Thoughts on Obama, Conservativism, and Christianity

I commend the analysis of "big-government conservativism" in the article my friend Peter recently sent me. You'll need to read it before my following commentary will make sense.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/11/05/a-sweeping-rejection-of-president-bush/.

The evangelical church has been progressively co-opted by a political agenda that began in the 80's with the Moral Majority, spear-headed by the Christian Coalition, inflamed by Clinton and his plump mistress, and ultimately culminating in the Presidency of GWB. The agenda is quite obvious to most of us within the evangelical movement, characterized twofold by 1) voting on "moral" issues with vicious outcry against secular values and 2) blindly supporting anything Republican, blindly opposing anything Democrat...All this with the aim of reforming society from the top down. I believe that this overt political agenda has transformed the identity of the American church (which certainly includes non-evanglical sectors, but evangelicals/Catholics are by far the loudest).

Every agenda has unintended consequences. Well-intentioned goals of preserving justice for the unborn (codewords: abortion, embryonic stem cells) led to real or perceived indifference for the poor and sick (justification: unwed mothers, lazy, uninsured, poor people are that way because entitlement programs caused them to expect handouts). Indignation of a foisted homosexual agenda (codeword: gay marriage) coincided with implicit resentment for the burgeoning diversity of our country (justification: immoral lifestyles should be marginalized, illegal immigrants are using my resources, racial injustices don't really exist but are perpetuated by minorities seeking special treatment). Misguided patriotism blinded many in the church to the horrible realities of war and the church's mission to pursue peace (Justification: we have a moral obligation to kill terrorists, invade other countries as long as they pose any threat whatsoever; also, diplomacy will never work). Uninformed insistence on deregulation led to a notable disdain for environmental stewardship (Justification: tree-huggers care more about baby whales than baby humans, plus the free-market will fix any environmental problem in time). These are my observations of how a political agenda derived from an ill-suited conjugation of faith-derived values and political ideology lead to corruption of both.

The obvious objection is to assert that faith-derived values can NEVER be removed from public policy, and that's true. It's true becasue every single worldview ultimately has large elements of faith, whether atheism, deism, monotheism...There always will be a delicate balance between forced "religious" views and values that are so widespread as to be obvious - but that also just so happen to have religious sanction. An example of the former are things like prohibiting adultery, drinking alcohol, homosexuality and of the latter, things like murder, child abuse, theft.

That whole discussion of balance seems pretty irrelevant to me when talking about the Religious Right. There was never any thought about delineating the fine balance. There was never a separation of conservative/libertarian ideas from ideas that are exclusively Christian doctrine. Any areas of overlap (i.e. conservative thought and Biblical teaching both praise hard work, honesty, and moral integrity) were used, at best, as justifications for political pursuits or, at worst, as moral indictments against differing political ideaologies. Of course, any areas of dissonance had to be marginalized (i.e. the communal economy of the early Church, the Sermon on the Mount's contextualized call to nonviolence, Christ's own model of nonpolitical cultural transformation, the Pauline reminders that our citizenship is in heaven not Rome).

In the last few years, it came to be expected that an evangelical Christian would vote based on 4-5 core issues, all of them Republican. The call to make disciples came to be interpreted as the number of congressional seats that were filled by Christians. There were happy alliances made with non-Christian conservatives (hey, the enemy of my enemy is my friend). Right-wing radio and media made many Christians feel validated, hey, My team is cool too!!

And then, Bush happened. 8 years in the White House and 12 years in Congress. The article points out much of the disillusionment, some of which is Bush's fault, some of it not. All of it avoidable.


All that said, I view the Obama election with mild-optimism. No, I did not vote for him, and no, I don't think that we're nearing the end of capitalism, conscientious individualism, or faithful responses of the church to society. Far from it. Regarding our new President, he's an inspirational icon to many, and a worthy candidate who has shown exceptional campaign skills. He provides a new face to a damaged foreign reputation. He has shown no willingness to work in a bipartisan fashion, but then again, he won't have to with the sweeping majorities in Congress. Maybe he'll do okay, I hope so.

I don't think any of his policies are exceptionally innovative or subversive...They arise mostly from fairly pedestrian liberal axioms like "equal opportunity should inevitably lead to equal outcomes", "wealth redistrubution is necessary to compensate injustice", "distrust of corporate America requires more gov'tcontrol", "global warming is man-made", "personal freedom means maximum government intervention in my life except in sacred issues like abortion, sexual orientation, or any other lifestyle choice; but freedom of speech or press, religious expression, property and gun rights, and all other issues of individual autonomy specifically authorized by the Constitution are open to interpretation."

I think the Obama victory signals something bigger. I'm excited b/c in 4 years we'll be much closer to the end of what I think has been a crisis equally costly for both conservative thought and American Christianity. The two must be divorced. It will be an ugly breakup, but a desperately needed one. Neither can sustain the unhealthy relationship of the past 25 years. I have no doubt that many in the evangelical church will remain strongly conservative and strongly Christian. I myself will be one. It's time to begin to explore with new focus and vigor the conservative response to the problems of 21st America. Since I've already been using the relationship metaphor, I'll continue. Every divorce/breakup is accompanied by the disappointment of failure, the guilt of regret, as well as the excitement of a new beginning. That's the way I feel now. I don't exactly know how or where the church or the conservative movement start the process of being single again. I don't currently have the insight for that. But I think this article makes a good point: where does ideology meet reality? How can we make conservativism pragmatic? As for the church, she must begin to rediscover her identity as the Bride of Christ in a world that desperately needs redemption. One thing to say just so that I don't end on such a heavy note, I think it goes without saying that Sarah Palin (God bless her) better not run in '12.

John Tanksley

Al Gore: A Convenient Exaggerator

A good follow-up article if you're interested in some of Gore's claims regarding climate change that are unfounded scientifically. Understand that I don't dismiss Gore completely, because I agree with the spirit of what he's saying, but his radical tone betrays a propensity to overstate the case in the name of a worthy end.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article

Taking on Descartes and Dawkins

A friend of mine has a clever quote on her IM profile that says, "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." That quote has no doubt given inspiration to many a hopeless procrastinator, myself included, who can't seem to find the early motivation to stay caught up. I hate that dumb idiom. "Caught up". It's a completely arbitrary figure of speech. Who decided that combination of words-- "caught": past tense of verb To Catch, and "up": preposition denoting relative location--would signify something that involves neither catching nor a directional vector.

Let's say you substitute comparable synonyms, and decided to ask a classmate if they were "snagged skyward" in school this week. They would probably A) Be offended and reply, "No, as a matter of fact I was NOT blazin the chronic before Phys, you son of a bee!" B) Give you a dirty look for insinuating an indecent sexual escapade involving an astronaut, or C) Chuckle awkwardly to appear privy to the meaning of your hip lingo, mentally taking note to google it later for the answer.

Ehh, what's the point in ranting against figures of speech/idioms/literary devices anyway. They are so plentiful in the English language they practically grow on trees, fall from the sky, run rampant, dot the countryside, outnumber the stars, etc. Besides, speaking a language inevitably involves the use of idioms. They're here to stay. How many of you have shaken hands with a "wet noodle", had someone "rain on your parade", "cashed a three" playing basketball, "drank like a sailor", known someone with a "chip on her shoulder", ridden a "crotch-rocket", and the list goes on. Most of the idioms I find myself utilize natural phenomena, movie quotes, irony, sports slang, exaggeration, comparisons, and sarcasm. This is to be expected, b/c I tend to think of things along those lines (sports, sarcasm, outdoors, witty movies) and also because it's easier for me to convey an idea by describing a mental pictures of things. "A picture is worth a thousand words" is completely true of my mind.

My point is that a fair amount of what we speak and write literally doesn't make sense (pure definition of literally here, as in "considering words at original face value"). Consider this: Learning English must be a bitch to someone who grew up speaking a different language. That last sentence would make zero sense to someone learning English as a second language, and I hope you can see why. What am I getting at? Well, if what we say literally isn't what we mean, then where is the meaning found?

If I say "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse," you'd probably interpret that to literally mean "He's really hungry." But, let's say you're from a part of the world where eating horse meat is quite common, east asia for example, you might interpret my phrase, "He's hungry, especially for horse meat." The meaning was not contained in the words I used. The actual words were just the tools I used to get an idea across. It’s conceivable that I could have used an intricate system of blinking or skillful smoke signaling if that were a normal way to communicate in modern society. Obviously they are not for good reason.

In that mock interaction, meaning was conveyed b/c the listener heard the words I said and then made an interpretation about what I meant in those words. Before making a final conclusion, the listener integrated the actual words I used with the tone of my voice, the look on my face, how well he/she knows me, the context of the situation...you get the idea. But, "meaning" never existed inherently in the words or sounds I made, nor was it magically created by my mind and then transferred to the listener's. Rather, two people exchanged information so as to understand something external to themselves: namely, the idea of being hungry. Meaning is recognized and comes to life in the human mind; but it doesn't intrinsically arise from the mind any more than the human voice intrinsically arises from your mobile phone.

This post hasn't been too helpful yet. Lots of questions to answer. Where is meaning found? What is it? Where does it come from?

First things first. More specifically, I think meaning dwells in the ideas and thoughts and feelings and memories and desires and wills and needs of people who are responding to the world they find themselves in. From a medical standpoint, these phenomena occur via complex cognitive processes that are carried out, in simplest terms, by neural signaling (which is essentially millions of coordinated bioelectrical impulses that cause certain biochemical and physiological responses in the body). Wait a second, you say, how then can a biochemical event or physiological process create an abstraction like meaning? What would that mean about meaning? Can it?

Of course it can't. Physical material can't create nonphysical material. Matter and energy can't be destroyed or created, the Laws of Thermodynamics tell us as much. Interactions of molecules and energy can never give rise to anything but more interactions of molecules and energy. At best, physical things can only allow the perception of nonphysical things. And perceptions can be misleading, as we all know.

I’ll go a step further and say that I believe that things of a nonphysical nature – e.g. a reality beyond space, time, light, gravity, matter – cannot even be perceived unless one does actually exist. Let me explain. When you perceive something through your senses, say the smell of cookies, there may or may not be freshly-baked cookies nearby. You may be smelling a new candle your roommate bought, and you may get pissed b/c you were given false hopes. So the senses are faulty.

BUT, and this is my point, freshly-baked cookies do exist somewhere in your sensory experience. It may have not even been a direct experience, as in you may have never even smelled cookies before. But you at least have been exposed to the idea of freshly-baked cookies. You simply could not have thought you were smelling something that you didn't even know existed. Perceptions, whether true or not, arise from things that pre-exist the perception. Cookies must pre-exist the smell of cookies. How’s that for a philosophical statement.

So let's review. Reality is evaluated through the senses and the brain, but it is not created by the senses. The brain and the senses serve somewhat like physical chauffeurs of the abstract, transporting information from outside to inside where it can be interpreted. Here's the key to the analogy: if you drive a limousine, you can chauffer the wrong person. But you can't chauffer someone who doesn't exist. Because you'd only be driving yourself, which negates the definition.

Maybe you see where I'm going with this. Physically, concepts such as "truth" and "justice" don't exist. You can't quantify them, or look at them under a microscope, or write formulas about them. They are nonphysical, of no physical substance. But they certainly exist. Trying to argue that abstract concepts like the meaning of life, truth, and justice are literally composed of atoms borders on insanity. So the question is not whether they exist, but rather where the nonphysical comes from and how the brain is able to perceive it.

Finally, the philosophical heart of the matter: 1) Is there a discrete nonphysical – supernatural if you will – reality superimposed upon the natural, physical universe? 2) Or is the nonphysical reality that we perceive only an explainable extension of the natural universe, hence merely physical reality in disguise? If it isn’t starkly apparent already, I believe in a resounding Yes to #1, and a forceful No to #2. If you recall my oh-so-clever fresh-baked cookies analogy, I contended that literal existence must pre-exist perception of existence. I believe the perception of a non-physical, supernatural reality is proof of its existence. This is a massively simplified form of the ontologic argument against strict Naturalism.

On the contrary, Naturalism (aka Physicalism) contends that the universe contains only physical material. It asserts that the perception of the supernatural is an illusion that emerges from the sheer complexity of the human mind. This is completely unsatisfactory to me. Arguing against the absolute existence of the nonphysical is self-defeating. Why? Because the Naturalist (capital N to distinguish from one who enjoys nature) must appeal to Truth, and Logic, and Reason, b/c these are the foundations of scientific Naturalism. He must say, "Naturalism is true/logical/proven based on X,Y and Z, and Theism or anything else that believes in the supernatural is false."

But remember - according to Naturalism - Truth (and Life, Logic, Justice, Love, Reality, Emotion, Courage, Morality, as well as everything else for that matter) is ultimately the derivative of nothing more than completely random, chance interactions of atoms, molecules, electrons, energy, super-strings, light, subatomic particles, and gravity over the course of billions and trillions of years. Thus, "Truth" is nothing but chance! Life is an arbitrary chemical state! Logic is illogical! Love is mechanical improbability! Justice is survival! Morality is scientific practicality! If everything that exists is the result of chance, nothing is meaningful. Naturalism appeals to scientific truth and rationality after undermining these things as complete chance. A rational argument does not appeal to chance to prove an important point, much less the most fundamental question of the universe. Naturalism rests on a theoretical framework that unavoidably deconstructs its legitimacy.

Still lots of unanswered questions. We'll leave that for future posts. For now, it's definitely time for me to stop talking. Besides, still need to get "caught up" on some completely random, chance occurrences in my life that happen to include the USMLE Step 1 on Wednesday.

On second thought, maybe I'll just go play some tennis and then drink some wine.

Drug Americana

As per the title of this blog, I feel compelled to write a medically enlightening thread once in awhile. Recently I've been studying central nervous system pharmacology. In the syllabus there a multitude of prescription meds, some OTC concoctions, and a few illicit substances. I, like many others, harbor a certain degree of suppressed curiosity about chemical compounds that cause altered mental states, a goal many CNS drugs achieve.

Why the curiosity? One idea is that these drugs are like keys to a secret room where reality is pliable, where what you see isn't necessarily true. These are the drugs that mess with consciousness and perception and emotion at their basic, very concrete, very molecular levels. This is dangerous knowledge because it means that, ultimately, reality and emotions are encountered chemically. What? Yes. Your consciousness and ability to think and feel are dependent on coordinated electrical and chemical interactions. If you don't believe that, try taking an IV bolus of thiopental. Thiopental is an anesthetic that rather pleasantly ends consciousness and memory during times you'd really rather not remember, such as your appendix being sliced out. (Anesthesia is very different than sleep, in which your cortical neurons continue firing and consciousness can be regained by exceeding a stimulus threshold). Note: I'm not saying reality is chemical, and I'm not saying the meaning of your thoughts and feelings are merely chemical impulses. I am saying is that electrical/chemical means are requisite to encounter these things.

So, enough intro. Let's talk about some drugs. But first...
a quick disclaimer: My immediate goal here is informative, and secondarily to make you think.
Please do not take this as specific medical advice; I'm not yet a doctor, nor do I think it prudent to dispense personalized medical instruction over the internet.

A lot of commonly used drugs are misunderstood, so I want to set the record straight. I'll group things by class, and give a few details about them.

Opiates - derived from the poppy Papaver somniferum

• Morphine: high power; causes euphoria, sedation, decreased breathing, and small pupils
• No apparent maximal dose, but tolerance develops within 2 weeks
• Methodone: longer acting than morphine; used for breaking opiate addictions
• Demerol: as effective as morphine, but can cause seizures
• Fentanyl: 100x more potent than morphine; anesthesiologists had high addiction rates
• Codeine: low power opiate
• Hydrocodone and Oxycontin: medium power, and high abuse potential
• Heroin: semi-synthetic opioid with no legal uses.

Stimulants - used to increase wakefulness and physical performance

• d-Amphetamine: Adderall, used in ADHD; improves concentration and reaction times
• Methylphenidate: Ritalin, similar to Adderall, but different mechanism of action
  
• Caffeine: 80 - 100 cups of coffee in a row will kill you. On the other hand, 60 cups of coffee per day will prevent male pattern baldness (don't try this, but you can try the topical caffeine treatment). Some studies have shown that caffeinated individuals performed better on memory tasks than uncaffeinated ones.
  
• Ephedrine: causes release of epinephrine. Banned by FDA in 2004 b/c it potentially causes sudden cardiac death and stroke. Vikings lineman Korey Stringer is believed to have been taking Ephedra when he died of heatstroke
• Cocaine: causes euphoric happiness and much increased energy. Sigmund Freud and Ulysses S Grant were addicts. Ppl who OD on Coke die of heart pump failure or stroke.
• Methamphetamine: more pronounced CNS effects and less peripheral side effects than d-amphetamine, thus higher abuse potential.
  
• Methylendioxymethamphetamine (MDMA): aka Ecstacy, has some psychedelic activity, can cause jaw-clenching, very fast heart rate, and muscle aches. OD causes death by over-heating, knowledge of which has lead many E users to overhydrate themselves and die by water-intoxication (their electrolytes get diluted to the point where their heart stops beating).

I gotta wrap this up...maybe I'll add to it later.

Meese

http://meesemusic.com/
Check these guys out here or on myspace. Meese is an up-and-coming band from Denver. They've toured with The Fray in the past year, and their first album (Our Album Year) was recently added to iTunes. I played high school football with the bassist, David VanderHamm, who is a couple years younger than me. Difficult to describe their sound, but you can get a decent idea by knowing that they list Sufjan, Sigur Ros, Radiohead, the Postal Service, and Rufus Wainwright, among others, as musical influences. As you can imagine from this list of influences, Meese' music has a contemplative tone saturated with a melodic piano backbone and clever combinations of vibrant, while not overpowering, guitar work. Vocals are handled by Patrick Meese and guitarist Mike Ayers, and complement well the band's overall dreamy, Sufjan-ish feel.

You can scout their music at their website above, and I'd recommend listening to "the champion", "don't forget" and "old enough". This is a band worth a listen.

Carbon footprints and thoughts on global warming

According to Wiki, a "Carbon footprint is a measure of the amount of carbon dioxide or CO₂ emitted through the combustion of fossil fuels; This is directly related to the amount of natural resources consumed, increasingly used or referred to as a measure of environmental impact. Carbon dioxide is recognized as a greenhouse gas, of which increasing levels in the atmosphere are linked to global warming and climate control.

http://carbonfootprint.com

My carbon footprint = 16,230 kg CO2 / year
The average person's carbon footprint in the US = 19,000 kg CO2 / year

I've heard about this website before, but had never checked it out until now. It's not the easiest site to use, and you do have to dig around for your power and gas bills in order to get an accurate number. So how do I assess this information? What exactly does 16,000 kgs of CO2 do to the atmosphere? I've done some reading about this and here's what I've come to understand. In a nutshell: Global warming is an observable fact whose underlying causes are disputed.

First the need to define some terms. The global warming debate quickly escalates into a pointless semantic argument among people who don't understand the terms they use.

• Global warming: Global temperatures on both land and sea have increased by 1.4 °F relative to the period 1860–1900. Since 1979, land temperatures have increased about twice as fast as ocean temperatures. Temperatures in the lower troposphere have increased between 0.12 and 0.22 °C (0.22 and 0.4 °F) per decade since 1979, according to satellite temperature measurements.
• Greenhouse effect: The undisputed phenomenon whereby carbon dioxide and methane gas serve to insulate the earth's surface by preventing solar energy escape into the atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, the earth's surface temperature would be about 54 °F lower, rendering the earth lifeless. Thus, in the global warming debate, the greenhouse effect is neither "disbelieved" or "opposed" by opponents of human-caused climate change. What is debated is the underlying cause of climate change, i.e. is it caused by the man-made increase in greenhouse gases?, or are natural phenomena to blame?--things such as solar flares, geologic disturbances, expected climate variation, and others.
  
• C02 increases in the atmosphere are documented: Accepted measurements in the literature taken from the Mauna Loa laboratory have observed an increased in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide from 313 ppm in 1960 to 375 ppm in 2005. When considered in isolation, adding lots of extra carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere enhances the insulating effect, i.e. cause the earth's crust to get warmer. But this never happens in isolation. There are always other factors that must be considered, compensatory actions that both modulate and distort the portion of the greenhouse effect caused by the increased C02. These factors include solar variation, so-called orbital forcing, volcanic emissions, thermal inertia of the earth's oceans, cooling pollutants like sulfate aerosols, and the thawing of methane-rich portions of the Siberian tundra. Despite the vast number of complicating factors, the debate boils down to a politically- and economically-charged disagreement regarding the human share of the global warming pie. A sensible person has choice but to acknowledge that a human piece of the pie at the very least exists. It the size of the pie and, more importantly, what to do about it that heats the discussion.
  

I don't pretend to be a fanatical environmentalist, but I do claim to be a rational person. I get frustrated with the predominant political climate in our country concerning environmentalism. Extremists on both sides of the issue pollute the arena of discourse by making wild, inflammatory claims that only prevent reasonable dialogue. Extremists on one side bury their heads in the sand, claiming that there hasn't even been a global temperature increase. It's one thing to disagree with the cause of a climate change, but pure ignorance to look at accepted, sound scientific data and deny that it is accurate. In my estimation, doing nothing about climate change would be catostrophic (perhaps not next year or even next decade, but certainly someday). On the other extreme, people like Al Gore trumpet imminent planetary extinction unless emissions are drastically reduced within a few years. Mr Gore ignores the grave economic consequence of mandating such drastic cuts before global economies are even remotely able to depend on renewable energy sources. The worldwide human toll of such an economic crisis would be staggering. Overreacting before research is more complete could lead to economic decline and paradoxical increases in greenhouse emissions as developed nations--the same ones who are pioneering renewable energy research--default back to fossil fuels economies.

I wish there could be a happy medium. I wish this could be an issue where the typical power players of public opinion--pundits, name-calling, vested interests, big business, misinformation, profiteering, uncritical acceptance of party platforms, and baseless emotional appeals--would take a hike. Is it too late for intelligent, reasonable people to dialogue using accurate, reliable information so as to come to a compassionate, feasible solution? I certainly hope not.

Ronaldinho has moves

Check this out



I'm trying to figure out if this is all clever special effects or if they just ran enough cuts until it worked. Either way, he's got some sick moves.