So 1000 lawyers have shown up at the detention center at Guantanamo Bay to defend the 400 some inmates, for free. Screw the inmates, lets focus on those lawyers.

I’m going to go ahead and make the assumption that probably upwards of 90% of those lawyers are flaming leftists. With maybe the remainder made up of conservatives and libertarians who dissent with the war for whatever reason.

Why do I make this assumption? Because under international law, the only rights of enemy combatants fighting without uniform is to be summarily executed and/or hanged after a redundant battlefield court martial. In other words, just by being left breathing, they’ve been shown considerable mercy. And through leftist posturing, they’ve been given more amenities than I get. And more consideration for their religion too. Which is funny because Hindus have never tried to kill Americans in the name of religion.

What do you call someone who wants to give people ‘rights’ that are neither rights nor deserved? A leftist. Hence my assumption that these lawyers are leftists.

Moving on, that’s slightly more than 2 lawyers per detainee, all of whom vote for Democrats because they’ll ‘take care of the less fortunate’. These people likely call those who don’t support social welfare names like ’selfish’ or ‘greedy’ or ‘uncaring’, while they call themselves ‘charitable’, and ‘respectful’.

So here’s my thing. How many of these 1000 lawyers do you think have ever offered their services to the poor for a significantly reduced rate or for free? You think it’s even as high as 50%?

Leftists talk a good game about caring more about others than we do. Yet a look at their personal lives often reveals just how hollow their talk of charity and good will really is. As I’ve discussed before, they on the other hand simply vote for someone else who will so that they don’t have to.

What does it say about a person that they think service to his fellow man can be discharged by choosing a proxy, and then forcing everyone else to do the same?

Welcome to Tangled Bank #63. Probably a pretty good reason to start scienceblogging again. I was going to do a clever little theme, but I’m neither clever nor little. I thought about doing something primate-related. But I’m too obsessed with monkeys as it is; I research them with no funding, no position faculty or student, and no prospects. And then I thought about doing a country music themed edition. But I figured that in these circles, my musical tastes are possibly even more anathema than my political opinions.

So you’re getting a straight up carnival. Deal.

Phil B. presents Phil for Humanity: A Better Purpose for N.A.S.A. posted at Phil for Humanity. He makes the proposition that NASA research is best directed toward developing the technology to maintain longterm space colonies, rather than simple basic science. Personally, I like my weekly NASA wallpaper way too much to support ditching telescopes that can take pretty pictures, but it’s not a bad suggestion.

Wandering Visitor exposes a dirty truth when it comes to ‘ready to eat’ food. Thank god I buy fresh.

Avant News tells us about a study that Finds Human Brain Capable of Finite Number of Thoughts. Well, at least I have an excuse for my performance on last week’s midterms. Seriously though. I guess it turns out there is a limit to what human imagination can do.

…Ok, I guess I wasn’t so serious…but then again neither were they…

Dr. Kavokin continues his series on how pharmaceutical compnies use you as a guinea pig (Part III). Part I and Part II are also worth a read if you’re interested in the history and mechanics of how clinical trials work.

For a change of pace, Dr. David Ng brings us a very different entry titled ‘Be Very Afraid‘. It’s a fun stream of conscious romp through various aspects of science that currently have the public’s attention. Everything from GM foods to alternative energy to eugenics, he hits it all. If it were a book I’d buy it.

You know what pisses me off? The titmouse (Baeolophus spp.). Not because of anything it’s done, but because of its name. Its name is clearly British in origin, because the rather vugar colloquial use of those first three letters didn’t exist back when it was named. But the bird is American. And to make it worse, the bird doesn’t resemble either of its namesakes. Luckily, 10000 birds has come to my rescue. I’m still annoyed, but at least now I know what I’m so pissy about.

Apparently there’s something called plum pox. And at some point in the vague future, it might possibly threaten the plum production capabilities of this great nation. Sound familiar? *cough* Avian Flue *cough*

Anyway, genetically modified foods come to our rescue with the Honeysweet Plum, Guaranteed Pox Resistant ™. Brought to you by Genetics and Health. The story, not the plums. Although they may grow the plums too. They didn’t mention it in the conflict of interest disclosure form though. So let’s assume it’s just the story.

Never trust authority is my motto. In government, in science, and at home (the latter probably explains why my parents kicked me out of their house 3 times before I graduated). And RPM shows us exactly why in ‘On Somatic Variation of the Genome‘. Just because someone is more famous than you does not mean he necessarily knows more. And the founder of Wired magazine shows his ignorance about the nature of the genome writ large for all to see. The sad thing is that because he’s a figure of some influence, he will be taken at face value, setting science back a small, but significant amount. Kudos to an excellent fisking, RPM. I’ll use it if that misconception ever comes up amongst my peers.

Balancing Life brings us a discussion about why a Japanese crab’s carapace would resemble a Samurai mask so strongly, for reasons other than artificial selection. That’s a geographical coincidence if I’ve ever seen one. I mean, North Carolina blue crabs don’t have carapaces that look like samurai masks. Although the Blue Devils are in North Carolina…Now explain that to me.

Flocking behavior. Finally, something I studied in school. CPBVK of Rigor Vitae does an excellent job of bringing what can be a boring subject to life as he explains why selfish animals would group with their competitors. Some of the benefits aren’t necessarly intuitive, which makes them all the more fascinating. And he discusses monkeys. Brownie points.

Tim Abbott of Walking the Berkshires presents Thar She Breaches!, an account of a recent whale watching experience. Good background info and well written. Whale watching is definitely one of those things on my ‘to do’ list. There’s something romantic about mammals who chose to return to the sea of their piscine forefathers. The way they sing to each other across miles of empty ocean only heightens the image.

Libertarians can be green. And one thing that upsets this green libertarian is invasive species. They’re just so destructive and so hard to stop. And in many cases such waste could have easily been avoided. Perhaps the most galling is that I have to accept that humans are the most invasive, most destructive of any of these. Dr. Jenn Orth of the Invasive Species Weblog picked the time I was hosting the Tangled Bank to send an entry in about the controversy surrounding the introduction and control of Buffelgrass in Arizona. She’ll be receiving a bill for my aneurysm repair surgery.

The Hairy Museum of Natural History brings us news that Coelophysis might not be the babykiller we’d all pegged it as. I liked the piece, but I wasn’t even aware that Coelophysis had been pegged as a cannibal. Which is weird because I’m even more obsessive about dinosaurs now than I was at 4, which is really saying something. It does heighten my belief that these days paleontologists of all stripes (human and dinosaur especially) are becoming more and more obsessed with creating controversy. I blame Horner and Bakker. They started it all. And Alvarez too. And, come to think of it Cope and Marsh. And if we mention them we have to mention the real life Indiana Jones Mr. Andrews. Ok, maybe paleontologists have always been obsessed with creating controversy. Nevermind.

Lab Cat discusses the interesting, but difficult process of objectively measuring the color of various foods. If it sounds a bit dull to you, consider her excellent synopsis of its importance:

How many people remember the fuss when blue M&Ms first came out?

Physics nerds beware. This one will grab you.

Ouroboros discusses how the failure of normal cellular turnover (autophagy) may be linked to aging. He seems a little concerned with the ravages of father time as he’s sent me another post, this one dealing with oxidative damage and age-related hearing loss. As a future psychiatrist, I must caution him that such a preoccupation is frequently a marker of deeper insecurities that would be best addressed before they fester like an untended sore.

Dan Rhoads discusses the results from a new paper and compares two possible scenarios detailing how the results of said paper influence the polarity, movement, and cytoskeleton in motile cells. Hypothesizing is the fun part of science. Unfortunately that’s not what you get paid for. Which is why you blog.

Martin of Salto Sobrius takes a look at the unorthodox field of childhood treehouse archaeology. Interesting analogy between the development of one of these ‘archaeological sites’ and the development of the mind.

Diane Kelly of Science Made Cool points out a few good resources for bug identification. If I wasn’t the type to scream like a 6 year old girl and run at the site of a terrestrial arthropod, I might have been willing to try that out. But the saga continues. The caterpillar they identified in the first post spouted parasites! All in all a very clever way to develop your child’s interest in science.

Daniel Collins of Down To Earth discusses what a genetic algorithm is:

Genetic algorithms (GA) are types of computer models that incorporate processes inspired by evolutionary biology such as selection, inheritance, mutation, and recombination…GAs are used to find optimal solutions to complex problems, though in practice you can never be sure they find the absolute optimum instead of just a local optimum (just as in evolution).

and then he discusses how these algorithms can be applied to further our understanding of plant diversity.

Which segues nicely into the final entry of this edition of the Tangled Bank. Mine. Daniel discussed how other disciplines (especially engineering) could benefit by using genetic/evolutionary algorithms. I instead focus on the dire need for a pseudobiological discipline (Medicine) to learn to use an evolutionary perspective.

Well that’s it for this week. I hope my commentary wasn’t too offensive, or tiresome. And at any rate even if I volunteered again, you wouldn’t see me till February. Which gives you a minimum of 4 months to to recover from the psychological trauma.

Tangled Bank 64 will be hosted by the Neurophilosopher’s Blog on October 11. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to bed.

First science post in a long time. Expect more though. Because I feel like I’m in a political rut.

I get more than a little frustrated when doctors and fellow medical students tell me they don’t see how evolution has any bearing on the practice of medicine. Perhaps it’s because they’re taught to think of the body as a machine that on occasion malfunctions and needs to be repaired, and so find themselves inclined to think of Paley’s watch rather than Haeckel’s famous theory. Perhaps it’s because they view biology as a means to an end rather than the end in and of itself. Whatever the reason, Dobzhansky’s most famous utterance is lost upon far too many of them.

Learning
A knowledge of evolution makes understanding several subjects considerably easier. This applies to embryology perhaps more than any other. As a tutor for the dental students at my university, I’ve found phylogenetic comparison an invaluable teaching aid. I’ve also found it immensely frustrating since, being in Oklahoma, I have to preface it with “I don’t know if you’re a creationist or not, but this is an evolutionary example that helps me understand things.” When helping students to understand why the sclerotome of the paraxial mesoderm forms only axial skeletal elements but not appendicular (limb) bones, I invoke the humble lamprey. Possessed of the simplest body plan, the poor creature lacks both limbs and a true jaw. I tell them “The sclerotome is pretty old stuff, it’s only got enough material to produce a lamprey skeleton.” Vertebrae, ribs, and a skull encasing the brain and eyes. That’s about it. Jaws, ‘faces’, and limbs, being newer vertebrate features, have a different embryological derivation. And a lightbulb goes off. “Paraxial=lamprey”. Stupid simple.

Staying with embryology just a few moments longer, the development of the kidney is a rather confusing process. The embryo/fetus actually develops three different excretory systems in succession, the latter two of which are functional at various points of development. First come the cervical nephrotomes, then the mesonephros, then the metanephros. This developmental process is an elegant (and possibly the finest) example of the idea that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. And because of this, a sprinkling of evolutionary context can help to make sense of this process well enough for a student to keep things straight.

Perhaps the most fun use of evolutionary perspective comes when learning about physiology. Everything in physiology revolves around homeostasis. Maintaining a constant internal environment. For the most part, complexity of a given taxon is directly proportional to its ability to maintain its internal state at a constant rate. Mammals are perhaps the finest example of this ability, but all, from the simplest ball of Volvox to the lizard basking in the sun show some aptitude for this. And as to the nature of this internal state they’re trying to maintain? Blood bears a remarkable (or perhaps expected) resemblance to seawater in many respects. And this has prompted several of my physiology teachers to describe us as “a collection of cells that figured out how to take the sea with us.” Much like Wernstrom’s goldfish and his reverse scuba suit.

The greatest vindication of the use of evolutionary history as a teaching aid is the fact that although these represent extra–what mainstream physicans would less charitably call extraneous–information, they nevertheless make the testable material easier to understand. In short, the extra learning investment is more than returned.

Looking Forward
Evolutionary thinking also gives us a more stable platform from which to study the human body in sickness and in health. Understanding that the human body is an evolved construct allows us to better understand exactly what ‘normal’ is, and what conditions may bring on disease.

Anatomically and genetically, humans haven’t changed all that much in the past 100,000 years. Yet our environs and our lifestyles have shifted to the point that our current circumstances have no resemblance whatsoever to our past lives. More importantly, as technology, healthcare, and standards of living have improved, we are less and less likely to die before reproducing no matter how feeble or infirm.

What this means is that we have to treat the body as evolutionarily static at least from the birth of modern H. sapiens, and perhaps even as far back as H. heidelbergensis. And although I am somewhat critical of the view of the body as a machine, it remains a useful framework within certain limits. The heating element in your water heater would quickly warp if powered up in open air. And the coil on your stovetop wouldn’t function under water. Their failure under such circumstances is not an indicator that they are defective, but rather that they were forced to operate outside their design parameters.

I hate to use the word ‘design’ in such a context, but preventive medicine hinges upon our ability to ensure that our bodies are not placed in situations they haven’t evolved to cope with. Diet, activity patterns, and exercise are just a few of the areas in which we differ from earlier examples of our species. How does this deviation affect our health? In the realm of genetics, sickle cell anemia is probably one of the most well-known examples of the intersection of evolution and medicine. A potentially beneficial allele in one environmental context becomes nothing but a nuisance at best, lethal at worst in another. Type II diabetes is another example.

My personal agenda revolves around the basic proposition that the brain’s purpose isn’t whatever some psychologist claims it is, but rather that it is wired and coded with software that is designed for a certain environment. It is not a blank slate but an evolved construct optimally suited to certain physical and social contexts. When placed in a different social or learning structure, it can easily go haywire.

The latest area of medicine I’ve seen a place for evolution in is cancer. This might be because we just finished the unit on neoplasia in pathology class and I’d been studying it 24/7 for the past couple weeks. But everything about the pathogenesis of cancer hearkens back to lessons I had in undergrad on selective advantage, differential reproduction, and natural selection. Without getting into too much detail, cancer is essentially a progression of genetic changes, each of which allow these cells to escape the restraints that prevent normal cells from proliferating and spreading unchecked. The neoplastic cells that beget a tumor were often present 10 or 20 years before anything was clinically evident. This is because the immune system ruthlessly destroy those cells that appear genetically different from the host. Like multi-drug resistant bacteria, those neoplastic cells exist in an environment that consistently selects for the ones that evade detection, escape destruction, and reproduce faster than they can be killed. The ability of these tumors to continually reappear despite the immune system’s best efforts, and in many cases from apparently successful chemotherapy should thus come as little surprise when thought of this way. We are in fact selecting for those mutant genes that confer the ability to escape normal therapeutic and preventive methods.

We, our genes, our physiology, and our behavioral patterns evolved in one environment. They are a product of that intimate interaction between the organism and its surroundings. Changing the surroundings not only changes the nature of the interaction, but may substantially affect the fitness of said organism. While nothing so dramatic as the explosion of a polychaete worm when placed in a freshwater aquarium, there can be little doubt that much of the ’cause’ of human illness may not be rooted internally at all. Understanding the difference between our current environment and the one we evolved in will play an ever greater role in the prevention and treatment of disease.

Conclusion
Medicine has much to learn from evolution. It can provide us a foundation from which to better ground ourselves. And a scaffolding from which to reach for the sky. No other facet of the biological disciplines has remained as recalcitrant to simple Darwinian concepts as this field, and perhaps it’s time we were brought kicking and screaming into a mindset most of our colleagues found in the early 1900’s.

It seems a lot of people think that when it comes to Christianity, open hearts and open minds are only supposed to go one way. While I’m supposed to keep an open mind about their religion, they have no duty to return the favor, let alone even consider that Jesus might possibly be only one of several physical manifestations of God. Many of course do not behave in such a fashion, but it has been my experience that most do. They love to bring up archaeological and historical evidence that Jesus existed, but don’t have the time to realize that just as much evidence for the lives of Krishna and Buddha (to name a couple) also exist. They can verify parts of the bible, but refuse to consider that other parts of the bible might very well be false. And they of course, categorically ignore the proven veracities of other religious texts. If their hearts and minds were really open–they would, as a good scientist does–attempt to falsify their beliefs. ‘He clings to [evidence] as a drunk to lampposts–for support instead of illumination,’ seems to be an apt characterization.

I’ve got no problem approaching the study of religious texts in the same way one compares the literary classics. And it’s interesting what you find when you do so.

1. The immaculate conception is hardly a Christian original. Its similarity to the many times Zeus and his brethren impregnated unsuspecting ancient hellene females is just a little bit too much to be coincidence. Same goes for the conception/birth of Hanuman, Krishna, and Buddha, to name a few of the most poignant examples from my own religion.

This is particularly interesting considering all of these stories antedate the birth of Jesus, in two cases (Krishna and Hanuman) by more than a thousand years. And while I doubt the historical veracity of the monkey pseudogod’s corporeal existence, I have personally stood in the remnants of a domicile that Krishna once called home. And Buddha’s life is so well documented and verified that I simply won’t even bother.

2. The trinity occurs first and most prominently in Hinduism In the vedas, the idea of a single god (Brahman) with three aspects (Brahma, Vishnu, Siva) is very well developed. And if modern Hindus misunderstand it, thinking that we are in fact a polytheistic religion, their conceptions are clearly a modern derivation. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost correspond awfully closely to Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva respectively.

3. The idea of god/god’s son returning to earth to purge it of its sins is also not a Christian original. Neither can it be found in predominant strains of Jewish thought before Jesus beyond vague mentions of a Messiah. The idea of a terrestrial incarnation acting in such a manner is a fundamentally Hindu idea. And considering the religion rivals or perhaps even surpasses Judaism and Ancient Egyptian mythology in age, this is rather important to note.

Vishnu, specifically, is the aspect of Brahman upon which this duty falls. Of the 10 reincarnations (9 of which have occurred), Narasimha, Vamana, Parasurama, Rama, Krishna, Buddha, and Kalki all deal with the theme of coming to Earth to remove sin/restore order/show the way to heaven/nirvana.

Kalki, the last incarnation of Vishnu, is the bringer of the apocalypse. Which brings me to point 4.

4. The rapture is again an idea first seen in Hindu mythology. Kalki has yet to arrive. This is probably a good thing, since when he does so, the Earth will not be a nice place. He will make war–just war. He will cleanse the sins from this earth and take into his kingdom those who are worthy. This next quote is from Revelations, but it was just as I’d been raised to envision the Maha Avatar:

I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns [diadems]. He has a name written on him that no one but he himself knows. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.

Kalkin has been depicted since well before the birth of Christ in just such a fashion. The Rapture, the second coming. Even the flaming sword Gabriel wields as Azrael is eerily similar to the comet that Kalki has appropriated for a similar purpose.

5. Christ’s death, like those of several Vishnu avatars, came at the hands of sinning men. The Pandavas–Krishna’s cousins who he guided through war and peace–were exiled by an evil king and walked for 13 years alone and friendless before entering what was quite literally hell on earth. At their side remained a single loyal dog until the very end (I like that bit). Rama gave up his throne and lived in poverty in the jungle before being shot by a poacher, hunting in the holiest part of the forest (where prayer is the only human activity permitted). Buddha was poisoned by jealous men who feared that he was destroying the influence of traditional Hinduism (jewish mistrust of jesus much?).

6. Jesus’ teachings differed from Judaism in much the same way as Buddha’s teachings broke stride from its progenitor. Buddha spoke a message of tolerance and love. And underlying this was a strong desire to be as inclusive as possible. He spent his time with beggars, outcasts, and petty criminals. Several hundred years later Jesus would do the same. Both divine figures spoke out against the Pharisees of their respective religions. And both sought to give a more accessible and distilled message to the people. Both performed miracles yet both remained humble, almost to a fault, until the end. And both were killed by a Judas Iscariot of one sort or another.

I have used mainly Hindu examples because hinduism is the faith I was raised with and one I know intimately. I’m familiar with a number of other religions, but it was the similarities between the life of Jesus and those of the avatars that I found most poignant. Particularly as I found the early and late parts of the New Testament to strike a cord deep within me. Jesus’ message was one I’d learned as a child. The settings were different, and the characters may have changed. But the themes were the same.

I am an agnostic. I call myself a Hindu because my personal philosophy is derived heavily from that religion. And because Hinduism, unlike many other religions, shows little desire to throw me out for what would otherwise be heretical beliefs. It in fact encourages one to find divine inspiration from other sources, and freely acknowledges that Jesus was as holy a prophet as any. According to Hindu thought, God–should he exist–will not judge me by my (lack of) prayers and belief, but rather how I lived. And that, perhaps more than anything else, is why I’ve never seen a reason to drop the label.

Inasmuch as an agnostic can truly believe in the existence of prophets, I believe Jesus was one. Just as I believe Buddha, Guru Jain, and Krishna were. But looking at it with as impartial an eye as I am able, I simply cannot see how to hold one of them above the others. What makes Jesus’ story more compelling? What makes him the one true path where the others are nothing but moral teachers at best, and evil influences taking one away from the path of righteousness at worst? Especially when he supposedly insists that morality and right action aren’t as important as submitting to him.

And, given the similarities of life, message, and legacy, there is one fact that remains impossible for me to stomach. That Jesus, the man who threw the moneylenders out of the temples and berated the Pharisees for turning religion into nothing more than legalese, the man who above everything preached love for all, would turn around and be the most exclusionary of any of the aforementioned religious figures, clinging to so superficial a thing as prayer. And that this would somehow be superior to a god who judged us for who we were rather than what we said

There are two main conclusions I draw from this admittedly limited comparative study:
1. That Jesus was one of several who rejected the superficiality of religion, stressing the importance of morality and serving one’s fellows over empty gestures and rituals.
2. That the idea of the ‘one true path’ is more likely to be historical redaction than anything said by the divine figure himself. Far more likely is that he preached that there was ‘one true goal’, just as the others did.

We have a saying in Hinduism, ‘the soul is the thing and the whole of the thing’. It doesn’t translate too well, but I think the meaning is nonetheless crystal clear. I think the man who bathed with lepers, ate with beggars, and walked with prostitutes would agree with such a sentiment.

Chili’s locations nationwide are donating 100% of their profits to St. Jude’s today. Monday September 25th. 100%. The dirty, selfish capitalist pigs that they are, this is nothing but a marketing gimmick, the increased exposure will return monday’s ‘donation’ sevenfold. So it’s not really unselfish.

Seriously, altruism is nothing but an artificial construct thinly veneered over a scaffolding of the complexities of self interest.

And while I leave you to ponder that point, remember that even if Chili’s is profiting off of this, so are the kids at St. Jude’s.

And that’s the important thing. So stuff your face with an appetizer, one of the more expensive entrees, and then order an 8 dollar daquiri (virgin for me, thank you) or one of those other fru-fru drinks they seem to sell all the time. Because as a former frat party bartender I can tell you that the profit margins on those things are HUGE Heck have several, just have someone drive you home. If you live in OKC, heck, I’ll do it.

I’ve got a dirty secret. I don’t see the point in packing heat all the time. Or even most of the time. There. I said it. Don’t get me wrong. I’m a very strong second amendment supporter and the fact that I have to get a license to concealed carry pisses me off only slightly less than the fact that California still has an ‘assault weapon ban’. And don’t get me started on the BMG ban. I also believed that an armed populace is more important than jail sentences or a police cruiser as a criminal deterrent. But by and large I am and have always been far more interested in the right to keep and bear arms than doing so myself.

We were talking about it on the Life Liberty Property community’s mailing list after we got sidetracked from the initial subject of web traffic. Don’t ask me how. RG Combs was telling me about his experiences with the Guardian series, which I’ve been eyeballing after playing with (and enjoying) my Black Widow. I admitted that I’m simply not that worried about the personal safety aspect, expecting a torrent of distaste and angry statistic quoting. Instead it turns out I’m not the only one. Several in fact have never even fired a gun before.

And it occurred to me that the libertarians who make you feel bad for admitting the above are guilty of making the same exact mistake conservatives do. They forget that the important thing is the freedom to choose to carry, not that you yourself carry. As I’ve said before, I probably wouldn’t even own a gun if I hadn’t been attracted to the engineering aspects first, and the fun second. Granted, I’d still probably have a CCW license just so I could wave it at hippies and make them cringe in fear…

I’m a rather conservative man as personal habits go. Yet I support drug legalization and a host of other ’socially liberal’ things which I myself either look down upon or simply would never do. When conservatives hear that, they often make the mistake of assuming that I am somehow ‘for’ those things. Heh. If only they knew just how puritanical I can be. On the other hand, I hate seatbelt and helmet laws, but I always buckle up and wear a helmet on the rare occasions I ride. Which upsets the leftists, who claim I don’t care about people, unwilling to realize that I’m simply willing to give them the respect to allow them to make their own decisions about issues that only affect themselves.

What I’m getting at is that the biggest difference between classical liberals and both the right and the left is that the latter share the belief that personal opinion should be law. When we create an environment where other liberty-minded individuals feel like pariahs because they have little interest in firearms, we make the same mistake the mainstream does. The important thing is that–like us–they support the right to use firearms in defense, utility, and fun, not that they themselves do so.

It’s a common plot device in cartoons. Kid gets tired of being bullied. Kid learns karate/gets special powers/buys robot and neutralizes bully. Kid eventually becomes worse than old bully. I would say it’s gotten tired and old, but it hasn’t. And it’s yet again a lesson the leftist would do good to apply to his political thought process.

In 1789 the French stormed the Bastille and took a stand against the aristocrats, abolishing feudalism and theocracy in one fell swoop. In the 19th century, protests against the robber barons raged far and wide all over the West as workers and their children were exploited during the Industrial Revolution. And in October of 1917, the Bolsheviks took the words of Marx to heart as they usurped control both in Moscow and St. Petersburg. The common theme of all of these events was injustice. People had power they did not deserve, and they were exerting it over people who couldn’t defend themselves. Although I have little patience for socialism, even I must admit that something had to be done about what was going on.

The danger comes when a perception of wrongdoing turns into outright jealousy, and the desire to dispense justice turns into the bloodthirsty motivation to punish. One sees this most clearly with Marx’s–and his followers’–endless tirades about the bourgeoisie. When all is said and done, their greatest criticism of the fledgling middle class is that they are better off than the proletariat. And so they punished prosperity. The Soviet Union managed to function for 74 years after that revolution, but it never knew wealth. Could it be that the two are related?

It seems that along the way leftists found themselves unable to keep their eye on the prize. The point was to prevent men from becoming prosperous by taking it off the backs of others, not to prevent them from becoming prosperous. But by looking first at their situation and then assuming that a crime must have been committed, they have become just as oppressive in their own right as the kings of days past.

And I speak not only of wealth, but of any pursuit in which we will naturally stratify and separate into different levels of success and attainment. Of academic excellence and artistic fervor. In athletic competition. Even, sadly, in health. The left sees each of these things and believes that any differential amongst the various demographics cannot be tolerated. They punish out of jealousy and nothing more.

The founding fathers stressed the importance of reciprocity in government. In fact, it is reciprocity that separates the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and property from the coercive privileges demanded by the modern leftist. Civil rights weren’t created for the majority, but for the minority. Freedom of speech wasn’t for the eloquent but for the dastardly. If you took free speech away from him, you have also taken it from yourself. By the same token, by punishing someone else for their success, you prevent yourself from ever being rewarded for your own.

In a casual conversation the other day, we got to talking about traffic laws, parking tickets, university police, and other such travesties of justice when someone wondered aloud why law enforcement seems to attract the best and the worst people in society with equal frequency. I would think that the answer would be self evident to anyone. And it bothers me that in a few months, tens of millions of people are going to elect state and national leaders without understanding this basic aspect of human behavior and its political ramifications.

The purpose of government is to ensure the well-being of the people. But government cannot discharge this responsibility except through the projection of power. At its core then, government is force. Like any other potentially destructive implement, the determining factor isn’t in the object itself, but can be found in the character of the man wielding it.

As the old adage goes, with great power comes great responsibility. These ultimately inseparable aspects of any position of influence nevertheless attract two very different kinds of people. And therein lies the danger.

While being far from an accomplished woodworker, I do enjoy the avocation. For me it’s about watching a few pieces of oak or pine magically become a functional, and sometimes aesthetically pleasing, piece of furniture. At the opposite end of the spectrum we have Tim ‘The Tool Man’ Taylor. With his constant quest for more power and his animal-like grunting, and the fact that I don’t think I ever did see a finished piece of work on his part, one is left in little doubt as to where his interests lay.

And so it is with government. There are those who lust for power, and then there are those who desire nothing more than to fulfill their duty to their fellows. The Founding Fathers–and in particular George Washington–were perfectly situated to claim as much power for themselves as they liked. After all, even in their own time they were treated almost as demi-gods, and it was they themselves that created the government they would later lead. Yet they created a founding document intended more to curb and limit government, rather than empower it (the EU and Iraq could take a lesson from that. Washington himself was treated like a king, and indeed at one point they tried to make him president for life. Washington was never tempted, never took the gifts of power that he was offered, for he knew that foremost among his responsibilities was to set an example for the maintenance of carefully circumscribed government.

Compare this to FDR, who ran for four terms as president. Who by declaring a State of Emergency, gave himself more power than any president who preceded him. Who mocked the very soul of this land when he declared the Constitution a ‘horse and buggy’ document and proceeded to destroy the Fathers’ vision as surely as Orwell’s pigs learned to walk on two legs. Or to Bill Clinton, whose ego makes even this author look as humble as a saint. Or to George Bush, who though not as bad as the press and the left make him out to be, is clearly a power monger in his own right.

How then do we prevent the power-mongers from taking office, from becoming dictatorial bureaucrats, or from wearing a badge? Is there a good way? We can’t achieve this in medicine or in the clergy, why would government be any different?

Those on the Left seek a big government. They do so because they think government has a larger responsibility to do things for its citizens. But they forget that with greater responsibility will come greater power. And, inevitably, abuse of said power.

So apparently with the tightened border security in California and Texas, illegals are ‘being forced’ to traverse the ‘dangerous Sonoran Desert’. Funny, no one holds a gun to their head and tells them to come here. In fact, they pay other people to get them across. The fact that they’re taking more arduous routes tells us one thing: the potential profit is worth the risk. They make this determination on their own, using their own faculties. And if the desert claims them, then so be it. They knew what they were getting into.

Harsh? perhaps. But I have no respect for those who won’t respect the laws and the history of my country.

Journalists once again come to our rescue by using idiotic language. The vocabulary of coercion is dangerous, particularly when used in a political context. It implies an oppressor and a victim. It implies that something must be done. It begs for government to arrive, wearing the guise of protector. And just as serfs once bowed their heads to feudal lords in exchange for safety, so do we.

I am profoundly sick of hearing about ‘victims’ and people ‘forced’ to do things. If you use such language, I want to see the crime, I want to see the coercion. People choosing to do stupid, dangerous, or inane things do so at their own peril. And I’ll respect them enough to allow them their freedom. And in return I expect that people leave me alone to do what I will. Succeed or fail, it’ll be my own doing.

‘Cause I’m just a girl, little ‘ol me
Don’t let me out of your sight
I’m just a girl, all pretty and petite
So don’t let me have any rights

Oh…I’ve had it up to here!
The moment that I step outside
So many reasons
For me to run and hide
I can’t do the little things I hold so dear
‘Cause it’s all those little things
That I fear

Tragic Kingdom was the first CD I ever bought. And when I heard the latest in inane auto regulation, Just a Girl was the first thing that popped into my head. Because just like Gwen, it’s all those little things–helmet laws, park curfews, and now mandatory stability control–that I fear most.

Why? Because they, more than anything, show how little the public understands the meaning of liberty. Because while it might be hard to push for major changes like even more pervasive social welfare, it’s quite easy to pass ’sensible’ legislation that makes everyone ’safer’.

Sadly I don’t recall a single paean to safety being sung by our founding fathers. But, being the child of immigrants, it’s possible that I overlooked that chapter in their collected works. Neither do I recall anything in the constitution about government having a duty to keep people safe from themselves. And I could have sworn that Benjamin Franklin made a famous quote about trading liberty for safety.

But I could be wrong.

Electronic Stability Control mainly kicks in when you lose control of the car. Skids, rollovers, etc. It helps primarily in avoiding single vehicle crashes. The stuff is pretty trick, actually. I’ve got it in my Mustang and it came in handy more than once while driving on ice and snow shod in sport tires. Then again, the ESC in the Windstar I drove in high school tended to cause more sticky situations than it eased by dint of an overbearing response to minimal wheelspin.

And my car happens to have this great little button. When I hit it, the ESC disappears. Which is nice, because when you drive a sports car, it’s just possible that you might want to spin the tires every once in a while. I don’t see those buttons sticking around for very long though. Already, in many makes and models ESC cannot be defeated.

The worrying thing in all of this is the lack of uproar, just on general principle. The journalists, supposed crusaders for the people, have emitted nary a peep about one more act of government intrusion. On the automotive forums I frequent, the response is a sad “well as long as you can turn it off…sounds like a good idea. There’s a lot of bad drivers out there.” And from most of my friends, “so what?”.

Some author once said that it’s the little things you should judge people on. It’s not what they did for the world when everyone was watching, but what they did for the person they’d never see or hear from again. It is much the same for government. Immigration reform, tax cuts, welfare and medicaid, all of those are as much about getting a vote as they are for the good of the country. But it’s the things like this that show our citizens’ indifference toward liberty and their general apathy for developing a cohesive ideology.

I’m not a fan of determinism. Especially when it comes to medicine. Partially this is because I’m just stupid and naive enough to think of medicine as a calling and not just a job. And I, personally, would only be happy if I never had to refill a prescription or even see a given patient ever again after 6 months. Of course, free will is also a crock when it comes to medicine. People are predisposed to certain conditions by dint of genetics, environment, and other factors. But predisposition and cause are two very different things, something many doctors either don’t understand or willfully ignore. Patients like it too. “It’s not my fault I’m diabetic, it’s genetic.” Certainly feels a lot better than “I should’ve paid more attention to lifestyle.

I’m sure most of my readers have heard about Ad36, an adenovirus similar to what causes the common cold. And they’ve heard about how it “makes” you fat. In a small study, they did find that 30% of obese people carried this virus, versus only 10% of others.

One thing I want to mention is that Ad36 causes paradoxical obesity. You’re fat, but you aren’t necessarily an unhealthy fat. You don’t necessarily have the high cholesterol, triglycerides and insulin problems.

But whenever someone throws percentages at me, I know that there’s another way to look at these things that can put it into a better, less alarmist/determinist, perpsective.

What they did was talk about the percentage of people of a given BMI category that are infected. But we could turn it around and look at the percentage of infected people that are obese. Roughly 30% of the country is obese, 70% not. When we compute everything out, we find that roughly 16% of the country is infected with Ad36. Of them, roughly 56% are obese, 44% not. For a virus that ’causes’ obesity, it sure seems to be kind of hit or miss.

Should’ve let yall know I was going away. Meh. Things got busy both personally and ‘professionally’. And I went back to England for graduation. Which surprisingly worked out ok. The idiot europeans were so busy trying NOT to appear racist that they didn’t search the one guy on the plane most likely to be a terrorist. 15 stone of swarthy, angry young man with a goatee. Traveling alone with no check-in baggage. Probably should’ve raised a flag or two. Probably did. I would say no skin off my nose, but considering the frequency with which I travel, I really would’ve been more reassured if they had searched me.

I’m tiring of politics. Oh, I’ll still blog about it. But I’m getting sick of all the idiots calling themselves ‘liberal’ who immediately call me ‘conservative’. It’s like all the ‘hindus’ at the temple asking my parents why I haven’t shown up recently. Or Richard Gere being ‘buddhist’. I fear if I dwell too long on politics I’ll get a vasectomy for fear of raising a child in such a horrible world. Although, given my recent prospects, I probably don’t need to bother with surgery.

But expect more science, more psych, more religion, and more randomness on the blog in the future. I will try to post more at The Liberty Papers and I’m going to try to revive CAID now that I might have some help with it.