About That Infinite Universe

This is so cool:

From IT Wire:

The Mersini-Houghton team, however, says it is another universe at the edge of our own. They looked at string theory for the explanation. In string theory, [10 to the 500th power] [sorry for that, but Blogger can't handle some not-very-complicated functions, such as superscripts] universes (or string vacuums) are described, each with unique properties. They contend that the largeness of our universe is due to its vacuum counterbalancing gravity. This counter-gravity of the vacuum keeps our universe very large (rather than shrinking due to gravity)—larger than the other multitude of universes. The team says that smaller universes are positioned at the edge of our universe, and because of this interaction they are seen by us.

The team predicts that another giant void will eventually be found. The already found void is in the northern hemisphere. They contend another one will be found in the southern hemisphere.

One of the more exciting parts of this story is that they're already prepared to make a prediction on the existence of others.

Here's a report on Space.com from this summer.

Thanks to AmericaBlog.

From the Pulps to the Pentagon

I wonder if anyone in the military reads science fiction. If they did, it might save them from some really embarrassing gaffes (remember the "gay bomb"?) and produce some constructive inquiries like this:

A 2004 "universal needs statement," obtained by DANGER ROOM and signed Lt. Gen. Jan Huly -- then the Marines' Deputy Commandant for Plans, Policies, and Operations -- asks to "accelerate" the development of "self-powered, controllable, wearable exoskeletal machine system" that will "increase the speed, strength, and endurance of Marines. . . ."

According to Pentagon budget documents, a project to build a "personal combat vehicle," allowing a soldier to "carry 150 pounds while feeling only a small part of the load" is making its way from the blue-sky technologists at Darpa to the Army's more practically-focused engineers.

Exo-suits, known also as "zoot suits," are at this point a staple of science fiction, particularly military sf. I think Robert Heinlein started that ball rolling (as he did so many others), in Starship Troopers. They get most play in military sf because military sf tends to be gadget-heavy.

Of course, the concept has gone far beyond that. (Anyone remember Robocop? Or -- 'scuse me -- Star Wars?) For some interesting background -- and a good take on how science fiction does permeate our collective whatever, see this article from Answers.com. It's pretty amazing. It also reminded me of something I'd almost forgotten: the obverse of the big, bulky powered-body-armor kind of suit is the "skinsuit" concept, used by Dan Simmons and David Weber (and I'm sure a few others).

OK -- I really am back

It's that point after a bad fever, when it finally breaks and you look around and everything's in focus. Just don't ask me what I've been doing for the past week, because I'm not really sure.

(Gad! A week's a hell of a long time to be sick -- I can't imagine having something that takes an extended recovery. I'd go nuts.)

He Lives!

I think. This is the first time I've been out of bed for an extended period since Wednesday. I seem to have suffered no ill effects from yesterday's mashed potatoes, so I may treat myself to a jelly doughnut this morning -- I can't quite nerve myself up for a cream-filled Bavarian. I have this real hankering for sweets. I must need quick calories (the mashed potatoes were the only solid food I've had in three days). Maybe pick up some bananas, too.

And some broth.

I'm still a little tight around the middle, but I think that's just from lying in bed not moving for 72 hours. You think?

Strangely enough, politics isn't so interesting today.

Well, that was a bust

Thanksgiving, I mean. Came down with a really vicious intestinal bug on Wednesday afternoon and have basically been in bed ever since. It seems to have cleared up, pretty much, but my middle is still sore from the muscle spasms, and I'm afraid to eat any solid food.

I certainly hope your holiday was better.

The Conservative Agenda

Andrew Sullivan seems to have a good take on it.

If you follow the link to Hugh Hewitt, you discover that he is still an idiot. Actually, reading through the comments, the real idiot is the commenter Catmman, whose ignorance is simply breathtaking. I would have left a comment, but TownHall wants too much information before they'll let you post. I'm certainly not giving Hugh Hewitt my home address.

Wounded Vets

OK -- I thought bureaucratic screw-up on this story until I read this sentence:

At the forefront was a bill introduced last week and sent to committee that targets a Defense Department policy preventing eligible soldiers from receiving their full bonuses if discharged early because of combat-related injuries.

This is not a screw-up -- this is policy. And I thought the general negligence at Walter Reed was an atrocity.

How does a military like this expect to win a war? Oh, wait. . . .

Here's a story on the bill from Jason Altmire's website. He's the congressman who introduced the legislation, and -- he's a Democrat. Funny how that happens.

Update:

Thinking on this a bit more, have you noticed that the so-called "conservative" attitude toward "supporting the troops" translates into unquestioning obedience to foolish and misguided policies and complete disregard for the human beings involved? This story is of a piece with those about wounded vets receiving bills for their hospital care and those drummed out of the service under DADT being expected to repay any monies paid for school. Much as we might like to think so, no bureaucrat who is that stupid (and there are some -- I've met them) ever gets into a position with that kind of authority.

But then, what can you say about an institution that actually adopts policies like these? Consider, as I feel I must at this point, also the fact that the military is disproportionately composed of evangelical and conservative Christians (if we are to believe reports), and that the president, who keeps reminding us that he is the Commander-in-Chief professes himself to be a born-again Christian, and you really have to wonder what Christianity has become, at least in some parts of the population. Do you really want these people running the country?

That's a really scary picture of our future.

Update II:

I notice at GovTrack that Altmire's bill has 35 cosponsors -- of whom 4 are Republicans.

Let's see, now -- who was it who was supporting the troops?

Tim Kaine

An interesting article in WaPo on Virginia Gov. Timothy Kaine. I don't necessarily agree with his specific positions, but I like his approach. It strikes me as pragmatic and reality-based, unlike the agenda of his Republican-controlled General Assembly. On abstinence-only programs:

"The research shows programs that are abstinence-only are not successful," Kaine said. "The budget will not have funding for abstinence-only programs. If the people look at the research, the answer is pretty clear."

Kaine points to a congressional study released in April that concluded that students in abstinence-only programs did not have fewer sexual partners or wait any longer to have sex than those who did not participate in the programs. Conservatives say the study was flawed. . . .

Because the Bush administration restricts sex education grants to groups that teach only abstinence, Planned Parenthood is calling on states to refuse the federal matching grants. Virginia would become the 14th state to do so.

People always think that studies they don't agree with are flawed. I haven't seen the congressional study, but it seems consistent with other results that I've seen summaries of. I haven't seen a credible study that concludes that abstinence-only programs actually work. Maybe it's because the only reference they make to sex is "don't".

At any rate, it'll be interesting to see how Virginia works out over the next couple of years. I especially liked this comment:

Even so, conservatives now feel on the defensive.

That's music to my ears.

Quote of the Day

It couldn't come from anyone but Michael Medved.

MICHAEL MEDVED:…And this clearly just weakens the whole institution of television.

From being the "Great Wasteland," TV has become an "institution." Who knew?

I really was of two minds -- should this be a "Quote of the Day" or a "Joke of the Day"? But I don't think Medved did it on purpose.

(Sidebar: As for the WGA strike -- maybe the studios will outsource scriptwriting to Bollywood.)

Persons

I've run across a couple of references to this story in the past day or two, and, as you might expect, it does lead to some not-so-tangential thoughts, including one on synchronicity -- I just happened to have gone back to this post. Yes, in the world of Hunter at Random, these do fit together.

Let's start with the nonsense of Richard John Neuhaus' desperate defense of Catholic dogma regarding homosexuality. Among its other virtues (ahem), it illustrates very well the tendency of Christian apologists to objectify human emotional relationships, especially those of which they don't approve. Actually, thinking about that, it's not necessarily an "especially" -- note the insistence on the idea that sex is purely for procreation and that marriage is the validation -- the social permission -- to engage in sex. Even within marriage, non-procreative sex is immoral. And at the same time, although not, as I recall, explicit in Neuhaus' ramblings, is the idea that the love between a man and a woman is somehow special, and that only Church-approved sex -- i.e., making babies -- can encompass this love. If that's not schizoid enough for you, this comes from an institution that has, historically, been dubious about the natural materialism of science -- the idea that the only acceptable data is that which can be studied and measured objectively and that all natural processes can be described as mechanisms that operate only within the natural, empirical universe. And yet its first reaction to the complexity of human desire and emotion is to reduce it to a bodily function (all the while decrying those such as Richard Dawkins and Edward O. Wilson who suggest that there might be a biochemical basis for all of it).

At any rate, the Christian position can easily be summarized, in a somewhat minimalist but not necessarily inaccurate way, as "people are breeding stock." It's the sort of trap you fall into when you start with the idea that there is -- there must be -- a purpose to everything.

Now, to the Colorado initiative. (And I wonder why it is that Colorado, which is, after all, a fairly cool state, is the one that keeps coming up with the completely anti-American ballot iniatives -- remember Amendment 2? Of course, that's the state that gave us Marilyn Musgrave.) At any rate, a representative of one of the sponsors of a measure that is very clearly designed to outlaw abortion -- and most likely a number of birth-control methods, particularly the morning after pill -- says:

[Kristi] Burton said the initiative would simply define a human.

"It's very clearly a single subject," Burton said. "If it's a human being, it's a person, and hey, they deserve equal rights under our law."

First of all, the gall of trying to define a human being is, while breathtaking, not beyond the capabilities of those who have a hammerlock on The Only Truth. But look at their definition of a "person" -- a fertilized egg.

That's certainly a reductivist view of humanity, now isn't it? A fertilized egg -- which stands something like a 40% chance of never being more than that -- is your equal and deserves all the rights and privileges that you, as a grown-up, thinking, productive member of society expect. (Except those of you who are gay -- it deserves more rights and privileges than you do.) I really wonder how a fertilized egg is going to exercise its right to peaceably assemble.

Barbara O'Brien has this comment about the Christianist tendency to objectify people. She's only one of many to comment on this particular video, and like most, is focusing on the objectification of women, brought about by the unfortunate metaphor employed (I seem to remember that in my high-school days, the accepted non-dirty slang word for vagina was "box."):

Today many people are posting this anti-abortion video and noting the subliminal message — that women are just objects, not people.

The point is, people are just objects. All of us. It's the same thinking -- if you define a fertilized egg as a person, you've elevated an egg to human-being status. You've also reduced the rest of us to the level of a fertilized egg. Women exist to bear children. Gays have sex only for pleasure. Any sex that does not produce children is immoral. It's a purely mechanistic view of humanity.

Needless to say, believing as I do that there is an element of the divine in everything, I can't buy this. That's quite aside from knowing first-hand that men are as capable of loving other men and completely and fully as any man ever loved a woman, and that I am something more than a cock. In fact, I'm a lot more than a cock.

Climate Change

As we're calling it these days. Here's one for the "the science isn't settled" crowd:

Georgia's on my mind. Atlanta, Ga. It's a city in trouble in a state in trouble in a region in trouble. Water trouble. Trouble big enough that the state government's moving fast. Just this week, backed up by a choir singing "Amazing Grace," accompanied by three Protestant ministers, and 20 demonstrators from the Atlanta Freethought Society, Georgia's Baptist Gov. Sonny Perdue led a crowd of hundreds in prayers for rain. "We've come together here," he said, "simply for one reason and one reason only: to very reverently and respectfully pray up a storm." It seems, however, that the Almighty -- He "who can and will make a difference" -- was otherwise occupied and the regional drought continued to threaten Atlanta, a metropolis of 5 million people (and growing fast), with the possibility that it might run out of water in as little as 80 days or as much as a year, if the rains don't come.

FEMA doesn't want to think about it, apparently. Of course, we knew this administration can't handle the disasters it's created, much less the ones that happen by themselves.

It's not just the Southeastern U.S. It's worldwide. Read the article.

One: I'm very glad I live in a city that draws its water from the Great Lakes.

Two: This is not happening just this minute. The last time I was in North Carolina, which is at least five years ago, we went up Little Buck Creek (where my mother grew up, and where I spent chunks of my childhood). The creek was running at about half its normal flow. I wonder if there's any creek left. It was sobering, to say the least. The photo above is of a river in Virginia.

Even here, where two years ago we had a drought, while the summer was fairly rainy, we haven't had any appreciable rain for weeks -- during what is normally the rainiest time of year. We didn't really have all that much snow last year, either.

There are a lot of contributing factors here, but the one that I've always seen as the root cause is overpopulation.

But let's just go ahead and outlaw birth control, which is the ultimate aim of the right-to-lifers. That'll help a lot.

Jim Neal

Jim Neal is running for the Senate from North Carolina, which is a weird state. Pam Spaulding has written several posts on his candidacy, and I think this one lays out the points very well. Quoting from The Charlotte Observer:

Schumer and the national Democrats, who boast of their party's inclusiveness, effectively ignored Neal, who is openly gay. After he announced his campaign in October, he telephoned Schumer. The call wasn't returned. Neal was the first Democrat to step up to challenge Republican U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Dole.

Instead, Schumer, of New York, called Hagan, who had taken herself out of the race, and encouraged her to jump back in. She later did.

...Neal, however, falls into a coveted category of candidates: self-funder, someone who will sink a chunk of his own wealth into the race. Such candidates typically get at least a courtesy meeting from their party's national political committees, particularly in the state where former U.S. Sen. John Edwards showed that an unknown with a lot of money can succeed.

Neal, 50, and others suggest that the fact that he is gay drove the actions of the Democratic Senate committee and other leaders of a party that criticizes Republicans for their anti-gay rights platform.

...A former staffer at the national Democratic Senate committee said he was surprised Schumer didn't at least meet with Neal. The gay community has reliably contributed to Democrats, said the former staffer, who asked not to be identified because he still deals with committee staff.

I have been less and less confident in the Democrats' support for gay issues and gay candidates -- in fact, I'm not so sure of their support for real Democrats -- and it looks like another case of the Rahm Emanuel strategy: field candidates who will reliably vote against the party and call them Democrats anyway. It's quite obvious that the DSCC is worried about backlash, but I'd like to point out one thing: North Carolina is probably less monolithic than most other "Southern" states, from the Bible-thumpers in the hills (my relatives) to the hotbeds of liberalism in Chapel Hill and Charlotte. It's a rapidly growing state, and the major populations centers are not filled with rednecks. I know a number of artists and dancers who have migrated to NC because the cultural climate is very supportive, which to me translates into a much more diverse and open society than the DSCC is willing to credit. North Carolina routinely elects Democrats to statewide office.

Of course, the DSCC doesn't seem to be much in touch with anything outside of the Beltway anyhow. And I start to think that what bothers them about Neal is not only that he's gay, but that he's not a yes-man. For that reason alone, I think people all over the country should be supporting his candidacy, and not just gays.

Hey, at least half of me's from North Carolina -- we don't respond well to authority.

A Nation Divided

A bit from Crooks and Liars about the PBS special Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial, about Kitzmiller vs Dover School District. The program has been getting a lot of play in the blogosphere (well, on the left, anyway), but this struck me:

. . . it literally pitted “friend against friend, and neighbor against neighbor” within the small community that serves as a microcosm of an America still divided over evolution.

For some reason, the phrase "divided over evolution" just stuck out. I sit here asking myself "How can that be?" Of course, it's not so hard to figure out: those who oppose the teaching of evolution represent an ideology that renounces empirical evidence in favor of belief, and the belief is itself an element of obedience to outside authority. I don't really understand that -- my dad was a science teacher, and you'd better believe I got a full dose of thinking rationally when I was a kid. He's also a major sceptic. (All things considered, it's odd to think of my father as a product of the Enlightenment, but there you have it.)

The anti-science crowd makes a big deal about evolution being "a religion," and a doctrine promulgated as "orthodoxy," which is, of course, specious. Science is a self-correcting system of thought that bases its laws and theories on what we know objectively. Scientific orthodoxy is simply the result of overwhelming evidence. It's subject to change as new evidence comes to light, which is why we can never say that a scientific theory is "proven." You can't prove anything in science, you can only disprove its opposite -- there's always the possibility of new evidence. That's what makes science so exciting.

In the case of Kitzmiller, it's instructive that the creationists' "expert witnesses" admitted that ID is not science. The thinking seems to be -- spot me on this -- that their beliefs should trump everything else, which in a pluralistic, secular nation is a little bit beyond arrogant.

Of course, it doesn't help that this kind of unthinking, incurious obedience is being exploited by a group of politicians disguised as "religious leaders" simply in order to accumulate political power. I think their followers should be ashamed of themselves for being so gullible, if for no other reason.

But I still find it incredible that the country can be "divided" over evolution. We might as well be divided over gravity.

Speaking of Orchids

which have been added to the sidebar, there's this news from Yosemite -- a new orchid species. It is reported by one source to smell like sweaty feet.

Nature has her own standards of beauty.

The Sidebar

I've finally managed some additions and updates to the links in the sidebar. Check them out.

Creative Copyrights

There's been a huge outcry in recent years about American copyright law, sparked, I think, by the emergence of music downloads and the ease of burning CDs (and fueled by the ham-handed reaction of the RIAA), but affecting everything that is subject to copyright. I've not actually paid much attention to copyright law for years. My own work is copyrighted under the terms of existing law, but I've just begun investigating Creative Commons. It looks interesting, but from my own standpoint, I don't know that it's going to work for me. Any income I derive from my work -- the photographs, mainly -- is predicated on sale of physical prints or reproduction rights. It appears as though a Creative Commons license will impact this in some way, but I'm not sure. (Wading through the FAQ even as we speak.)

For example, if I sell a print, I sell only the physical object; I retain all other rights, including reproduction, so that if someone contacts the owner of the print asking to use it as an illustration, the owner has to refer them to me. I'm the only one who can legally grant permission. It appears as though a Creative Commons license will keep that intact, and doesn't affect the sale of prints at all.

Actually, as I read more, it starts to look doable. I may license all the work at a/k/a Hunter under a CC license.

Intellectual property law is something that, as you might expect, concerns me a great deal. I'm not convinced that current law is as dysfunctional as the "total access" side claims -- after all, it's my work, and I don't see any reason why I shouldn't make money from it. A lot of the instant-public-domain arguments seem to be coming from those who want to make money off someone else's work. I've never found the licensing requirements of copyright law all that restrictive, although that can be dependent on who holds the rights.

Another research project. Just what I needed.

1040

That's how many posts I've had on this site. I'm sure there's some symbolism there -- in fact, in a way it has to do with the substance of this topic:

A couple of commentaries by Andrew Koppelman related to same-sex marriage.

The first is post at Balkinization on the state of same-sex marriage/domestic partnerships in California, in light of the Governator's second veto of a bill legalizing marriage for same-sex couples vis-a-vis the current suit pending before the California Supreme Court. Koppelman calls the court battle a "bad strategy" and predicts that it will energize the opposition. The comments are, as usual, mixed and intelligent on both sides of the issue (the issue in this case being whether the strategy is bad or only to be expected). My own reaction is pretty much the same as it was with ENDA: this is what we have. This is what we have to work with, so let's stop arguing about whether it's the best way to go about it and get to work. (I know -- it's such a pain when reality intrudes on principle, but that's life.)

(There are those who argue against incrementalism and bring up the racially-based civil rights laws of the sixties, but those aren't the best analogies -- once you determine that racial bias is not a positive social characteristic, people can make the jump from Black to Asian to American Native to whatever. That's pretty much a no-brainer. Making the jump from gay man to transsexual is not so easy, because most people (including many gays) don't see the congruence there.)

To pull back because movement relies on the courts is simply to buy into the specious mantras about "judicial activism," which is another one of those bald assertions that partake of Reaganspeak: If you say it often enough, it's true. It translates simply as "I don't like this decision."

As one or two of Koppelman's commenters point out, a favorable decision by the court will energize the right-wingers. An unfavorable decision will not stop them -- they will simply go after some other rights currently guaranteed in California. You have to remember that marriage is not the whole agenda: their goal is to delegitimize gay people and get them back in the closet, if not worse. Anything else is camouflage.

This article (pdf), which he cites in his blog post, begins with a scathing look at the contemporary Republican agenda. Of particular note is his summary of the "New Natural Law" argument against SSM on page 13 (which I am not able to copy and paste because the PDF is secured, apparently). There is a huge caveat in this argument that is thrown into sharp relief with his quote from John M. Finnis that begins "A proposed destroying, damaging, or blocking of some basic aspect of some person's reality. . ." and concludes "But . . . such a commensurating of goods is rationally impossible."

The flaw here is that the basis of the argument is revealed to be essentially arbitrary, predicated on the emotional and ideological preferences of Finnis (and others who have advanced this argument) and thus, suspect. The argument against homosexual relations, according to Koppelman's summary, is similar to the arguments for against contraception (note this argument borrows heavily from Roman Catholic dogma): life is an intrinsic good, and sex exists to create life, so any sexual activity that does not create life is bad. Pleasure for its own sake is not intrinsically good. Both of those basic criteria are certainly arguable, since neither has any rock-solid basis in fact.

There is also the fact that Finnis and his ilk deny the possibility in this argument that gay couples may enter into relationships for any other reason than bodily pleasure, which is utter poppycock.

As Koppelman goes on to describe the argument, the more ridiculous it becomes. Koppelman begins the destruction on page 17. As the demolition continues, it becomes evident that the argument against same-sex marriage (and homosexual activity in general) is completely circular, in a very strained and awkward way.

Koppelman does the same sort of deconstruction on the "Declining Family" argument as advanced by the likes of Maggie Gallagher (who from what I've seen isn't bothered much by reality) and Stanley Kurtz (whose arguments, which make use of misapplied and manipulated statistics have been so thoroughly debunked that I'm surprised anyone pays attention to him any more. Well, I'm not, but I am. If you know what I mean.). Again, an exercise in solipsism on the part of the anti-gay crowd. (Koppelman does say that the Kurtz-Gallagher argument is immune to empirical disproof, which in Kurtz' case, at least, is not true. His foundations can easily be refuted because they rely on specious conclusions from manipulated and in some cases untrue data.)

It's an extraordinarily thorough article that, I think, really gets to the heart of the intellectual and moral poverty of the anti-marriage arguments. I do recommend that you read it.

Jon Courtenay Grimwood

Read his books.

My review of 9Tail Fox is up at Green Man Review, and I'm working on the three Arabesks, also known as "the Ashraf Bey mysteries." Someone called him something like a post-cyberpunk Raymond Chandler, which is close, but the novels hover between that and pure slipstream (if there is such a thing). They actually start to approach the "hysterical realism" of Thomas Pynchon, but they're nowhere near that scale -- they'e quite intimate, actually.

Torture, With Some Thoughts on Ideology

I've not said much about the Bush torture regime, except to note that you can't really expect better from a man who thinks it's fun to feed firecrackers to frogs. I skimmed over this post by Sebastian Holsclaw at Obsidian Wings yesterday (trying madly to catch up) and then Andrew Sullivan highlighted it today.

One thing that strikes me is that there is common ground between the left and the right on certain issues. Torture should be a no-brainer for any thoughtful citizen, and the idea that we have to parse the definition of torture is one of the signal defeats of civilization by the wing-nut right. Distrust of government is, perhaps, a conservative position. My own feeling is that it should be an American position. This bit reflects my own thinking precisely:

The hypothetical has nothing to do with the discussion of whether or not we (the United States) ought to be torturing people. One of the key things that conservatives ought to remember (and which we notice all the time in liberal proposals) is that INTENTIONS DO NOT EQUAL OUTCOMES. The government is horribly incompetent at all sorts of things and we ought not abandon that insight when analyzing proposals of people who allege that they are our allies (the idea that Bush is a conservative ally is something I'd like to argue about on another day--but my short answer is that he isn't).

As with limitations on free speech, I don't trust the government to be able to fairly and nimbly navigate the rules that would be necessary to make certain that it only used a legal right to torture when it was the right choice. Sadly this is no longer a hypothetical question. In actual practice, we find that Bush's administration has tortured men who not only didn't know anything about what they were being tortured about, but weren't even affiliated with Al Qaeda.

Let me say that again. Bush's administration has tortured men who were factually innocent.

The hypothetical posed is, of course, loaded in favor of the "yes" answer -- yes it was worth it, but only because the questioner has set up the question so that no other answer is possible. Life doesn't set up questions like that, and as Sebastian points out quite clearly, we cannot rely on the judgment of one man -- a man whose judgment is plainly open to question -- to determine whether torture is "worth it." And anyone who thinks that one man is actually making that decision on a case-by-case basis is dreaming. The reality is even worse: that one man, who has little, if any moral sense, has authorized underlings to make the decision to torture "suspects" as a matter of national policy.

Got that? Torture is official American policy.

Sullivan, in a later post comments on the enthusiasm of the right for torture -- just listen to anything Rudy Giuliani has to say on the question. This is a matter of terminology again -- which are the true "conservatives"? This is one reason I will no longer admit to "conservative" positions. I do have them -- almost libertarian, in some areas, but the labeling is such that I won't put myself in the same boat as Giuliani, Bush, Romney, Dobson, Sheldon, the pope -- that whole bunch of self-serving cheap politicians who routinely play to the lowest common denominator with a script developed from misrepresentations and outright lies.

Actually, the more I think about this, the more I find myself approaching questions of ideology -- political philosophy -- from the same mindset that I use for moral questions: it's nothing so simple as a set of tribal taboos handed down from generation to generation. It's a matter of basic principles (hence the "first causes" of this blog's subtitle) applied as consistently as possible to real issues in daily life.

I may even elaborate on that as time goes by.

Quote for the Day

I realize you can argue that if you’ve touched off Malkin’s ire, you must be doing something right. But Malkin lives in perpetual snit mode, 24/7. She can no doubt be sent into a flying rage over the color of toothpaste. Her opinion is irrelevant.

Barbara O'Brien, at Mahablog.

This is actually a hypothetical, but I think it encapsulates the reality of the right-wing blogosphere. (Of course, you could say that about the left-wing blogosphere, I suppose -- if you're Michelle Malkin.)

O'Brien is actually talking about a really stupid protest in Washington state that got out of hand. She's right -- those people are idiots.