How Should I Feel About the Attack on Paris?

Image from Wikimedia Commons, user Maya-Anaïs Yataghène

What's the right reaction to the Paris attacks?

Should I weep for the dead and the wounded while sending my consolations to the French? Sounds good. It costs me nothing, and it might make someone in France feel better to know that a Texan cares. It might make people think I'm a good person for feeling compassionate.

Should I let the anger flow and call for an overwhelming military response? Sounds good too. It costs me nothing, since I won't be the one risking my life to deliver that response. It might make people think I'm a good person for being so fierce.

Should I stand up for the Muslims who aren't terrorists and plead for tolerance toward them? Another good sounding idea. It costs me nothing, since I live in a country where you can express almost any idea. It might make people think I'm a good person for being so non-judgmental and non-violent.

Should I ignore the attacks and instead spend my time thinking about my own life and concerns? That's good too. It costs me nothing, since it's what I usually do. It might make people think I'm a bad person for being so callous, but I can just ignore them.

Should I actually think about what happened, to understand it as not just an isolated event but as another episode in a long story arc? I don't know if that's a good idea. It would require a lot of thinking on my part, maybe even some research. It would require me to cross my normal cognitive boundaries. It might force me to question beliefs and attitudes I take for granted. It might make people think I'm weird for not choosing from the list of standard responses.

There's a spinning wheel of reactions in my head, and I don't know which is right.

Part of my real reaction is to go with an overwhelming military response. We know that can successfully stop some aggressors, as it did during World War II. We know that some aggressors are not susceptible to civilized discourse, and that killing them is a workable solution. Of course, this falls into the easier-said-than-done category, but it's a possibility.

Part of my real reaction is that doing the same thing we've been doing, responding to attacks with more attacks, doesn't seem to do anything but prolong the conflict. Yeah, it's satisfying to call for heads to roll in the desert to combat the people who are rolling heads in the desert, but is that really going to work? I don't care how good it feels, is it a solution?

Part of my real reaction is darker than the ones listed above. I have to admire the terrorists for knowing exactly how to hurt the West and for being able to pull it off with a minimum of people and materiel. I don't support what they did, but in a tactical sense, it was well played. Will the civilized world's response be as clever and effective?

So far, the answer to that last question has been "no".

Facing Microaggression? Be Micro-offended!

Image from http://www.pdpics.com/

Microaggressions are getting a lot of attention these days, especially in low-grade institutes of higher learning. Here's one description from Wikipedia:

"Psychologist Derald Wing Sue defines microaggressions as "brief, everyday exchanges that send denigrating messages to certain individuals because of their group membership." Sue describes microaggressions as generally happening below the level of awareness of well-intentioned members of the dominant culture. Microaggressions, according to Sue, are different from overt, deliberate acts of bigotry, such as the use of racist epithets, because the people perpetrating microaggressions often intend no offense and are unaware they are causing harm."
Microaggression theory

The concept has spawned some new terms like microassault, microinsult, and microinvalidation. Holy microshit, Batman! There's a whole microswarm of evil going on.

Collectivism, Libertarianism, and Global Warming

I've called myself a libertarian since 1976, but my libertarianism has always had a contrary streak. As a Marine brat and former Marine, I also have a sense of duty to my fellow citizens and to the nation. I accept that sometimes we need a few rules, that sometimes we need to pitch in and work together.

For example, I have no problem with the idea of traffic rules. Generally speaking, traffic rules represent a mutual agreement we accept so that we don't smash our cars into each other as often. That doesn't mean that every single traffic rule makes sense, but the general idea represents the kind of minor liberty infringement I can handle.

Likewise, I'll follow orders sometimes. If paramedics are trying to get someone out of a wrecked car, and they've blocked the road to give them room to work, I'm not going to paint my face blue, shout "Freedom!" and run the blockade. I'll accept a minor, temporary infringement of my liberty to deal with an emergency.

The rest of the time, I'm going to do what I want, and you need to stay out of my way. To me, that's the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist or a criminal. A libertarian doesn't completely oppose rules and the mechanisms needed to enforce them. He opposes rules that infringe on our liberty with no real justification. He understands the difference between collective action by a group of people and genuine socialism. He wants to maximize individual liberty within a civilized framework.

So how does this libertarian feel about global warming? It comes down to judging the evidence and the proposed solutions based on reason, historical lessons, and the best available evidence. Is there enough evidence to justify collective action?

My Presidential Campaign

Okay, I can't really run for president next year, because I have a lot of stuff to do, but if I was going to run, here's what I'd run on.

Military Strategy
I'd end America's habit of running long, low-grade wars like we did in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. If we need to use military force, we'd go in, break things, kill people, and then get the hell out. This would be cheaper and more effective in the long run, because our constant presence in someone's country wouldn't be a destabilizing influence. It would be better for our soldiers, who would remain rested, ready, and motivated by knowing that they'll be given clear, discrete objectives, and they'll come home as soon as they're done. 

Foreign Policy
This is tricky, because I don't know everything I'd need to know to come up with a good foreign policy. In fact, I hardly know anything. In general terms, I'd work to maintain and even improve our relationships with our allies. I'd keep the option for dialogue with our enemies open. Most of all, I'd worry less about what's going on in other countries and instead focus on making America better.

Why I'm Not a White Supremacist

A few years ago I got into genealogy.

I'm not urging you to do so. Genealogy is like a lot of hobbies. It's expensive and time-consuming, and you end up being a boring twit to anyone who doesn't share the hobby. But I went there, and this essay is about two things I learned.

My father's line was hard to track further back then the 20th century. Apart from a few census records and even fewer Civil War records, they didn't leave many traces.

My mother's line was different. These people began as Tennessee hillbillies back in the early 1800s and then moved west and became Arkansas hillbillies in the mid-1800s. They tended to stay in one place for several generations, and they left a lot more information.

They left a mystery too. It was an article of faith on that side of the family that we had an Indian ancestor, although nobody could ever tell me what tribe this ancestor came from. It wasn't just a story. Every generation in that side of the family had its share of dark-haired, dark-skinned children who didn't look like the typical northern European stock that made up the bulk of the family. There was some non-Caucasian blood in that line.

Feelings-based Conservatism

DEA agent pulling weeds. Image courtesy the US Drug Enforcement Administration.

I'm still pissed off about Texas and the state's continuing marijuana prohibition. I can go to a local store and buy pounds of tobacco, gallons of liquor, and all the pharmaceuticals I can convince a doctor to prescribe, but if I want a bit of the forbidden flower, I have to sneak around and worry about incarceration and asset forfeiture.

That's an example of how conservatism can lead to stupid results. Marijuana prohibition started in this country about 100 years ago. At the time, that was a progressive action, because it was a change in the way we manage society. Like a lot of changes, marijuana prohibition was eventually adopted as a conservative position, despite the fact that it caused the kind of unintended consequences a conservative should be wary of.

And that's the state of affairs in Texas today. Lots of old, white men who see nothing wrong with filling your lungs with tobacco smoke or drinking yourself blind still oppose weed because to them it "feels" like the conservative thing to do.

Feelings-based Conservatism

DEA agent pulling weeds. Image courtesy the US Drug Enforcement Administration.

I'm still pissed off about Texas and the state's continuing marijuana prohibition. I can go to a local store and buy pounds of tobacco, gallons of liquor, and all the pharmaceuticals I can convince a doctor to prescribe, but if I want a bit of the forbidden flower, I have to sneak around and worry about incarceration and asset forfeiture.

That's an example of how conservatism can lead to stupid results. Marijuana prohibition started in this country about 100 years ago. At the time, that was a progressive action, because it was a change in the way we manage society. Like a lot of changes, marijuana prohibition was eventually adopted as a conservative position, despite the fact that it caused the kind of unintended consequences a conservative should be wary of.

And that's the state of affairs in Texas today. Lots of old, white men who see nothing wrong with filling your lungs with tobacco smoke or drinking yourself blind still oppose weed because to them it "feels" like the conservative thing to do.

The Glory of the Story

Stories are for fun. We love to laugh or be scared or to weep as we hear about the adventures of real or imagined people.

But story telling is not just for fun. It's educational. Stories can teach us many things. The story of King Midas teaches us the dangers of greed. The story of Ripley teaches us not to mess with alien eggs. The story of Frodo teaches us to be wary of great power and to never trust an orc.

It's possible that story telling played a big part in the development of our species. Stories can pass on practical lessons, like how to kill a mastodon or escape from a bear. The accumulation of stories over time creates a growing body of knowledge that gives each new generation an advantage over the previous one.

Another thing that stories teach us is that we're not alone. They teach us that others have suffered the same pains. That's why love songs are so popular. They tell the story of soaring hearts or broken hearts, and we enjoy them because we've been there. Those songs are about us.

Sometimes a story will offer hints on how to deal with those pains, but sometimes the knowledge that we're not unique is the real value.

Why I Oppose the Gun Control Lobby

M-16 Diagram by the US Army, via Wikimedia Commons

If you want to convince me to agree with you, it's easy to do. Give me a rational, evidence-based argument that makes sense. That's how scientists convinced me that anthropogenic global warming is a threat. They had good evidence and sound arguments. The people who dispute the reality of AGW, the Republican/Tea Party, had nothing to support their dispute except conspiracy theories and cherry-picked factoids. Science won that argument.

When it comes to the gun control lobby, I've almost never heard them make a rational case for any of their proposals. Their arguments consist of appeals to horror and the automatic labeling of everything they propose as "common sense". That's not a convincing case for me, and it shouldn't be for you.

Policy Wars: Citizen versus Corporation

Image details. "Business man offering hand shake" by Johnny Magnusson, via http://www.freestockphotos.biz/

 I've had some  battles in recent years with businesses who seem to think that being an incorporated entity gives them authority over an American citizen. One of the most infuriating cases involved dealing with an insurance company who decided that they would calculate the value of my vehicle and the cost of repairs with no input from me. During a phone conversation with one of their employees, I told them I didn't accept their terms. The employee laughed and said, "You have no choice."

A trip to small claims court proved that I _did_ have a choice.

Thoughts on Moving

Moving day. Image from National Archives and Records Administration

I've never been unpacked.

I grew up in a Marine Corps family, which is one of those family situations that leads to constant moving. It seems like we moved once a year when I was young. Later we began settling down for a few years at a time, but we never completely unpacked. I was in junior high school before I learned that not all furniture has moving stickers on it.

I'm moving again. It's always a hassle, but it's exciting too. Moving to a new place gives you a chance to look at all the junk you've accumulated. Some of it has memories. Some of it is just junk. How did I end up with so much junk?

Moving's a good time to look at habits. Maybe it's a chance to break some bad ones, or at least think about breaking them. Maybe it's a time to form some new habits.

A Babbling Goodbye to Molly

Molly the dog.

Molly died.

I kept her home for her last few days. The last thing she did was to go outside to pee about three in the morning, after that recent lunar eclipse that had so many people enchanted. She'd quit eating and almost quit drinking in those last days, so she was very weak, but she took her business outside. After she finished, she began walking aimlessly for a few seconds, then she went down. Not all the way, just down in a sphinx position with her nose almost touching the ground.

I figured it was time, because of the way she collapsed, but I still kept hoping. If she would just eat something, if she would just get some strength back, maybe she could get over this. 

What are Your Tribes?

The human hierarchy has three basic levels: the individual, the family, and the tribe.

That's a simplification, of course, but it captures the essence of human grouping. We experience life as individuals. We see the family as a natural unit. And we all belong to tribes.

Our tribal loyalties aren't usually a problem. Membership in a tribe is usually healthy, and it helps enhance our lives. But it seems to me that these days we're seeing a lot of unhealthy tribal identification in America.

Fake Harassment Stories

I came across a post today from the Science on Google+ community. It was a link to a blog entry about a woman who was finally coming forward to tell about the sexual harassment she suffered at a science conference.

I was interested enough to read the article, and then I was infuriated. It was a story about a single unwanted sexual advance at a party during the meeting. That was it.

The women this happened to and her defenders in the comments justified calling this sexual harassment because of the emotional suffering she claims it caused her. I call bullshit on all of them.  I've seen genuine sexual harassment. I've seen the effect it has on women. It's insulting for someone to try to equate the experiences of those women to a single unwanted sexual invitation that was stopped by a "no".

Extremism in Repsonse to Gay Marriage

I don't mind that some Americans are opposed to gay marriage. What I mind is the dangerous extremism being displayed by some of its opponents and the flimsy excuses they give for extremism.

I'm annoyed with the resistance to the Obergefell v. Hodges decision first because that resistance comes mainly from the Republican/Tea Party, and it continues that party's recently established tradition of getting emotional about small problems like gay marriage or drug use among the unemployed while ignoring big problems like anthropogenic global warming or the way we allow elected representatives to represent donors instead of constituents. The GOP/TP seems to be trying to identify itself as the party that sweats the small stuff and scoffs at the big stuff.

But the inability to rationally assess problems is just part of the problem. It's the extremist attacks on the federal government and national unity that the party uses to promote its agenda that makes the GOP/TP dangerous for America. I get especially annoyed when such extremist tactics are employed by self-styled conservatives. Conservatism is not a revolutionary philosophy. Conservatism seeks stability, and a conservative respects America's legal and political processes even if he doesn't always like the outcome.

Conservatism is also supposed to be an honest philosophy, not because honesty has some inherent nobility, but because honesty is a necessary component of a rational approach to national governance. Like so many other tenets of genuine conservatism, the GOP/TP has abandoned honesty these days.

The Republican Trust Deficit

Her: "Tell them you're an expert with FrameMaker."
Me: "But I'm not an expert with FrameMaker."
Her: "I know, but just tell them you're an expert."

That's the gist of an argument I had with a recruiter a few years ago on the eve of a job interview. I was trying for a technical writing contract at a company near Dallas, a job I was fairly well qualified to perform. The tricky part about a contract like that is that you're generally jumping into the middle of a project, and the customer needs you to get up to speed immediately. That means the customer needs someone who knows the software that company is using.

I'm always honest about my software skills during such an interview. That might lose me a few contracts, but it also means that I don't get a reputation for lying to customers. That's not an example of high morality on my part, it's just a recognition that in the contracting world, honest contractors are more valuable than liars. Honesty is necessary if you want to solve problems in a civilized, professional environment.

The recruiter didn't understand that. From her point of view, if lying would get you something you wanted, lying was the way to go.

And her attitude seems to be the same attitude governing Republican politics these days.

To the Anti-Gay-Marriage Lobby...

Picture yourself walking into a VA hospital. There are a lot of veterans there with serious problems. Some of those problems, like PTSD, aren't visibly obvious. Some of those problems, like missing limbs, are impossible to miss. Picture the doctors, nurses, and other health workers moving among these veterans, trying to help ease their suffering.

When you get a good mental image of that scene, picture some non-veteran walking around loudly and aggressively demanding attention for his sore toe. Despite the very real problems around him and the real people trying to fix those problems, this jerk won't shut up. He says that he's the one really suffering here, and he demands special attention and consideration immediately. If he doesn't get his way, he suggests that he might become dangerous.

Even worse, while he's interfering with the veterans, doctors, and nurses, he insists that he deserves credit for respecting them. He claims that his disrespectful behavior makes him moral.

Today we have someone just like that running around America. He's the self-described 'persecuted' Christian, and there are lots of him, especially in the anti-gay marriage lobby. The latest complaint by this group came in the form of an open letter to the Supreme Court Justices of the United States. Here's an open response.

The Global Warming Choice: Now or Later?

There's been a lot of talk about the long-term effects of anthropogenic global warming. What will the global mean temperature be in 50 years? How high will sea level rise by 2100? Thinking about the long-term effects is necessary, but it's also a problem because we humans, we speculating apes, have a standard response to long-term threats.

We'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

When it comes to global warming, the stakes are too high for us to stick with that old approach. Even the moderate predictions presented in the latest IPCC reports, which generally ignore the worst potential outcomes of global warming in an attempt to avoid seeming alarmist, suggest that we'll face massive and expensive disruptions within the lifetimes of many people walking the planet today. The worst-case scenarios, which you probably haven't heard about, could be devastating. Like game-over devastating.

The good news is that the solutions don't have to be drastic if we don't put them off too long. If you're even a little bit financially savvy, you know how this works.

Get a Grip, America

I hate extremist boneheads. They never get their facts straight and their thinking is primitive, so it's impossible to have a rational, mature discussion with them.

I really hate these people when it comes to discussing America. On one extreme you find the American exceptionalists who think that blind adoration is an expression of patriotism. On the other extreme you find the American failurists who think that blind cynicism is an expression of intelligence.

I'd like to politely suggest that these two groups refrain from extremist rhetoric, but I'm not that nice, so I'll just say: these two groups should shut the fuck up. America is a better country today than it was yesterday, and it will be a better country tomorrow.

Two Christianities

I'm a secular American conservative. I don't need or want any religious thinking in my life, although my obedience to the Constitution requires me to respect the right of others to hold religious beliefs.

Despite being secular, I've been exposed to a lot of Christians while I was growing up in America, and I see two basic types.

The first type included family and friends back in Arkansas, particularly at a small Southern Baptist church I was exposed to before the Southern Baptists were take over by an evil element back in the 1980s. I come from a line of people who held strong religious views, people who helped build churches, who donated land to churches, and who participated regularly in churches.

I kinda liked those people. Although I only attended that church on rare occasions when we were back home visiting, it seemed a pretty friendly place. I hated going, because there were too many other things to do that were fun, but I never came away from church feeling bad about myself. I never came away scared. I never came away from that church hating other people.

Anti-Republican Does Not Equal Democrat

I relate to the world mostly through internet message boards. Some people might say that this gives me a distorted view of the world, and they're probably right.

Still, you see trends in online conversations, and one of these trends I've noticed is that people who call themselves conservative or Republican often dismiss anyone who criticizes the GOP as either a liberal or a Democrat. There's no room in their pointy heads for any other options. If you don't like what the GOP has become, you must be a Democrat.

What these people don't realize is that since about 2007, the Republican Party has changed dramatically, and some of us who were involved with the party before that don't like the changes. We don't like the dumbing down of the party. We don't like corporation worship being portrayed as a conservative value. We don't like the anti-science agenda, which threatens America's security and prosperity. We don't like the paranoid conspiracy fantasies that are the main product of talk radio.

That doesn't mean we support the Democrats. It means that we oppose the corruption of the Republican Party, which is also a corruption of American conservatism.

Gay Marriage: a Conservative Dilemma

I'm pretty harsh on my conservative compadres these days. Since the rise of the Tea Party, the concept of conservatism has been corrupted beyond recognition, and this has led to some bad thinking in the American conservative movement.

But I have some sympathy for those who oppose gay marriage. While supporting corporate personhood, promoting widespread drug testing, and denying anthropogenic global warming are examples of today's conservatives abandoning genuine conservative principles, in this one case they got it almost right.

Legalizing gay marriage is exactly the kind of thing conservatives should question. It's a big change to society, and big changes make us nervous. But there's more to it than that.

The Heart of Conservatism

Ever since the internet was monochrome, I've been discussing politics online. Most of that time I spent doing what I called "stomping leftist grapes", or telling Democrats how wrong they were. In all the time since then, I haven't changed much. I've been a secular American conservative all along and proud of it.

Starting with the big change in the Republican Party in 2007, I was no longer "conservative enough" for the wave of dittoheads and Tea Party phonies who were becoming the new face of the GOP. Since then, even though my politics haven't really changed, I've been routinely labeled a liberal or even a socialist in online discussions.

What's weird about this is that none of the people calling me a liberal can even begin to explain what conservatism is about or why it's necessary for a healthy society. For them, "liberal" has become the new "nigger", and they seem to think that all you have to do to call yourself conservative is to hate liberals. This amuses me on a number of levels.

So let me lay out again for the dittoheads and Tea Party phonies what conservatism is really about.

How Bad Should I Feel About Being Texan?

After the recent series of floods here in Texas, and after our some of our politicians flip-flopped from saying the federal government can't be trusted to saying that the federal government should help Texas, there's been a lot of predictable laughter about the deep hypocrisy being shown.

My reaction has been mixed. I'm not that crazy about Texas, and I'm appalled at the low quality of some of the politicians who represent the state. On the other hand, I live here, and I've been talking to people who suffered from the floods.

The mockery I've seen online seems justifiable and despicable at the same time.

A Lesson From the Duggar Defenders

 

Years ago, in Southern California, I was driving near work when some bone-headed idiot nearly hit me. I cheerfully sprang into action, flipping him the bird, and screaming curses. Even though this stupid piece of human refuse was the one at fault, he started cursing and gesturing back. Full on road-rage was about to ensue!

Then we got a good look at each other. It was a guy I worked with. We recognized each other at the same time and froze mid-gesture.

As fast as the rage came, it melted away. We kind of sheepishly waved at each other and drove on.

Sometimes we react differently to friends than we would to a stranger.

Global Warming and Do-Nothing Republicans

Photo of drought-parched field in Arkansas.
Photograph by Tim McCabe courtesy of US Department of Argiculture.

Solving any problem requires a few basic steps.

1. Understand the problem.
2. Identify a workable solution.
3. Implement the solution.
4. Test the results to be sure you fixed the problem.

When it comes to anthropogenic global warming, we understand the problem pretty well. Humanity's carbon dioxide emissions have changed the composition of the atmosphere enough to increase the amount of heat the planet retains. Continuing to emit CO2 will cause further warming, and that's going to disrupt the climate.

Nobody still disputes the problem except the Republican/Tea Party and their media allies, and their opinions no longer matter, because their opinions don't correlate well with reality.

Texas Legislature Chickens Out

Thanks to the work of many activists in this state and some courageous legislators, a number of bills related to marijuana legalization were introduced in Texas in this year's legislative session. Unfortunately, few of them seem likely to be passed in the few days remaining before the legislators adjourn for the year.

One bill, SB 339, has already passed the state Senate, and, if I understand the process, will be on its way to Governor Abbott for his signature. According to the Texas House Research Organization:

ISIS Claims Credit, Garland PD Earns It

If you missed the story, here's what happened. Some idiot decided to hold a Mohammed drawing contest in Garland, Texas. Two other idiots decided to start shooting. The idiots were killed before they did anything except wound a security guard. ISIS is claiming credit for getting two idiots killed for no good reason.

I've seen a couple of general reactions to this incident. On one hand, there are the people speaking out against provoking Muslims by drawing Mohammed. On the other hand, there are people who seem to think this was the first battle in the war to take back America from the Muslims.

My first reaction is that I'm glad to see the cops shooting people who are actually armed for a change. In this case, they did their duty well.

Can We Drop the Pledge Now?

School children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. Image credit: Library of Congress via Wikimedia Commons.

I never liked the Pledge of Allegiance. I like it even less with every passing day.

Some low-brow, pseudo-patriotic pricks will already be taking offense, because they're too stupid to know the difference between empty words and meaningful actions. They're too stupid to understand that true patriotism is defined by how you live your life, not by the words you chant.

The Pledge is the verbal equivalent of pinning an American flag pin on your lapel. Saying the Pledge or wearing a flag pin says only that you want other people to think you're patriotic. If you saw someone wearing a lapel pin that says "I'm honest", would you think that person is really honest? I wouldn't. I'd suspect that he's going to try to sell me some bullshit.

Good Cops, Bad Cops

Image credits. Left, Louise Macabitas. Right, Steve Hillebrand, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

If you look around the internet, you can find plenty of examples of American police acting in ways that are a disgrace to America. You can also find examples of cops acting professionally, and sometimes even heroically. What's the difference? How can you get some police officers acting civilized and some acting like savages?

One difference that stands out is attitude. Some cops have a professional attitude and so they exhibit professional demeanor. But we've all seen the other kind of attitude, the "punk with a badge" who seems to think that he's a special class of human. We've seen the cops who display courage on the job, and we've seen the cops who empty their weapons at anything that can remotely be viewed as a threat.

But bad attitude isn't the fundamental problem.

The Obama Problem

I was a Republican from 1993 until 2012. The biggest reason I left was because the party adopted science denialism as part of its agenda. Since that same approach failed for the defunct Soviet Union, I won't caucus with anyone who thinks that repeating one of Stalinism's big mistakes would be good for America.

There's another thing about today's GOP that really annoys me, and that's the way they've demonized Obama. At this point, any Republican reading this will probably instantly decide that I'm a big Obama fan, maybe even an Obama "worshiper". They would be wrong, because they've fallen for the stupid notion that there are only two ways to view Obama, as a destroyer or Messiah.

Here's why I call that notion stupid.

Who's Killing American Conservatism?

Conservatism is a simple philosophy that seeks to preserve the good ideas of the past. It's based on the observation that not all new ideas turn out well. Conservatism is therefore cautious about the unintended consequences of changes.

When you understand the basic principles that guide conservative philosophy, it becomes clear that what passes for conservatism in America these days is a gross distortion. So who's to blame for distorting it? Here's my list of suspects.

1600 Years of Progressive Failure: the Scope

You probably have some idea, through television and movies if nothing else, what medical technology was like a hundred years ago. You can probably imagine what it would be like to visit a hospital a hundred years from now, with technology that would look almost like magic to us, although the food might be just as bad.

You can imagine humanity having a hundred-year head start on medicine. How about two hundred years? Four hundred?

How about 1600 years? That's how much more advanced our scientific and medical knowledge might be, if yesterday's progressives hadn't screwed up. And it's going to happen again if today's self-styled conservatives don't stop attacking science.

Here's what happened.

Humanity has been using glass or crystal lenses for at least 2000 years. Those primitive boneheads of the ancient world used them for the same reasons we use magnifying glasses today, to read fine print and to burn ants.

Good for the progressives. One of them probably found a piece of clear river gravel, noticed the magnifying effect, and worked out how to make a lens artificially. It's a noteworthy achievement.

But a single lens has limitations. To really get the most out of lenses, you need to put one behind the other. That's how we make microscopes and telescopes. We put one lens behind another.



View through a 4x rifle scope. Image credit: Captaindan and Jellocube27 at en.wikipedia

For 1600 years, humanity's progressive element either didn't think of putting one lens behind another, or they thought of it but didn't write it down. And that's what put us hundreds of years behind in medical technology, because it put us hundreds of years behind in science.

The modern scientific revolution didn't really get going until the 1600s with the invention of the telescope and the microscope. These new tools gave science what it needed to begin to flourish, new data. New data gave us new knowledge, and new knowledge lets us invent things like cruise missiles and blenders.

Obviously, the invention of the scope 1600 years earlier, even though it was technologically feasible, would not necessarily have put our scientific advancement exactly 1600 years ahead. The scientific revolution depended on improved reasoning as well as improved tools and more data.

Still, we could certainly have been much farther along than we are now, if only humanity's progressive element had done its job and put one lens behind another instead of goofing off for 1600 years.

Here's the point of all this. One thing that helped modern science thrive is the idea of persistent scientific inquiry. In the old days, when a scientist died, his research died too, or at least the part about putting one lens behind another did.

Today we have institutions that keep the research going beyond the lifetime of any single scientist. We need that, because some lines of scientific research take a long time. There's no way around this. The better we understand our universe, the better the chances of long-term survival for humanity in general and America in particular. Understanding the universe takes time, and it takes some continuity in our research and development endeavors.

Imagine starting and stopping your military in the middle of a war. Messes up your war effort, right? Same thing happens if we take a start and stop approach to research.

If those primitive boneheads of the ancient world had understood the value of persistent scientific inquiry, they'd have established a lens institute to develop the magnifying glass, and we might be hundreds of years more advanced, and your next trip to the doctor would be amazing. If we don't want to fall hundreds of years behind again, we need to keep enabling long-term research, because the cost/benefit ratio has been very, very good.

If you don't believe that, get a magnifying glass and take a good look at it. Now take a good look at the computer or tablet or phone you're using to read this. See what a difference science makes? The newer tools do way more than the old tool did.

Last thought on this little talk about progressive failure. If you actually got a magnifying glass when I told you to, you'll see the value of preserving the good ideas of the past, which is the foundation of genuine conservatism. That magnifying glass design is at least 2,000 years old, yet it's still useful, and it's still a component in many modern tools.

That's how civilization progresses. Progressives come up with new ideas. Conservatives preserve the good ones. Let's not wait another 1600 years for the next good idea.

Politics, Cooking, and PVP

I read the following paragraph in a G+ comment from a fellow writer who's also an experienced chef and restaurant manager. The subject was an article at ScienceDaily about how people avoid bumping into each other. Here's what the writer/chef said.

"One of the most rewarding feelings one gets from working in a restaurant kitchen is the sense of accomplishment one feels when when the crew works together with a sort of 'unspoken' grace: as if we were each parts of a well oiled machine: running perfectly smoothly."

Do you know that feeling? I know that feeling. I've had that feeling of coordinated team grace a few times. Working in a kitchen, working on a school bus assembly line, working on a roof.

I've also seen it in gaming, especially in player-vs-player (PVP) matches. What used to amaze me is that you can achieve a high-level of coordination with little or no communication. A couple of examples before my explanation, and why I think this is a subject of national importance.

The Enemy Within

American can't be defeated from outside. We have too much military and economic power, as well as too many armed citizens, for that to happen. But we can be weakened from within, and there's a group working hard to do that.

I don't speculate about people's inner motivations. That's a game for idiots. I judge people based on their actions, and my judgment of the Republican/Tea Party is that they represent the greatest threat America faces today, because they're attacking one of the pillars of American strength.

America is strong for a lot of reasons, such as our military and agricultural capabilities. We're also strong because America is good at science. Science is vital to America's well being because it feeds our technology, and our technology promotes our security and prosperity. Science is the tool that makes all our other tools work better.

If you want to destroy America, destroying our scientific capability is the most effective method, because the rest of the civilized world isn't giving up their science.

The Hierarchy of Tribes

Humans have developed a lot of complicated ways to organize into groups, but the basic hierarchy is simple.

• Individual
• Family
• Tribes

An individual is easy to understand. It's one person. A family is easy to understand, although the definition can get a little fuzzier. It's a group of people bound by biological relationships, like parent/child or uncle/nephew, and by marital relationships. A tribe is a group of families and individuals who work together to survive and thrive.

That's the basic setup. Obviously, things are more complex in the modern world. Family doesn't necessarily mean a blood relationship today, and tribes have evolved into larger social structures.

But we still define ourselves by our tribes. Even though I'm generally anti-social, I have a long list of tribes myself. Some of them are geological.

The Arkansas tribe. It's my native state, so this is a tribe I can avoid but never leave.
The Southern California tribe. If you go by length of residence, SoCal is my second home.
The Texas tribe. My current state. I don't like this tribe so much, but I'll still defend it and try to be a good tribe member.
The American tribe. I'll talk a bit more about this later.

Some of our tribes are formed around common interests.

I'm a gamer. I'm not a great gamer, but I'm a proud one. (Nelf hunters rule!)
I'm a beekeeper. It's only one hive, but it has bees in it, so I qualify for tribal membership.
I'm an agnostic. This is a fun tribe, because atheists and theists alike hate us, and it makes for some good arguments online.
I'm a writer.

That last tribe is really a collection of tribes. Anyone who's interested in writing is part of the writer tribe. There's also a sub-tribe of professional writers, people who make a living by arranging words. There's a sub-sub-tribe of technical writers, people who write instructions and descriptions.

That's one of the big differences between humanity's primitive past and humanity's slightly less primitive present. In the primitive world, you only had one tribe. Today, we have a whole network of tribes. And that brings up the question of tribal loyalty. Which tribe should you be more loyal to?

An example of this is my American tribe. My loyalty to that tribe outweighs my loyalty to a single city or state, because the American tribe is higher up the hierarchy. This is where geological tribalism meets political tribalism.

I was a Republican from 1993 until 2012. I'm no longer part of that tribe, because it went bad, but I'm still a member of the conservative tribe and part of the secular American conservative sub-tribe. By the rule I established in the preceding paragraph, I should be more loyal to conservatism in general than to secular America conservatism.

But I have a problem with that. Today's conservatism has been hijacked. Part of that hijacking was done by the sub-tribe of Christian fundamentalists. These people have declared that the conservative tribal identity must include certain elements that I can't accept. Science denialism is one of those elements. Another is a belief that Christians in America are a persecuted majority. Another is the belief that America has a Christian government rather than a secular one.

While I remain loyal to genuine conservatism, I'm not loyal to what passes for conservatism in America these days. I can't be, because this new conservative tribe puts its own interests above the interests of America, and I'm more loyal to the nation as a whole than I am to any single part of it.

We need to redefine American conservatism. For a starter, we need to recognize that American conservatism is built on a progressive foundation. Remember that Constitution we conservatives claim to revere? That was, and still is in many respects, a progressive document, because it overthrew the old ways of doing things.

We need to recognize that while a conservative might be Christian, conservatism is not defined by Christianity. The conservative role in society is to judge new ideas to see which ones are worth trying, not to promote a specific set of religious opinions.

Finally, we need to recognize that science denialism is not compatible with American conservatism. The place that would become America began taking shape about the same time that modern science began. Science helped turn American into a superpower. It's one of the pillars of American strength.

And no genuine American conservative attacks American strength.