Distributed Mind

AKMA has a post on pacifism. He is thinking along the lines I have been, but, of course he has been thinking about it much longer than I have, so that is to be expected. Ahem. Anyway, excerpts:

... how odd it is that “pacifism” has become identified as “opposition to war,” when it is much more a matter of living in a particular, nonviolent way. ...

... trying to live a life characterized by aiming at harmony and cooperation in a culture overwhelmingly defined by competition, rivalry, and conflict. ...

Pacifism is more than not serving in the army: it’s living as an emissary of peace in exile in a land of contentiousness. When you begin with treating your spouse and children, your neighbors and students in a way governed by the blessing of peace, of course war is unthinkable — but there’s so much more to be done before the question of war even comes up.

Thanks to an aforementioned blog, here are John Piper's thoughts on voting pro-life as a single issue. Feedback?

A comment on Jordon Cooper's blog points to texts related to the argument over Glenn Stassen's article in Sojourners. Most notable is the NRLC's response to the article, which argues against Stassen's numbers as well as the more obvious weakness of the degree of causality (which will always be a problem in this kind of argument). (I think the NRLC response is a little smug about the affordability of children - I think the fairly consistent conclusion is children are expensive, and if NRLC researchers think otherwise, they need to do better than say people learn to deal with it.) Stassen in turn wrote a response for a blog. The response certainly handles any ad hominem attacks the NRLC associated authors proffered. It does not, unfortunately, resolve the issue of the quality of the data. Without personally checking all 16 states numbers (and even then - I am not at all an expert on this kind of data), I have no way of knowing. I am not at all pleased though that we are having to base this on 16 states, from which several the numbers are debatable. And certainly causality is still left in the cold (as it always is; my kingdom for a few good mathematicians). And it turns out that Stassen's claim that the document he signed did not support Roe vs. Wade was inaccurate, as is shown in the followup, and to which Stassen later admits having forgotten in yet one more post. Finally, the NRLC authors post their own response to Srassen's response in which they continue to argue (well) against his data, and where they claim to not have made any personal arguments (I sort of felt they did, but I may have jumped to conclusions; read their original response and decide for yourself). Very messy. (And this is definitely an argument between true-believers - and I don't mean that in the religious sense. Check out O'Bannon and Hussey's take on Bush's impact on the economy; Stassen's poltical bias was pretty clear early on. All parties are clearly thinking with their voter registration card.)

This issue will likely never be resolved. Better data would be very, very useful. But, arguments over causes could stretch long beyond the heat death of the universe if it were physically possible. However, even the NRLC authors had to concede economics plays an important factor, so in large part that argument is silly. We can make it easier to "choose life" if the economic impact is reduced.

The problem is, no one can agree on how best to reduce that burden. Liberal policies (i.e. direct governmental financial intervention) are definitely more beneficial in the short term, whether they are sustainable and lack significant negastive side effects is a different argument. It seems unfair to say that a person who thinks that strict free market economics is most beneficial or a person who thinks that strict socialism is most beneficial are somehow immoral in their choice. Both have their strengths and weaknesses, and their proponents and opponents. Examples of failure and success can be found for both positions. (Note that I am assuming one is arguing for free market economics because it is the best for the people of the nation - not because it allows one to make the most money; I am very concerned about ethical aspects of capitalism, but that is another story. Perhaps my assumption the two could be moral equivalents is mistaken; but then, those on the other side have argued the same thing about socialism for decades.) Although economics contains within it implications for the good of society, no where did God command us to believe in one economic theory (the book of Acts aside...). We give ourselves too much credit if we think that our economic beliefs rate with our moral beliefs. One requires pragmatism, the other requires absolutism. Wisdom, perhaps, is knowing how the two relate. We need to encourage wisdom and be tolerant of those who lack it (while encourgaing them to develop it), but a lack of wisdom is not automatically sin (while pride is).

Meanwhile, let's not give liberals who we think will improve the economic plight of pregnant women and reduce the abortion rate indirectly a free pass. We should hold them accountable for the sometimes outrageous claims about abortion that they make. If we choose them, we should express to them that we do not agree with their opinions on abortion. And let us not forget that if we choose them because we think they will make abortion less likely that we still had to accept a compromise; they are still on the other side in terms of belief - which is a very dangerous place to be as belief is a much stronger motivator than economic theory. Furthermore, we need to encourage better choices by politicians from all ideologies. Most importantly, let us not forget that much more than a legal issue, this is a moral issue. Our best bet is to encourage mothers and fathers to do the right thing, and to show them mercy in their time of need. If we could pull that off perfectly, it wouldn't matter how politicians felt about it.

(Don't take this post as a definitive statement on anything. I am just thinking out loud for the most part.)

John Taylor Gatto used to be a public school teacher. He even won Teacher of the Year for New York City three times, and New York state once. But, then he rebelled. He has some very interesting things to say about educational practice in this country. He has written several books, parts of which you can read on his web page. I haven't read his books, and I am not sure I agree with everything he says (if only because I haven't heard the whole argument), but I think he may be on the right track, and he has some very interesting things to say.

To: All Americans
From: Ben Martin
Date: 10/30/2004
Subject: Rumors regarding terrorism

I understand that some of you have been repeating rumors that terrorism is the most important issue facing our nation today. While I can see where this mistaken impression might arise, the data does not support that conclusion. For example, in 2001 roughly six times as many people died in homicides as were killed in terrorist attacks, and several orders of magnitude more people died from disease. The leading cause of death was heart disease (which is in my understanding largely believed to be preventable), resulting in over 700,000 fatalities. (More information can be found at the following address: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/03facts/mortalitytrends.htm.)

I think we can safely conclude that there are many important issues facing our nation. Terrorism may be one but it is certainly not the most important. If I catch any of you repeating the unfounded claim that it is, I will correct you.

I was discussing with my roommate this morning Prohibition. Prohibition is an interesting time in American politics for several reasons: (1) something completely implausible became law, and (2) it was widely ignored, before (3) it was overturned forcefully. I want us to consider for a moment the ramifications of that, specifically in how it relates to the issues in modern American politics identified as moral issues, and especially abortion, the one I care about.

The problem with abortion as an issue is that the majority of Americans support unrestricted abortion, and a much larger majority supports abortion in circumstances that make no sense from a quasi-Kantian/Chrisitan ethical standpoint. This is significant because it suggests the possibility that (1) we will not be able to pass laws in opposition to abortion, and (2) even if we could it might not be observed.

All of this is even more interesting in light of the talk I saw this morning on C-SPAN2 by Morris Fiorina about his book Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America. He pointed out with several studies and statistics indicating that the average person in the United States is both moderate on the issue of abortion (i.e. falling in the camp that I said had no ethical justification for their position under traditional ethics) and that they cared very little for them (he cited a poll of issues voters thought was important in this election, and abortion was not even top 10; I have seen similar polls in the past).

The point is we have a problem. I think abortion is an important issue, and we need to convinve people that it is an important issues. That is leadership. However, we do need to consider what can be accomplished, and at what cost. Many people in the pro-life camp have debated this issue over the years, and I don't think it will go away soon. As I see it, the argument for occasionally allowing compromise are basically that (1) stopping some abortions is better than stopping none, and (2) to not allow compromise may be to completely cede any political influence for our side, and - the new one - (3) premature legal changes may be largely ignored and counterproductive (true you can always try to improve enforcement; I am more worried about losing 10 years down the road as the prohibitionists did). The arguments against compromise are (1) we risk plateauing legally where we accomplish some things but fail to accomplish them all. (Some will argue that any compromise is immoral; I agree abortion is wrong, I just disagree that we should never tolerate partial legislation on the issue.)

All of these challenges disappear if we can win people's hearts and minds first, but I think we need to be prepared for the possibility we can't. We need to ask ourselves what we can accomplish when, and then push for slightly more, but not too much more. Change does happen overnight, but not always. Prohibition was an unfortunate example of the latter. Today, the problem of alcohol (and it was and is a problem - look at the numbers!) is no more solved than it was in 1919. I don't want to see abortion become the next Prohibition. What will it take to avoid this? Again, an alternative to rasining this question is to begin by asking, how do we convince people outside of the political arena that we are right? By making this exclusively a legal issue, the pro-life side has largely ceded the issue, since people don't seem to largely want more laws.

It would seem among voters there are enough to accomplish change, but that takes us back to the comparison to Prohibition - most Americans are still opposed to abortion reform at the level the pro-life movement would like to see it occur. And, it won't necessarily motivate people who traditionally don't vote. This is a significant challenge for those opposed to abortion and for any party willing to take on the issue. Some serious thought, and continuous dialogue, needs to be going on on this topic.

[Update: I fixed the mistaken claim that a majority of Americans oppose abortion reform. It is apparently less than half, but the majority has not expressed support of many of the reasons pro-life activists would like abortion to be illegal. See for example an ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll. The exact implication of the complex results is open to debate and discussion.]

"Sojourners" has a new confession signed by many religious leaders regarding the relationship between Christians and nations and war:

Confessing Christ in a World of Violence

Since my last post did indeed involve a Nazi, in the interest of informed discourse, I should bring up Godwin's Law, which I have so conveniently ignored for so long, though I should have known it: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

[Though, of course, I would like to claim that my last post did not not involve a gratuitous reference to the National Socialists, for (1) I did not compare anyone or even anything to the Nazis or Hitler, and (2) I was discussing wars, which I dare say the Nazis should know more about than most people.]

This is apparently my day for discovering things everyone else already knew! I feel my originality slipping even more.

We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." [Emphasis mine]

The preceding quote is from Nuremberg Diary. I found the quote floating around, and so I checked Snopes for authenticity. The whole quote is even better than the excerpted one circulating. I wish I could get people to realize what Goering said at the end there. And, no, I don't think Bush was aiming for the same ends or same scale Hitler was; but what is the same is the manipulation of the public will. (Do I think Goering is right? Perhaps he exaggerates, but surely he was onto something.)

[I like the part about Congress declaring wars, too. Too bad we don't even have that protection anymore.]

[Oh, and this proves I have no originality; my apologies.]

(Image credit: NASA/JPL/Space Science Institute. Image courtesy of NASA/JPL-Caltech.)
Titan in false color; blue is ultraviolet, red and green are infrared.

(Image credit: NASA/JPL/University of Arizona. Image courtesy of NASA/JPL-Caltech.)
Titan in false color again. This time, all three colors are different infrared wavelengths.

Finally, this is what Titan's surface looks like in radio:

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

Brownard county, arguably the most Democratic-leaning county in Florida, has 50,000 absentee ballots lost:

Florida ballot papers go missing

An amazing new find of a species of human that is one meter high yet walks upright! Contrary to Tolkien's belief, hobbit are not direct descendents of homo sapiens sapiens. :)

'Hobbit' joins human family tree

(Image credit: NASA/JPL/Space Science Institute. Image courtesy of NASA/JPL-Caltech.)
Image of Titan at 938 nm (near infrared), imaged by Cassini on October 24th. The spectrum Nasa is using penetrates the clouds of Titan well (in visible light Titan looks like one giant cloud). Nasa has a write up for this image.

Nasa is planning more imaging for today.

I want a Panasonic Toughbook. Note the 6.5 hour battery life. (By the way, surely a Powerbook is the next best thing to a specially outfitted laptop. But it definitely won't operate in the rain.)

Oh, and the proposition for vote pairing is intersting. I don't think Justin will bite though, even if he did buy it, which I don't necessarily myself. (It scares me frankly. Though, procedural loopholes may be what it takes to win for smaller parties in a world where it is in part procedure that keeps them down.)

How about this?

• If you live in a state where the election is not close, you vote for whomever you feel like (Kerry's chace of winning Indiana is non-existent). Generally, I don't like the idea of voting by polls, but it ain't any worse than voting for Kerry just because he is the one that has the chance.
• Either way, forget the presidential election. Who wins will win, and at this point people in Illionois and Indiana have no say about it. What we need to do is concentrate on the races that do matter, all the way down to local, as long as we know what we are doing (you really should know something about a candidate before you vote for them; and I don't mean their position statement issued to your favorite vote-promoting civic group - those don't tell the kind of things you need to know).

I think that about says it. I do regret having wasted so much time arguing about the presidential election when clearly I had no choice in the matter (every vote does not count; the curse of living in Indiana). And, yes, I do occasionally make outlandish statements (though I think my last post was fairly lucid, but whatever).

Rather than respond to the notion that Kerry isn't much different than Bush, I post this article by Molly Ivins:

"It's the little things, folks"

Did I say no more political posts? Oops.

A lot of people have criticized Nader for supposedly throwing the election to Bush. Well, allow me to explore that (yet again) for a moment.

The War: It is interesting that the only two minor major candidates in the election who are decisively opposed to the war in Iraq or any future actions are Nader and Badnarik. If liberals and libertarians in this country had actually stuck to their guns in this election, we would probably be looking at Nader and Badnarik with as much of a share of the vote as Kerry and Bush. After all, the majority of the country thinks the war was a mistake, while both presidential candidates don't! (I admit it is not clear that Nader has a good clean up strategy - a reason why one opposed to the war might still want to vote for Kerry, but at least give voters the choice!) Nader didn't abandon the left, the left abandoned Nader, to their shame.

Everything else: It is true that Kerry is very different than Bush on some issues, but he is also the same on many issues. Different: the environment. Same: free trade. Different: deficit spending. Same: education (Kerry voted for NCLB, in case you had forgotten). Different: Stem cell research. Same: death penalty [update: oops, I blew that one; Kerry thinks the death penalty should be mich more limited; forgot about that]. The point is that on many issues liberals care a lot about, Kerry isn't different than Bush. No doubt he is closer to their position on "many" issues but he is also quite "conservative" on "many" issues (okay, I really didn't spend a long time looking at it - but I think this would warrant some reasoned discussion and investigation, which no one has been willing to do during all of the ideological and personal wars being conducted). I would suggest they check the issues they care about before deciding.

The scam: It is clearly in the interests of the non-ideological Democrats to get as much power as they can, and voting for not-Bush (which oddly enough seems to mean only Kerry) is a good way to get another shot at it. But the issues that are being argued will continue to be in dispute until the end of time! Bush may be pretty bad from a liberal perspective, but I would argue he is most definitely not the completely new phenomenon being claimed. "Pro-business" types are always going to support basically the same issues. The only issue different in this election is the use of military power, and Kerry has made it quite clear he doesn't view the situation that much differenty than Bush (okay, I am probably lying; Kerry says that, but he may be saying it for political reasons; you can evaluate for yourself whether he would really be willing to go head to head with the likes of Syria or Iran). Meanwhile, the vast majority of voters have no real choice in this election. Enviro-anarcho-socio liberals will lose, unless they vote for Nader. Religious conservatives of the likes of conservative Catholics lose no matter whom they vote for. Libertarians lose no matter whom they vote for unless they vote for Badnarik. Of course, we all lose anyway, because the fix is in (through our own fault) and Kerry or Bush will win arguing for positions no one believes in using tactics no one agrees with, but after all, they had a chance. Don't throw away your vote. Too bad that is exactly what you are doing. We will only have a choice if we start voting for what we care about. Right now arguably the most crucial issue for getting change is election reform, and neither Kerry nor Bush supports the kind of reform we need. And neither do any representatives or senators from the big two.

Now, having said all of this... There are rational reasons to still believe we should not vote for Nader - just not reasons anyone is using. The most crucial is the idea of rule by concensus. One can postulate that in an election one should vote for a candidate who best bring together the nation rather than that would best represent all of one's own individual beliefs. In that case Kerry may make some sense. Er, ok, that is pretty much the only reason I can think of to vote for Kerry if one is a liberal. Oh, wait, I remembered. Nader is crazy? It is not at all clear Nader really has a good grasp of how to construct useful policy overall or how to lead others to implement it. Also, the issues liberals agree with him on may not always be as close as we think. (I know as a pro-life liberal, Nader appalls me frequently.) So, it is not entirely irrational to oppose Nader, but if we arrive at that position through fear, it is (fear is after all, by definition irrational).

Ultimately, none of this matters. Clearly, Nader has no chance short of Kerry and Bush being replaced by aliens. Even then... But, how did we get here? People sold out Nader before the Democratic primaries were even over. I would argue that someone from the Democrats floated the idea that voting for anyone but the Democratic nominee would be irresponsible, but no one really needed even to say it. Everyone wants to be on the winning side, and no one wants to go the distance (I know I don't!). Second, ultimately these battles need to be fought in Congress. We can't make any real change at the presidential level, I suspect, until Congress changes first. Furthermore, at least there is a chance of running independent, third party, and otherwise unconvential candidates in Congress. That is the real battelfield, and this joke of a presidential election has been a perfect if unintentional smokescreen for business as usual there. There is some, though little, hope of change in this election, though it is certainly possible. But even if nothing happens 2006 is coming very soon. We need to stop the defeatist rhetoric and work for real, non-self-sabotaging change. Let's stop letting the Democrats and the Republicans set the agenda in their foolish, short-sighted, greedy, selfish powerplays and let's get some real statesmen in the government. Don't let them lie to you. Don't do it. You know better.

David Horowitz is on C-SPAN right now. He sounds so crazy to me. He says so many ridiculous things. In short: he is completely off base. I have to wonder if he knows something I don't. But, I really strongly suspect he doesn't. (Good evidence he doesn't is that he says the world changed on September 11, 2001. Oh? Based on what? And don't tell me it is self-evident, because it isn't. I have already made the argument against this position before.) On the other hand, there is so much bogus stuff coming from the other side. Our country is crazy. The world is crazy. I hate pundits. I am a pundit. I hate me.

My new party is so winning in 2008. If I can convince myself that founding a long shot political party is worth it, or that I know enough to pull it off in a useful way, rather than descending into some sort of fanaticism like all the other crazy parties fighting for contention right now. And, of course, I need a name.

[Update: fixed missing end of parenthetical remark. Man, was I out of it when I wrote this.]

It occurs to me, based on my own pattern of behavior, that when people have a forum for writing they tend to opine rather than consider. Something I am thinking about right now is the difference between sophistry and Socraticism. I am suggesting we do a lot more sophistry than Socratic discussion.

The problem is blogs give all of us such a forum very easily, but their immediate nature prompts us to state opinions with even less considertion than traditional outlets. I admit that blogs can be much less unideirectional, but I know most of us do not use that fact to full effect. One question I have about this is whether the opining is really just a cover for deep thought, or if people really do hold opinions as solidly as they make them sound. I know in verbal communication both have been true for me in the past, but most of the time I was really just trying to figure things out, no matter how strongly I stated the case (I argued radical capitalism right up until the moment I declared myself a socialist - only to find everyone else had downgraded to the modern liberal capitalist view, blech - but that's another story). So, maybe we are still thinking even if we don't sound like it. Which raises another question, do other people know that? (Or, alternatively, I could ask, am I the only one who works that way? Maybe most people like to be "right" no matter what.)

I was thinking about how I should update my home page. The thing is right now, this blog is doing most of what would usually end up on my home page - in a different format, but in a nearly identical role and similar if not identical content despite the format difference. Here content is provided in smaller kernels that must be combined in a natural, not synthetic way, where as on a home page most of my content would be combined in an organized, hierarchical way. Sometimes that is appropriate, but usually it can be done either way. I can put fractals here or on my home page. One way collects, this way allow you to see what I am thinking as I do it. This suggests a somewhat complementary role, in fact. But right now I don't have enough to make a really complete home page; just small pieces showing up here. (Obviously, a blog could be part of a home page, but that is not the way right now I am doing it.)

Where I am really going with this is that I am finding I favor the blog model for the moment because it is a currently favored model of interaction and content distribution on the Internet. If less people understood the model, or used the model less, I would probably be more traditional. Personally, I do favor the more traditional model. Obviously, chronological content is not going away, and I won't stop producing it mysefl either, but I think more polished, more static content will come back into vogue, and when it does, I will go back that way. I actually would now (not go back to entirely, but use the two complementarily), but I don't really have the time to commit to do it properly. I think though we should not pretend blogging in its current state is a permanent institution. There will always be blogs, just as there always have been in different forms (newspapers, magazines, and journals are really just much slower forms of blogs - complete with comments and sometimes even trackbacks!), but I think they will in a few years cease to be such a direct, immediate, and comprehensive method of communication.

(This is not so much a case of following fads, I would argue, but rather choosing the medium of the moment; I think there is a time for that, especially if at the moment the message fits that medium well.)

I think I lose. The question is do I have the nerve to try something new? Do I have the nerve to walk away from a two year (well 19 month) delusion cleanly? Or will I continue to fool myself. Maybe I will wait; maybe I will wait forever. "Just wait longer, Ben! You just have to wait, it will turn out the way you thought!" Riiight. But it is so tempting to live in the delusion. From the first moment I knew it could be a delusion, but I still couldn't walk away entirely. And, still there is enough doubt that it really is just my imagination... So hard to walk away.

Still, I would like some resolution. I want to be told, "No." I want to know I deluded myself. I don't want to wonder forever. And yet, that too is terrible. And frightening. And it will probably cost me more than just walking away. I don't know what to do. I should just have the conversation, come what may. It seems only fair to everyone involved, but maybe really only to me. I just... Sometimes I just want to give up, but I just won't. I wish I really could. Or rather, would.

Shoot, time to get an account on livejournal...

I was reminded today about this, and, for the sake of completeness, I thought I should report this. Slashdot had a post about the instabilities of browsers given badly formed HTML. Basically, most browsers tested had problems, but Internet Explorer didn't crash on the test. For the record, I think Michal Zalewski may be overstating the case regarding the quality of the "core code" as he calls it. And my bet would be on bugs getting fixed faster in the "alternative browsers" (especially Mozilla - though, as they only release milestone builds so often, it's true most people would not get the fix right away). This is not per se a security problem, either, so in terms of exploitability this doesn't say too much against the other browsers. But it does point to the fact that there probably needs to be better and more methodological testing.

[Actually, I take some of that back. Some of this may be exploitable. I need to avoid commenting about things I read a couple days ago... Not to mention on topics I am not expert it...]

[And an update in which IE does finally crash. So... They all crash on bad HTML. Kind of sad, but typical. Well, at least it's universal. You may now choose the lesser of x evils.]

[Yet another update: It occurred to me that with Windows update, IE can get patched faster. In my experience the code doesn't get fixed as fast though, but it will probably get released sooner to the average user.]

[Yet one final update, I hope: One of the Mozilla developers had a blog entry about this. He has a good, no great point regarding the overyly-enthusiastic, under-informed opinions some of us users have occasionally been known to indulge in. (In substance, by the way, IE is "less secure" as far as we know at the moment, at least as far as I understand the situation, but that could change at any time.) He also displays some frustration, in my interpretaiton regarding the security issue. Hopefully this will lead to some changes.]

• Beethoven Symphony 7 performed by the Boston Symphony Orchestra and conducted by Leonard Bernstein, in his last concert appearance, on Leonard Bernstein: The Final Concert (Deutsche Grammophon 431 768-2)
• Dvorak Symphony 8, Czech Philharmonic conducted by Vaclav Neumann, on an old (1983!) Supraphon recording (38c37-7073) (not the best but not too bad either)

Soon up is Klemperer conducting Beethoven's 3rd and James Levine conducting the CSO in Dvorak's 7th.

See, when my attention span is longer than 30 seconds, I too can occasionally appreciate good music. Actually the best. If you are going to have to work for it, might as well listen to Dvorak and Beethoven.

You know, to be honest, I am lonely. Part of this problem is that I don't get to spend time with people I want to spend time with. What is sad about this is there are so many people out there who can't get around to spend time with the people they want to - or anyone for that matter, and some people can but don't necessarily feel other people want to spend time with them (okay, I may fall in that category too, but I will make that fact irrelevant with where I am going here). I have noticed that as I sunk farther into self-pity for the fact that no one was really going out of their way to spend time with me, and turning down invitations from me, that I was spending less time with my less popular acquaintances, spending less time at the assisted living facility I volunteer at, and spending less time thinking about the down and out and interacting with them. If everyone acted the way I did, we would be a mess. (In short my universal maxim was not universalizable, or however that goes.) Now, it isn't easy to get out and show love when you feel rejected, but it won't work not to either. And maybe it is only through loving others that we can really receive love in any comprehending way. The kind of "love" we selfishly desire is never never satiated.

Now, I know I need the support of others. And often we need it even when we don't know it. I suspect I have been saved many more times from doing something I would regret by remembering the random comments of my friends or just thinking about how they would act than I have been by asking for advice or being given it by someone who sensed a need. So, there is a balance: I need to seek interactions with people I can help as well as those who can help me. But the balance may not be in favor of the people I like most, and it may not even be 50/50. God loves everyone, the drunken bum and the lonely senior citizen as much as the nice, pretty girl from church. Of course, for a young, single male that is not always an easy notion to grasp. But, it is the sort of shift in thinking that must take place. Jesus told us to love our enemies as well as our friends, and he said "For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Don't even the tax collectors do the same?" (Matthew 5:46, WEB). And I am not even talking about enemies, these are people who do love you back! It's so hard not to be selfish on this issue, I think. And there are ways to mitigate it (umm... go with a friend to the nursing home?), but ultimately, it is something has to be let go, with all of the other things we hold onto in life. [Hmm, now I may never be able to date. But seriously, isn't that a tension as well? Paul had a solution I don't believe I am called to, but the fact that he says "your interests are divided" when married indicates that the tension is indeed real.]

[It occurs to me this is somewhat reactionary, so take it with a grain of salt. But it seems like a good issue to raise.]

Okay, I know (well, anyway, have been led to believe, but I do believe) FOX News is not very accurate, but most of the "grown ups" (i.e. non-students) I hang around seem to love it. I would like to be able to collect and present enough damning evidence to end the myth that Fox is "fair and balanced" in a way that will convince my conservative friends. So, I am thinking about that and looking for information. Unfortunately, in the past, I did not take note when I found reports of some of Fox's exploits.

I tried to convince some people tonight that they shouldn't watch Fox and that they shouldn't watch TV news, but to no avail. I don't think people get it with TV news. Do not watch it! Oh, well. No one is listening. Interestingly, something one of these persons said about Fox being balanced was that they would try to get statements from both sides. This, of course, is everything wrong with news; do not listen to the talking heads. Talking heads are not news. You will never get real news out of them. Politics is so hacked because of talking heads. We spend years and months debating things without ever actually getting to the real heart of the issue. This is also part of the reason this country is so schizophrenic politically. You must form your own opinions using facts or at least with the help of people you can trust (why do that? we can't be equally informed on all issues; sometimes we need help from people who know what is going on in an area outside our own expertise - and by expertise I mean whatever you choose to research). Democratic and Republican operatives are not people you can trust. They will lie. They will not give you information.

So, anyway, I need the dirt on Fox. I do remember the study showing Fox viewers were more likely to have faulty knowledge about the war, but that did not prove causality. One challenge too is that just proving Fox is bad doesn't prove the other networks aren't worse, thanks alot, CBS (of course, if they would just take my advice and not watch television news...). Although, maybe that incident does show a consistent bias elsewhere - I am skeptical though, based on what else I have seen; I see the conservative bias in the supposedly liberal media unlike most conservatives (and by bias I don't just mean how they feel about it, I mean that it has a substantial impact on stories: either what gets reported or left alone or the accuracy of the story). I trust that I am not claiming this because I am simply so far left that everything else looks biased to the right; I think I am just informed enough I can see through the idiocy that gets passed off as news. Perhaps I am ultimately just deluding myself; I can't prove otherwise. I believe otherwise though, for now, and I think there is a reasoned argument that that is the case too.

Off to look for some facts to support my argument (and maybe challenge it! if I am not feeling intellectually lazy).

[Just to clarify, I am not trying necessarily to prove Fox is biased, but more so that they are inaccurate; that would be much more useful, and it is not as relative to other news sources.]

Okay, I have to admit it. Jon Stewart is now officially my hero too, following his incredible appearance on Crossfire. On the one hand, I think it was a cheap shot, but on the other hand... it was great. He said exactly what needed to be said. Now, if only people start listening...

[Update: the transcript is available. Read it, if you haven't seen it (seeing is better - half of the interest hear lies in Stewart's presentation and the reaction, but, what are you gonna do).]

This is ridiculous. I can't believe there is a thunderstorm right now. Two hours ago, there were a few clouds, and the rest of the sky was beautifully clear. Now there is heavy rain and some fairly severe thunder and lightning. I feel like double checking the calendar... Don't get these very often this time of year.

(Justin was supposed to blog this, but, he has a life.) There is an article at Sojourners arguing that many of Bush's policies have increased the abortion rate during his tenure, from an all time low before he took office. No commentary at this time from me. Just read it and think about it.

I am not rabidly pro-gun control, though if we got rid of all of them I would not feel any less safe, nor would I be drastically disappointed. But, as awbansunset.com's page arguing against the assault weapon ban shows, gun control opponents don't always get it. Now, don't get me wrong, if I was in to firearms, I am certain I would be interested in owning an assault weapon. I am that kind of guy. But, at the same time, I can understand why there would be opposition to allowing them. (And, for the record, the assault weapon law was lousy legislation - for one thing it probably didn't ban enough weapons, but that doesn't mean the idea was bad). Ironically, this argument for these kinds of weapons also makes a great argument against them. I especially like their argument involving competition target shooting. Contests requiring accurate, rapid shots, and lots of ammunition. Which makes it perfect for firing at lots of tagets in a short period of time, which probably explains why such rifles seem to be the weapon of choice for the psychotic killer types (a lot of legal pistols work just as well, it is true). Not that such attacks happen often, but it seems understandable why there might be some opposition to the weapons that show up in them. In the tradeoff between personal liberty and public safety this really wasn't as close a call as I think the gun control opponents would lead us to believe. No, from a libertarian perspective, that doesn't make sense. But, then, the vast majority of people in the United States don't buy strict libertarianism. So, for the rest of us, banning "assault weapons" will probably make sense. Even if it doesn't have a big impact, it may not make much sense to argue against it.

[I have to be careful though. I remember Germany was considering a ban on tropical fishkeeping a few years ago. I wasn't too happy about that. I could see some reasons you might want to do it, but it didn't seem like a good idea (it also supposedly would have resulted in the death of countless currently owned fishes). But then, I was a fish keeper - a special interest. But, because of that, I could see why one might want to own them. We do need to be careful not to legislate ourselves into an empty universe. We don't really want a government that controls everything. But, in the case of firearms... Let it go. Hey, there is always archery. (I am of course being somewhat unfair - there is always the self-defense argument, which I can't really successfully counter.)]

CNN has an article on polling and mobile phones saying again what I've mentioned before. They did claim it was illegal to randomly dial mobile phones, which was a new fact, If I recall correctly. They had their pollster quotes saying they didn't think it would make any difference for this election, though I imagine many people reading the article who don't know much about statistics will be skeptical. I too believe the impact is very small, but I would like to see numbers on that. I know it will be small, but I think the reports that it will not have much impact would be better received if there was something we could point too. Oh, well. I suppose I could try to figure it out myself too, but I would probably get it wrong anyway, so, I think I will skip that exercise in masochism. One of these days I would like to read a news article that actually has a number... There is after all a non-negligible percentage of the population that would have some idea what it meant. Oh, well.

• Replace every instance of a file on the system: find / -name filename | xargs -l1 -p cp filename (take out the -p to get xargs to not ask first)
• Count the number of lines of c code in the current directory: cat *.c | wc -l

These should be relatively easy to modify to your own purposes. Confused? Remember, man is your friend (e.g. try man wc). Note however that the man page on xargs is fairly incomplete on most systems I have checked on. That's ok though, because Google is your friend too.

No, seriously. I just found out my favorite electronic "group" is on the iTunes Music Store. Specifically I mean Trancenden/Tal Klein. His last album Peace Love Beats is on there, and there is a new single on there (listed under Tal M. Klein, not Trancenden), "Chu Chin Chow." And he says the new album, Alpha-Beats is due out November 8! You have no idea how happy I am....

[And I found out that the name Trancenden is dead, according to Tal's livejournal. One of those many sort of dead blogs, but hey, it has some useful information on it...]

An Israeli newspaper reports on the CIA's use of Jordan to conduct illegal (by U.S. standards) interrogations of terror suspects: Report: CIA Holds Top Al Qaeda Suspects in Jordan

"Madness! Madness!"

[In honor of a certain political event...]

verbosity

1. [noun] (computer science) the result of using an object oriented paradigm

BBC has an article summarizing the Italian press' take on the EU's nominal rejection of one official nominated from Italy. The reason is in part his moral conservartism. They also have another article. It would seem he has some odd views on other things as well, such as immigration. I thought it was interesting to see Europeans arguing over the same things we do here.

(I am trying to do a better job of covering news here, since someone asked me this week about how I get my news. So now you can "all" - all 1 - experience the news as I read it! Try not to be too excited.)

Some of my friends and I were discussing tonight our ability to give up things we want from God. If I remember correctly what we said about it, we said that it was hard to truly give things up for God, and that sometimes we give half-heartedly with an expectation of return. I doubt I did our discussion justice, but I think my following example will make some sense.

Through a convoluted thought process I will not detail here, that made me think of Abraham and Isaac. I have often looked to the example of Abraham and trusting for something that God had promised. I usually think of God promising Abraham the land of Palestine though, because I usually think of Abraham having to leave his home and wander to get the promise. But, that was only part of the promise. God also promised Abraham that he would be a great nation - which meant offspring. When Abraham and Sarah got impatient, there was a disaster: the family argument over Hagar, and later, Ishmael. But God said that the promise would not be fulfilled through Ishmael, but Isaac. Of course, Isaac was born, and happy ending for all concerned, except maybe Hagar and Ishmael. Except...

There is this very disturbing incident where God tell Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. Abraham, pulling from some strength I can't even imagine, decides to obey God. Absolutely incredible! The situation truly is incomprehesible to me, at the visceral level. I cannot imagine. But, I realized tonight, not only was God asking Abraham to sacrifice the sone he love very much, he was also reneging on his promise. He had already told Abraham the promise would come through Isaac, and now he has told Abraham to kill Isaac - to kill the promise! Now, that should cue us in that Abraham expected that things would not go down as badly as we might otherwise think. The author of Hebrews puts it this way:

By faith, Abraham, being tested, offered up Isaac. Yes, he who had gladly received the promises was offering up his one and only son; even he to whom it was said, "In Isaac will your seed be called;" accounting that God is able to raise up even from the dead. (WEB, Heb. 11:17-19).

I always used to think that verse explained it - Abraham knew he was still going to get the promise. Because, as it said, Abraham knew God is able to raise from the dead. But, as I noticed tonight: that verse distinctly does not say Abraham believed God would send a substitute, as in fact he did, it says that Abraham believed God is able to raise the dead, implying that Abraham fully without a doubt expected to kill that day his beloved son through whom the promise was expected. He may have expected to get him back - but he also expected to lose him.

So, I wonder, in the same position, would I be able to do what Abraham did? What are my promises, who is my Isaac? Could I give those up entirely, thinking that I may only be repaid on the other side of death. Clearly, Jesus' teachings point to the fact that we should be willing to give up everything and anything, including and especially ourselves, but also external things, even things that may be good. The only difference between Abraham and us was his faith. Do we have the faith of Abraham? If not, let's follow the example of the Centurion: "I believe; help my unbelief" (see Mark 9:24). Another part of the solution lies in something else we discussed tonight: Forgetting ourselves, and looking to God. Part of the reason we have trouble giving things up is because we are thinking of what we want, not what God wants.

[I wish I didn't need so much work in this area. I know there are things, or anyways, one thing, that I am having trouble letting go of. But, God does not want half-hearted devotion.]

Check out http://www.carefulvoter.org/.

It clearly states the missing discussion of environmental deregulation. In truth, this is only one of several areas that are being deregulated in effective secrecy.

I thought this speech was interesting. I'm not saying he is right, but I think he has some of it down. (Link found on one Jordon Cooper's blog.)

I managed this morning to annoy one person and bore/lose another one while ranting about the commoditization within the church of church music. My approach was called communist. I don't think it is in so far as the early church was fairly communist too. The point is not what I was ranting about, though I will say in passing that I was claiming that we should support church musicians, but that the resulting music should be freely distributed; along the way I took shots at copyright within the church and charging for Bible translations. The height of my zealous words was to point out that it cost a lot for Jeremiah to write his book - for free, and that it cost a lot less to translate. I think this is all true to an extent, but this is not my point. I also spent a few minutes discussing/debating how the decoration of our new church could under some circumstances be antithetical to its real purpose. Whatever. (And I dissed some points about how the church plant had been handled - how's that for unity?) And, after all of that, we had about only 5-10 minutes (out of a greater than 1.5 hour meeting) to talk about what kind of things we needed prayer for - the ostensible purpose for the meeting to begin with. Okay so what's my point?

The point is really that my words helped no one. I am zealous - obviously. But, I hope I don't fit Jesus' critique of the Pharisees - zealous without knowledge. Or, worse: a hypocrite (in Matthew 24:51 Jesus pictures the place of punishment as the place where hypocrites are, as I learned/was reminded a couple weeks ago at Bible study). The point is, I like to spend a lot of time complaining (oh, James would have good point to hold me accountable there), but not as much time actually doing anything. Not to say I don't do anything, but somehow it feels hollow to me. Anyway, if I am not really helping anyone in the church through my ranting - what is the point? Am I really concerned about the welfare of the church, or am I just trying to ensure it is my image of the church that succeeds? I really don't think God cares much about my image of the church, fortunately. I suspect I would be better off to spend more time living the way Jesus taught, and less time arguing about what the early church did or did not. I am not saying it is not important, but it must be done with the right attitude, and at the right time, and in the right manner. I am not certain I managed to do any of that. And this is not an issue that I think being on the wrong side of is acceptable (do not mess with the church... bad idea...). What is really pathetic is I am just saying at the church politics level apply what I stated in this very forum just the other day about politics. I think the fact that this discussion came at the cost of ignoring the issues that confronted me personally is significant symbolically: look outside, but never inside, the first mistake on the road to hypocrisy. Or perhaps hypocrisy itself.

I don't know how it benefits anyone to document this, but it seems appropriate somehow at the same time, if only so we are all on the same page, as they say. (Am I the only one to do this? I somehow doubt it.)

I was thinking tonight about politics, and my response to it as a follower of Jesus Christ. I had an interesting discussion on Thursday regarding politics with someone whose judgment I tend to trust. Neither of us had all of the issues figured out, or our response to them, but as usual, she was really the first person I had talked to who really was willing to admit to some strong doubts about what kind of response she should have to the coming election (once she brought it up a few days ago in a separate discussion, other people sort of seconded the idea). I know I haven't been probably willing to admit my confusion and doubt as much as I should. And I know that in this forum I often display a lot of confidence, maybe too much. Yes, some things seem straightforward, and maybe sometimes they are, but sometimes that is only what we convince ourselves of. And sometimes, we are just arrogant in claiming to know what happened between people we have never met behind doors we haven't even seen. So, it occurred to me again tonight that this sort of uncertainty and doubt is good. Even if we make the wrong decision, I think it will go much better with us if we came to the issue with humility instead of arrogance. For, "God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble" (WEB, James 4:6, quoting Prov. 3:34).

James talks alot about humility, and being careful with words. Maybe it is a good reminder for all of us in this season loaded with vitriolic rhetoric. I will be the first to plead guilty (see about two posts back - though I tried to be restrained), but as I said, it is not just the words that I am concerned with, it is also attitude. And most of all, I hope that I am really seeking the truth, and God's will, while not relying on my own arrogant opinions. (We have been given judgment to use, no doubt about that, but as always - attitude; if we have the right attitude, I think a certain amount of drawing judgments is not a problem.) By the way, James also says, "But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach; and it will be given to him" (James 1:5, WEB) - which points to the real solution. Let's all approach these final weeks of decision looking to the final authority.

I will admit I am not certain how this should affect what I say. The war for example, I have strong opinions on. But, I suppose, if I admit they are opinions, that is a start. I still think I know things, or have reason to believe things, and that those "things" are useful, but I do need to be careful how I present those, and with what level of confidence I present those. Not that I need to allow the truth to be run over either, so it is a fine balance.

(This needs more thought, but I was thinking about this, and I wanted to say something about it. The reason I think this needs some more thought is that I think I am stretching this idea enough that it is hard to directly support textually, but it may be possible. It seems to me consistent with what is written, however.)

You know, Paul wrote, "Whatever you do, in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father, through him" (Colossians 3:17, WEB).

I don't always manage the "in the name of the Lord Jesus" part as well as I should. Paul also wrote a few verses later,

And whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord, and not for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance; for you serve the Lord Christ. But he who does wrong will receive again for the wrong that he has done, and there is no partiality. (Colossians 3:23-25)

Yikes. I suspect I have gotten more than my fair share of grace on that point. Now, though, back to my real point here...

Besides the other areas in my life I need to shape up, I do see this area - namely, writing - as being something that I should do "in the name of the Lord Jesus." What that really means is that here, as everywhere, I should exemplify the transformation that Christ has performed in my life, and that I should "let my light shine before men." So, while I occasionally may have fun here (I seem to remember an infamous post about caffeine, and then there was the post the same day about the revolution... I might want to rethink that one), I also hope that I will do this to the best of my abilities and to a purpose, as long as it is useful. Perhaps this blog itself is not the end, but I do hope someday I can put my writing to better uses, and I think this is excellent preparation, not to mention a lot of fun, and rather enlightening.

Which brings me to the point I really wanted to get to... (finally). I am very thankful that I live in a time when I have an opportunity to potentially communicate with other interested individuals, in a useful dialogue, to teach and learn. Okay, maybe we don't always live up to "useful dialogue" around here, but I think you get the point. And I am glad I get to do it even if no one reads me, though these words are certainly here waiting to be found. But, I am glad I get to do this, and I hope that I do end up changing the world, if only a little, by writing here. To clarify, I don't mean to claim that this is somehow my greatest work for God (not even close, thankfully! given how good of a writer I am... not to mention widely read), but I think that this too is useful.

And while, I am at it, I am also thankful for good music, nice fall weather, good friends, Scripture, Christ's sacrifice, the Holy Spirit, and God's transforming work in my life. (Whoa, how's that for a brain dump?)

I know not everybody who reads this will understand why I think this all matters, but it does, and you're welcome to ask. And if you think I am deluded - well, if I am I am enjoying the wonderful transformation of my delusion quite well. I have been places and seen things I never imagined in the last couple years, so I have no doubts about the course of my life and what God has to do with it.

So... Go forth and change the world, brothers and sisters.

I really don't want to talk about politics (at least presidential) here anymore, but, I had to say...

Bush is pulling a complete smoke screen on the Iraq war. The fact (well, a fairly basic opinion, anyway) of the matter was

1. There was no imminent need for war based on the possibility of weapons
2. There was certainly not such an imminent need they couldn't take time to come up with some sort of plan for after the war (they even managed that in Afghanistan which they only had two months warning for!)
3. Some of us knew this going in - even if we did have doubts about the absence of weapons

Don't let Bush rewrite history.

[I know thoughtful people feel otherwise on this issue, but I still don't see it.]

I was just "reminded" (I think I knew this...) by a blog post that you can register as a potential bone marrow donor with the National Marrow Donor Program. Read all their stuff, if you decide to register, this is serious, as you could be called on to actually donate, and it would be important you be available and willing (you should probably know in advance if you would actually be willing to donate, I would think). What's odd about it is you may never end up donating, but that is how things go (not that I can imagine anyone complaining because they didn't get to donate).

I believe as my blood is of type "mad cow" thanks to my jaunts through Eastern Europe I am, conveniently enough, not eligible, but, you might be...

You see, the problem with elves is they never blog! I may have to hire some dwarves, or humans, or hobbits, or orcs even...

And a reminder to our readers: I am me, the elf is the elf, and we are not the same. Yes, I know, this is an evil group blog. Live with it!

(Remember the original concept was lots of intelligent people finding lots of intelligent things to make lots of intelligent remarks. Of course, now we have two people never linking to anything, writing lots of verbose commentary on the non-existant links, and not really saying anything you didn't already know. And who ever heard of a distributed anything with only two nodes? Oh, well.)

[Though, hey, I like it this way....]

Since I just heard it in an actual live concert (which I go to so often that I was surprised there was actually an intermission.... though, in my defense, the whole concert was really not long enough to warrant one), and I just listened to it again, I felt the need to remind everyone that the other Eighth Symphony is pretty good. By "other" I mean the one by Dvorak, not the one by Beethoven. Though, depending on who is counting, it could also be the other Fourth Symphony. Either way, it's good. And it has lots of brass. Loud brass.

I was reminded today of a research project I was involved in back in college, when I saw a link to an article by Ivars Peterson about shapes with constant diameter (Peterson refers to the property as "constant width" in the article, but it is also called "constant diameter"). Constant diameter means that if you measure the width/diameter of the shape, regardless of its rotation, you will get the same measurement. Your first thought might be that only circles have this property. It turns out that other shapes can have it to. The Reuleux triangle is the most famous; it looks like a triangle with rounded sides. What is interesting is it has corners, yet because it has constant diameter it will still roll smoothly! There is a reason it is not used for wheels, though, as I will explain shortly. An easy way to come up with more such shapes is to take any polygon with an odd number of sides and round the sides.

It is probably most interesting to compare the non-circles of these shapes to the circle. They all have the same perimter of the circle relative to their diameter: diameter times pi. Their area varies. The circle has the maximum area, the Reuleux triangle has the least. As I said before, all of these shapes roll smoothly (even the ones with corners) because they have constant diameter, which means they can be used as rollers. They can't all be used effectively as wheels, however, because they do not have a constant center of rotation (i.e. there is no point equidistant from all points on the shape's edge) in general, which is why only the circle makes it as a wheel (of course, the locus definition of a circle is the shape where all points are equidistant from the center).

Anyway, a fun little piece of math trivia. And it shows that the circle is not as special as most people think! (And note that even pi shows up in the formula for perimeter - I remember thinking that was significant too; it somewhat breaks the exclusive association between circles and pi).

[I also used an article on MathWorld to prompt my memory.]

By the way, another animated movie that has some similar ideas to Lilo & Stitch is Iron Giant (in both, a main character deals with the question of whether they can transcend their creation as weapons). I don't like it as much, but it is not bad, and is rather interesting. It has some unique moments, too (one thing it shares with Lilo & Sitch is that it is an odd film, though maybe not quite as odd...).

Take a plastic bag, and maybe a rubber glove just in case. Walk a half hour in one direction, and then start back. Pick up any large pieces of trash you see. You don't have to pick up more than one piece within 100 feet. I might suggest you do this early in the morning, or some other time when traffic is low, lest anyone identify you as, um, crazy. You might be amazed just how much trash there is lying around...

I walked by a car dealership this morning, and some of the cars were parked backwards. On the back window of several were stickers that said "SAVE." I couldn't see any writing though, so I couldn't see what the point was.

I am thinking about something, but the first part of the issue is: Could theocracy ever be out of line with the work of the church? Could it be wrong?

Obviously, I am asking this from the perspective of the church; it is assumed secularists, atheists, agnostics, and members of other religions would be opposed to it.

Any answer will have to account for the fact that God did at one point ordain theocracy. There are plenty of arguments from experience against theocracy, but I would like something that can put a solid doctrinal argument either against it, or allowing it (any argument suggesting that theocracy is encouraged by Christ or the apostles - in short, by God - would be highly suspect). It might be useful to consider less harmful examples of theocracy, besides the obvious bad ones.

I don't want to give too much away, but in short the implication is that it would be out of line - from God's perspective - for the church to impose things on a people that are based soley on religious arguments, assuming the argument could be made. Note that the implications here would might extend beyond moral issues, to possibly even those social justice issues we believers on the left seem so fond of, though I am not certain. Anyway, I am suggesting one way or the other it is probably messy to some extent.