Even before English settlers fought the natives, they had given them enough diseases to wipe out large populations; this was followed by years of wars, questionable dealings; and the displacement that naturally resulted from a large influx of new colonists. No Mexicans are attacking us, but there may be effects of the large influx of immigrants, legal or illegal. Not all effects though, were bad; certainly, for all of its problems, the United States was, at least at its founding, an invaluable political experiment that was to contribute indirectly to democracy in many other countries. So, the effects of such migrations are both positive and negative. They always bring change, though - but I think we have shown we can handle that here.

(This is a rather rough argument; I know it could be improved, and I am sure there are serious holes in some lines of reasoning, though I am sure they could be patched. I post this in its relatively crude state though to let you all see how I feel about the issue - not that you didn't probably know already. Some day perhaps I will return and clean it up; I would like to have a persuasive argument in favor of immigration, or at least one that would give people pause. This may not be it, but I hope it is a step in that direction.)

So... I was thinking about my sort of response, and just as much, my lack of response to the Terri Schiavo case, about which I only finally actually verbalized my thoughts. And even when I did that, I didn't really say anything. And I wondered why... Well, I didn't really wonder, because I already had some ideas, it was just a matter of organizing those ideas. So let me think through this out loud fot the benefit of everyone else as well.

The problem with film camers: it costs money to develop film.

My career as a photojournalist (yeah, right) is being blocked by my poverty!

Heads up on what I am thinking about right now... The blog that I linked to in my last post, had a post yesterday about the Lancet's series on neo-natal health which apparently concludes with an article which apparently concludes that "To provide selected, high impact neonatal health interventions at 90% coverage, an extra $4.1 billion per year is estimated to be needed on top of the $2.0 billion spent currently, giving a total of $6.1 billion in the 75 countries with the highest mortality." The author, Jeanne, mentions this in a context criticizing the absence of any "pro-life" voice on this issue. Quite. Let's see if we can do better.

I want to research the claim made in The Lancet. Knowing claims that have beenmade by other authors and organization in the past, this sounds reasonable. It this sort of plan is reasonable, or if some similar plan is reasonable, I think it should be pursued with the sort of resources we pursue other issues - it only makes sense. And the efficiency would be practically obscene to waste, even if the loss of human life weren't. So, I am saying, take a look, and if this seems to be something worth pursuing let's make a push to publicize it; let's turn our rhetoric into practical actions. Not that other causes aren't important too, but this one is as well.

I know I have heard other ridiculously low numbers for things like, say, eliminating poverty in Africa. I can't seem to remember how little money was predicted to be required (or, just as important, who made the prediction), but I remember it was very low. (And even for the money-loving, ending poverty in Africa has to be cost effective; after all, that's more consumers...) This prompted me to check one of my favorite sources of information (and analysis and opinion) on these sorts of things, the UN Human Development Report. Okay, since it is from the UN, none of my conservative friends will want to read it but, oh, well. I haven't read it in a couple years, but I checked back to see what was available. These are the ones I want to check out as I have time (and I recommend them to you all as well):

• Millennium Development Goals: A compact among nations to end human poverty (2003)
• Consumption for Human Development (1998)
• Human Development to Eradicate Poverty (1997)
• (other reports)

And finally, on a distantly related note, I have been informed through the familial information chain (which was getting its information from the Family Research Council) that apparently Congressman David Weldon of Florida intends to introduce a piece of legislation called the Incapacitated Person's Legal Protection Act, or Terri's Law. A little search produced what looks to be the text of the propsed bill on the NRLC's web site. Obviously, this law is designed to save Terri Schiavo of Florida, a story you doubtlessly already know. It appears that all it does is to extend court (some court) custody (or something like that) to an "incapactitated person" which for its purposes the bill defines as "an individual who is presently incapable of making relevant decisions concerning the provision, withholding, or withdrawal of food, fluids or medical treatment under applicable state law," unless such person had in advance a written statement allowing the withholding of food or medical care, etc. Apparently this extension of custody is designed to require due process rights for the individual, or something. I am not entirely certain how that will extend protection to people like Terri Schiavo, though apparently it would. The idea is good, I guess, but I am not sure how the legal technique in this bill will work. I sense trouble ahead on that count, but I am certainly not a lawyer, and I am paranoid, so I could be wrong. Anyway, this if passed, might be a good solution to the sort of problem evinced by the Schiavo case in Florida. Thus, it couldn't hurt to take the advice of groups like the FRC (even if it is the FRC) and support it, I would think. Though, before throwing my full endorsement of it, I would like to see some analysis of it by someone who does understand the legal implications of it. (Yes, one of my great failings in life is that I am not a person who automatically writes my Congressman about every great idea some advocacy organization tells me to. And I mean no disrespect to the plight of Terri Schiavo by saying that, just to clarify. What I am concerned about is that this not become an ineffective political soccer ball.)

[The Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation has more information on this bill and the propsed text. The way they put it, it sounds like the law would allow federal courts to review the decision of state courts when they decide that a person can be allowed to die (by extending habeas corpus). Supposedly, there is precedent for that. It makes more sense the way they put it. Since I am still not a lawyrer (okay, I am not half bad at copyright law, but that took me a while), I still don't get how their explanation relates to the actual bill text, but their explanation makes a little more sesnse. Weldon intends to introduce the bill next Tuesday, the 8th.]

[I think I am getting paranoid. Why would this law be a bad thing?]

[Naturally, there are other takes on the issue (I do find it interesting the courts keep taking Michael Schoavo's side, though of course, if there were an injustice, that would be expected), though whether this particular case is lousy or not does not necessarily affect the usefulness of the law. Indeed, if this case were to go to a lower federal court, and if the case were really as bad as it is presented here, the federal court could always kick it out, and we would be right back where we are. The only remaining question would be, do we need federal courts involved? Sure, why not, I guess? Whatever... I don't think I am smart enough to figure this out. This is the first I have really heard anybody say anything about this on the left, though, I note. I was sort of hoping I wouldn't though it was also creepy not to have.]

[And, finally having said all of that - last addition, really! - I find the amicus brief filed at one stage of the Terri Schiavo case interesting.]

An interesting timeline of deaths of journalists in Iraq caused by American military forces. I am not familiar in detail with all of these cases, but I read briefly a little while back about some of them, and I think the list is probably accurate. (Now that I knocked the quality of journalism a while ago, I am completely paranoid, and seem to be addicted to strong disclaimers, in case you hadn't noticed.) The point of this list is not that American troops have necessarily targeted any journalists, but rather that that interpretation of events is not a completely irrational one. In fact, it is a quite reasonable interpretation.

Personally, I don't know whether any journalists were killed deliberately or not. I think there was some very questionable things that happened, and even if there has not been maliciousness, there certainly seems that there has been some negligence. There is no question that the military and the government has taken a rather cavalier attitude about the journalists who have died (or in one case tortured). I roughly agree with the author, who writes,

You don't have to buy any theories about the military deliberately targetting journalists to recognize that there's been a clear pattern throughout this war of indifference to the deaths of reporters, mixed in with a good deal of harrassment. In a truly democratic country, with any interest in freedom of the press, that would call for investigations and a serious look at what could be done to make sure reporters aren't killed by soldiers who are stressed or who haven't been given information they need.

What is most ironic about all of this is that it strikes me that, given the evidence, to act the way some people did about Eason Jordan's remark is much less rational, I am inclined to think, than Jordan's remark itself.

I certainly hope he was entirely wrong, or more so that others who make similar claims are wrong (since Jordan seems to have not really thought about this fully). But I think we need to acknowledge the possibility he was right. More importantly, we need to acknowledge that the attitude displayed by the United States government and military regarding the incidents is unacceptable.

From an article by one David Fairchild on Victorians and religion:

With that said, many attempted to use the name of God, the words of God, and the institutions that attach their identity to God, as a way and means by which their social ethics could have some legitimacy. I am convinced that this alone may have been the ultimate demise of Victorian ideology in all of its forms. Any time we attempt to use God and control people to promote our position, our name, or our lifestyle, we may as well dance around a golden calf and call it god, and we should expect the God of Scripture to give us the same response He gave those fools in the days of Moses. God was not and is not to be used as a spokesman to our movements, our politics, or our social status, because God is never to be used- period!

I have to wonder how often I try to use God to promote my causes, rather than basing my causes on God. I may have even done so earlier tonight, now that I think about it, when writing about politics. I claimed that I adopted liberal politics because of my faith (true, for the most part), but also observe the rhetoric I use to beat people over the head by claiming certain positions are Biblical, or saying "God cares about X." Indeed, while such statements are not in and of themselves wrong, what could be wrong is how I use them. So if I say such a thing without really thinking it through, or even allowing for the complexity and tenuousness in some extent of such a claim, I am trying to utilize God and his teachings to my own ends at that point. In fact one of my main complaint about some of my political opponents within Chrsitianity and even some of those whome I disagree with theologically is that they make such statements. True, I was not claiming that the problem with those statements was how they used God as a rhetorical device, but rather that they were incorrect, which I did and do believe. But, then, maybe I should have noticed how they used God as a rhetorical device, and how I did likewise. Part of the problem is that trying to understand and practice the precepts of our faith is not always easy. But also a part of the problem, as Fairchild points out, is that God is greater than us (okay, well, Scripture points that out too, I believe) and we can't exploit his name to our ends. So, if you catch me doing it, call me on it.

I am, by the definition, an evangelical. But I do not want to leave the wrong impression about that status, for it occurs to me that sometimes we are too picky about whether people are evangelical or not. I signed onto the gospel - a gospel that existed for the better part of two thousand years before we coined the term "evangelical." Although typically evangelical doctrine is, in my opinion, superior, even this is not always the case, and certainly in practice evangelicals are frequently trumped by many groups they look down on. So, while I may not accept all points of their doctrines, I do not want to exclude any faithful followers of Christ in working for the kingdom of God. The only ways to be a Christian and not a faithful follower are to (1) not be personally committed to the faith, (2) not practice what you supposedly believe, or (3) to have some fundamentally flawed theological error on some point affecting salvation (what exactly would constitute such a thing is a harder to detrmine point). But I will accept, in practical partnerships if not always theology, any who do follow the same Lord and Savior as I, even if Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran. Even if I argue over theology, that does not mean I intend to exclude these people, unless I specifically say so. Any argument over theology is merely trying to, as always, improve the spiritual condition of all people, myself as well as those who I may disagree with.

Hello, brothers and sisters. Remember, we are the revolution - God's revolution. Let us, together, proclaim the gospel in words and deeds at every opportunity.

You know, I keep trying to convince people that it is okay, and in fact, perfectly natural to be both liberal and Christian. Clearly, this is useful work. But I notice that I also act as if I am the only one doing this sometimes. I know better of course; I go to church with some of these people, after all, and I certainly know the existence of many large Chrisitian groups and sub-groups who agree with this approach, from liberal Catholics to Quakers. But still, I act as if I am the only one. But why are we so ignored? Most of the religious right - all sincere believers, not those who use the faith to further their own greed and hate - should be either on our side or in close agreement. We must bring them back. I can't believe that there are people who think that tax cuts are serious spiritual issues while ignoring corporate abuse of workers, for example. This is untenable in light of the teachings of Jesus, the apostles, and the prophets, I believe.

But you all already knew this. I bring this up, though, because it is clear that while there are plenty of those who either support policies in line with Biblical teachings or choose to stay out of politics altogether because of the evils endemic in politics, there are still far too many, and far too vocal, Christians who do not see this. We are doing something wrong if we have not gotten them to wake up to their mistake yet. What do we do, today, now, to change this? [It is okay to actually leave a comment answering that, you know.]

And why have we run so few candidates who care about these things? I think many people are ready to vote for politicians who are willing to truly pursue moral policies, but we rarely have that choice. While I don't want to suggest this is the only solution to the current state of affairs, I have a suspicion it is a large part of the solution. That and better theology and preaching. So, let's get on it, I guess. Open your Bible, point to Isaiah 58, the Sermon on the Mount, and James. Point out to believers their hypocrisy (but, please, be loving about it!). And then start finding qualified people to run for office. But while we're at it, let's try to figure out why no one is listening...

Sorry, had to vent.

[Let me also add, and as I say this I have to acknowledge my own failings in this area, we need to implement at a personal level the solutions to these problems. When we, and our conservative brothers and sisters, work practically to change the world, everyone wins, and the politics becomes less vicious.]

I apologize for the generally poor quality of the writing around here, lately. I have not been myself literarily for some time, and my writing was not that good to begin with. Hopefully, though, while my writing may read like Kant's, it will be almost as deep.

Jim Wallis, in case you did not know, is the Editor-in-Chief and Executive Director of Sojourners and author of the much-discussed (one might say, celebrated) recently-published God's Politics. Wallis (and Sojourners as well) is a sort of politically liberal evangelical. (Sojourners, by the way, is as close to my political perspective as one can probably get, I suggested recently. Don't assume, as usual, that I agree with them on any one issue though, or with their rhetorical approach to any given issue.) As a liberal evnagelical, though, he has drawn some ire in the past - some of it his fault (Sojourners "God is not a Republican... or a Democrat" campaign seemed at times to suggest that God was indeed a Democrat), some of it simple blind bias.

The most recent dispute appears to be between Charles Colson and Wallis. Upon reading Sojourners e-mail update "SojoMail" last week, I discovered that Wallis has written an open letter to Colson in response to Colson's take on Wallis' approach on a recent episode of "BreakPoint," Colson's radio program.

Although, as I said, intellectual disputes between Wallis and more conservstive evangelicals is hardly anything new (consider for example my response to Peter Winn's response to the "God is not a Republican... or a Democrat" campaign), this felt a little different to me. Perhaps it was just the timing, as I continue to try to put my thoughts into words regarding the inappropriate alliance between religious conservatives and the Republicans (and some of conservative polticis in general, for that matter). But I think moreso it was the forum. A group like Focus on the Family has been political for long enough, and Dobson has become explicitly political enough, that debating with them is something I know I and others who argue that the Christian polticial approach is flawed will have to do. Colson though is not nearly so political, though it is true he is becoming increasingly political. Dobson is even more respected, actually, than Colson, but I think the sort of role I think of Dobson and Colson as playing is a little different. Dobson is there for some psychology (which no one seems to pay attention to anymore) and some silly political stuff (sorry, but it's true, and I would have no fear to tell it to his face, either), but Colson is actually viewed as a spiritual leader. Not to mention that Colson puts his money where his mouth is; he is the founder, after all, of Prison Fellowship. So for him to come down on Chrisitian liberals is a little scary. I think we can shake Dobson, ultimately. The gay-marriage silliness will pass, and Dobson will move on, but Colson's argument will still be pertinent. So, it was somewhat a painful reminder of the kind of work we have a head of us. (And, by the way, I did choose my politics based on my theology, so I really consider this work to be spiritual, and Spirit-led, for that matter.)

Colson's argument, by the way, is that not all moral issues are equivalent. Thus, regardless of how you feel about social justice, "sanctity of life" wins out. While I don't think anyone (especially Wallis) is claiming that all moral issues are equivalent, I for one feel that the significance of some has been exagerated out of proportion, and that, furthermore, manifestations of these issues are sometimes ignored inappropriately. War is as much about the sanctity of life as abortion is, for example, is a demonstration of the latter phenomenon. As for the former tendency, Wallis himself points out in his response that to claim that we are care about children who are not yet born and yet not care about what happens to them after they are born is rather inappropriate. Basically, while abortion may still be more important as a single issue, there are still otehr issues that need considered. It is a complex political environment, and, unfortunately, as Colson himself has pointed out a past column, not always favorable to the priorities of believers. Wallis and I might see the significance of abortion a little differently - Wallis tends to play it down more than I do, I think - but we both agree it isn't enough, morally, to just address abortion. I don't think Colson does want to just address abortion, but effectively that is what his argument would force us to do. Furthermore, as I have pointed out many times, as a practical point of American politics, to support Republicans just because they say they care about abortion (or even because they do really care, for that matter) is not enough; they have consistently gamed Christians and other social conservatives on this issue, to win clout to address issues they really care about, which are often issues which end up denying the sanctity of life of people in other countries. Abortion is an important issue, but we can't let it blind us to the realities of a political climate where no politician seem to care about the moral issues believers care about. Thus, while Colson's argument sounds good, I think it is wrong, at least in this place and time. And since Colson dismisses the "perfectionist attitude" of Mark Noll not voting, clearly he is allowing for some sort of pragmatism; and if it is pragmatism he wants, he is looking in the wrong place.

The only way we can avoid Wallis and his like (and me, I guess!) is to take the route that, ironically, Colson dismisses. If Wallis is wrong, I think then Mark Noll must be right: we shouldn't vote. But if we are to allow pragmatism, I think we should not waste all of our political capital on an issue that right now cannot be changed, but rather we should try to change the political environment to one where we can change something for the better. And that may mean sometimes supporting individuals (who are hopefully more mis-guided than exploitive) who think that abortion is alright, just like Colson's approach would sometimes require supporting individuals who support pre-emptive wars (and many of whom may not be so much mis-guided but rather more manipulative).

Ultimately, I don't care if Wallis himself is right or not. But I do know that we can no longer support certain blood sucking elements of conservative poltics. And that position I do care about. So I hope we can persuade people like Colson to join in the revolution, or at least stay out of the way.

[I just read an okay post that while I do not entirely agree with, reminded me of a couple points I forgot to make. One, it is (probably) not right to claim to have a Biblical position on some of these things, since the Bible does not address some of these issues. Note that I even lapsed into this language above. I am not sure it is always wrong, but the author is right, I should be more careful. Two, part of the issue here is also how we relate to society as a whole. By arguing over (or trying to impose our position on) moral issues with groups who do not share our beliefs can be dangerous and harmful. Homsexuality is a classic example. God commanded us not to be homosexuals; for those who do not believe, they have a greater sin to worry about: unbelief. (This is, I would suggest different than imposing our standards on, say, murder, though I am sure some would argue.) When we go to war with them over their homosexuality, and expend more capital on that than their lack of belief (well, for non-Christian gays anyway, but then that is a whole other discussion), I think we are out of line, spiritually speaking.]

By the way, I came across tonight the transcript of Larry Summers' speech that caused so much controversy.

I don't have a whole lot to say about it. It isn't as scary as I thought it might be (naturally - these things rarely are), though I am inclined to think Sumemrs doesn't get it. That, or he just wants to be obnoxious, which may be more like it. Some of it is probably right, some of it is probably wrong (what was that stuff about women not being 50% of the top of science and engineering yet?). Some of it is mildly offensive; some of it is reasonable. Frankly, I don't care for the most part. Given enough time, I may investigate more carefully some of Summers claims (so I can refute them, of course), but don't count on it. What did interesting me about the speech, however, was one point Summers got right.

Summers points to as a problem, and he even goes so far as to hint that it may be a legitimate problem that needs fixed, what he refers to as the "eighty hour workweek." He suggests that the presence of this phenomenon may be part of the reason women are less likely to participate in some of these fields (which would by the way have to be true of other academic fields as well, so it certainly would not address the science and engineering-specific problem). Some have suggested in the past that demanding work requirements disincline women to take such jobs because it affects their ability to have a family. I would add that the perception, right or wrong, is that women are not generally stupid enough to kill themselves for a career (that fails to explain motherhood, though...), and that could always play a factor as well, if true. (The characterization of women as more "balanced" than men is definitely a "positive stereotype" and in so far as it is a sterotype I find it a liitle too convenient an explanation, but in so far as it is positive, I can take it. What the sociological research says on this topic, I don't know, though I imagine I will eventually get non-lazy enough to find out, unless I stumble across it first.

The point is, as Summers hints at, and as Emily Yellin pointed out last week in an essay in Time (February 28, 2005 issue, p.76) I found out later, is that this sort of envrionment is not just problematic for women, but for the men who submit to it as well. In short, it would be wise to consider alternatives. Yellins quotes Joan Williams of the Program on WorkLife Law at American University as saying, "Defining your 'ideal worker' as someone who works 60 hours a week is not good business. You are choosing whom to keep based on the schedule they can keep, not based on the quality of their work."

As I said, I thought this aspect of the speech was interesting, and at least Summers had the good sense to address it, even if he did not have the good sense to skip the "daddy truck," "baby truck" anecdote.

Any and all feminists are still free to roast Summers though, I think. I don't think I wil object. Even if you couldn't get Summers on substance, one must wonder about intent. When someone says they want to be provacative, you have to wonder why.

On the 25th, the Brookings Institution held a panel on the current situation in Darfur, Sudan. Among others, it featured a Sudan researcher from Human Rights Watch, John Prendergast of the International Crisis Group, and U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues Pierre-Richard Prosper. Scary and interesting. The one caveat is that most of the time was spent on the International Criminal Court's potential role in this (the US official position appears to be that prosecution should be handled more locally than that), which, while important, is probably not the most informative thing, nor something most of us can really do anything about.)

I was surprised to hear how bad the situation still is. This is one of those things that I know I should pay more attention to, and for some reason never quite do it. Admittedly, I feel at this point like there is not much the foreign policy laity can do in the United States right now. There are certain countries on this planet who need to step up on this one. We here also need to consider more carefully what we can do too, though - and I address that to myself first.

I saw it on C-SPAN tonight. Brookings has a transcript (PDF) available (or C-SPAN will have video up on its web site for a while, if you would rather watch it than read it).

(I have to admit, one of the things that caught my attention about this was Prosper's slightly off-track rant on the International Criminal Court. The ideological purity of my government scares me sometimes. It's sort of sad that I let that distract me, though at the same time, I have to admit that I see this sort of skewed priorities to be somewhat dangerous, besides being irritating, immature, and silly - and most of all inappropriate in this case, most likely, though I admit I am not intimately familiar with the Sudan situation, but I note that most of the panelists who do know something about it took that position as well.)