His Lordship: It’s ‘Your’ Lordship to you.
Bret: Right, my mistake. A thousand lashings. So, His Lordship, are you burned out on talking about bin Laden or do you want to throw in your two cents?
His Lordship: Bin Laden is dead, let’s move on. No matter what Alex Jones says.
Bret: What is going on in the news that you find interesting? What should we be focusing on?
His Lordship: I think the general state of the economy is worrisome.
Bret: Do you think the government can do anything about it?
His Lordship: I’m not an economist, but I think they can influence it. I think as long as wages keep up with inflation we’ll be ok. I worry about raising interest rates.
Bret: What would be the repercussions of rising interest rates, in your view?
His Lordship: Personally speaking, I hope the housing market rebounds so I can sell some property I own before rates go up. I think many other people in this country are in the same boat. But if you look at France, they are in a seller’s market right now. Compared to Canada, the US is not doing too good right now.
Bret: Do you have any interest in the 2012 race that is prematurely shaping up?
His Lordship: I’m independent, so I generally lean towards independent or fringe candidates. I vote my conscience, never along party lines.
Bret: I assume the fringe isn’t campaigning yet, given their budget.
His Lordship: Is Ron Paul fringe?
Bret: Not really. He’s fringe like Hot Topic is punk.
His Lordship: How about a Ron Paul /Bernie Sanders ticket?
Bret: Maybe if you flipped it... I can’t see Bernie Sanders playing second fiddle to Paul.
His Lordship: He’s a character.
Bret: I would vote for Bernie/Old Gym Sock
His Lordship: He’s the only one who’s ever been able to make Steven Colbert shut up mid-sentence.
Bret: I’m more impressed with his speeches. I once sat down and listened to his marathon filibuster speech that was like 8 hours. Ahh, unemployment.
His Lordship: Conservatives call Sanders a Socialist, but he really fights for the middle class.
Bret: I don’t know how I would classify him, he’s sort of a liberal libertarian. So you like Sanders?
His Lordship: I think he is one of the few uncorrupted politicians out there.
Bret: Yeah, and it’s uncommon for a senator.
His Lordship: Not sure if he has mass appeal to the point of being electable on a national level though.
Bret: I don’t think Paul is corrupted by money, either, just religion.
His Lordship: But Paul doesn’t believe in imposing his religious views on people. At least not that I know of.
Bret: Unless it’s abortion or taxing churches. I guess the latter is never going to happen in my lifetime.
His Lordship: Well he thinks the Federal government should stay out of the abortion debate and let the states decide.
Bret: That’s all code, though. “Let the states handle it” is code for “Let the states oppress people.”
His Lordship: But I do think churches should be taxed. Some of these mega-churches especially, that make millions. All tax free.
Bret: Oh, but they give back to the communities... like by going overseas to hand out bibles.
His Lordship: Ministers getting million-dollar housing allowances. What a farce.
Bret: Oh and don’t get started on their cars...
His Lordship: It’s unfair to other tax payers.
Bret: Where is the atheist lobby?
His Lordship: Is there one? Do I stand alone?
Bret: Every interest group has people in DC
His Lordship: Herding atheists is like herding cats (says Dawkins).
Bret: There are more atheists in America than black people and Jewish people combined, so I can’t believe there isn’t a market for the atheist vote.
His Lordship: Independent, free-thinkers hate to organize. And a lot of us don’t want to come out of the atheist closet. By fear of alienating business clients, among other things.
Bret: But no one sees you vote.
His Lordship: Oh that’s true. But what politician is going to come out and commit political suicide and say “I’m an Atheist!!!”
Bret: We need an atheist business league. Then atheist-only drinking clubs. Then we get the votes.
His Lordship: Atheist-only restrooms. Atheist-only seats on the bus.
Bret: Hey, I want to sit in the back. What of it? And I have an atheist only restroom, in my master bedroom.
His Lordship: I guess I do too.
Bret: We are a couple of bigots. I still think there’s enough common ground. I mean, most atheists are on board with taxing churches, right?
His Lordship: I sure hope so... except perhaps atheists who pretend to be ministers to get the tax breaks. Is religion a right, or is it a choice?
Bret: Religion is more like an accident. And Lenny Bruce is dead, so I think we’re set. So that’s one issue. And in this time of high deficits, it seems like a brilliant plan.
His Lordship: That and bringing the troops home. These foreign wars are useless.
Bret: From where? Just Iraq and Afghanistan?
His Lordship: That’s a good place to start.
Bret: Or also Libya and Pakistan. And Germany and Japan... and I know we have bases elsewhere.
His Lordship: There too. I think the CIA can run small-scale, more surgical operations that cost a fraction of deploying a full armored brigade.
Bret: I’m all for disarmament, don’t get me wrong, I’m just curious how far you’re interested in going, as a gun lover. Also it’s my understanding that we have troops in Germany and Japan because of WWII treaties.
His Lordship: I think the military should be used in self-defense only.
Bret: They aren’t allowed to have their own armies, I believe. So our army there functions as their army.
His Lordship: Germany has an army. The Luftwaffe is still around. Still the same logo, too. Germany also has a navy.
Bret: I’ll have to check then, I know there was some stipulation about post-war disarmament and permanent US bases.
His Lordship: When I went to Germany as a teenager, teen magazines were full of Luftwaffe recruiting ads.
Bret: Maybe it was literally no “army…” I say as I try to hold onto a shred of credibility.
His Lordship: I mean, didn’t Germany send troops to Afghanistan?
Bret: No clue, to be honest. At any rate, you have no problem with reducing the military. Is this because the US as a nation is so heavily armed?
His Lordship: Japan, I think, has a ‘self defense’ force, which is like an army but small. But there is a growing movement in Japan for remilitarizing. Especially in light of North Korea’s arrogance. I read something, and I posted that on my blog a year ago or so, to the effect that the US spends more on its military than every other country in the world combined. Are we safe yet?
Bret: I also just checked, there are about 67,000 US troops in Japan and 68k in Germany. And yes, there is a German army and they were deployed to Afghanistan. I can only assume Japan is the same.
His Lordship: The US Army’s purpose should be to defend US soil, period.
Bret: Yeah, we have an insane military industrial complex. Millions work in the defense industry. Do we make war because that’s the only thing we produce anymore?
His Lordship: We should have a strong Navy, and a strong Air Force, but that doesn’t mean we should spend nearly as much as we do. I think the arms manufacturers like wars because war - or at least the fear of it - means business.
Bret: Yeah, but you know how Boeing and Lockheed-Martin give such great deals when you buy in bulk. They’re like the Wal-Mart of the defense industry.
His Lordship: They sell better quality products than Wal-Mart. No offence to Wal-Mart stockholders.
Bret: I dunno, it would be a close call to see which one killed more people each year...
His Lordship: I realize that defense contracts mean jobs, but come on. These jobs are subsidized by my income tax.
Bret: Couldn’t the government subsidize another industry? Why defense?
His Lordship: Healthcare perhaps?
Bret: But then we would be communists.
His Lordship: No we wouldn’t. I was born in Canada, we had free healthcare, and it wasn’t communist. It’s a big load of BS, Communist my ass.
Bret: But then we’ll have death panels that don’t answer to shareholders, only voters. It will be chaos.
His Lordship: Isn’t it chaos now?
Bret: Well, actually it’s peaceful. Like... deathly peaceful. Brisk business for mortuaries.
His Lordship: Aging of the population is going to change demographics.
Imagine what a cure for aging would do.
Bret: You know insurance would never cover that. Aging is definitely a pre-existing condition. They better not cure aging until the baby boomers are all gone. Or we’re doomed.
His Lordship: Well, if a thousand-dollar shot (of a hypothetical cure for aging) could save millions of dollars worth of aging-related diseases, it would be preventive. And a good return on investment.
Bret: Wouldn’t an aging cure not prevent other health problems? People would still die though. Of heart disease or emphysema or what have you.
His Lordship: Definitely. And you could stay productive longer, wouldn’t need to retire anymore, it would be great for the economy, except for too many people accessing the same natural resources.
Bret: Maybe all new problems that come from living to over 200 or whatever. So, could I opt out of that?
His Lordship: Jump off a bridge.
Bret: Well, I don’t want to be a slave worker for centuries instead of just 50-60 years. You’re talking about not retiring like it’s a good thing. Some people see retirement as the carrot they’re chasing.
His Lordship: You could save for a few decades at a time to afford 5-year vacations every now and then. I’ll never retire. I’ll work until I croak.
Bret: A five-year vacation or one hell of a weekend in Vegas.
His Lordship: That would be, yes.
Bret: I have things I want to do that don’t involve work. I see work as bullshit I’m stuck doing. I can’t even imagine thinking “Oh boy, I get to go to work today.”
His Lordship: I thought you were unemployed
Bret: Well, I have worked. I understand the concept of waking up and working 9-5.
But the idea of that makes me cringe.
His Lordship: So buy farmland and go feed some chickens at 4 AM. Be your own boss.
Bret: I don’t think producing food would be something I would find very rewarding. And I never had a boss I hated, so it’s not the boss. Plus, do you realize how screwed farmers are these days? They can’t even break even. If I’m going to be waking up at 4am to fucking around with fowl, I want to be able to buy stuff.
His Lordship: It’s funny, with all the corn subsidies.
Bret: Well, it’s all going to corporations.Small-scale farming isn’t profitable in a world were so much can be automated.
His Lordship: You could be a subsistence farmer. And sell google ads on your blog.
Bret: If I had ads on my blog, it would be ugly, and I would have sold the aesthetic for pennies. Maybe if it would make money... But they’re so damn ugly considering how little return you get.
His Lordship: Last time I checked my google account, I had made $1.23.
Bret: Wow, $1.23... I could buy a small box and a bow with nothing in it. I’ll tell you what I would do, sell billboard space if I had a farm.
His Lordship: What if your farm is in the middle of nowhere?
Bret: I wouldn’t buy a farm that wasn’t highway adjacent. Location, location, location.
His Lordship: That’s what they say.
Bret: I don’t see the appeal in being your own boss, especially these days when you have to provide your own health insurance..
His Lordship: But seriously, I think farmers could turn a profit if they started planting other stuff than just corn.
Bret: Sure, if they grow cannabis, they’re set.
His Lordship: Not if we get universal healthcare. It’s a big relief off the small business owner’s back when the State offers free health insurance. (Well not free, there is still taxes, but the burden is shared.)
Bret: Big time, it would create jobs. Both in the small-business sector and healthcare. Though insurance would lose jobs...
His Lordship: Another factor for the cost of healthcare is the cost of medical school. It is absurdly expensive to go to medical school. So, doctors have to pass the cost onto their patients.
Bret: Do you think government should do something there?
His Lordship: I think there should be more grants for medical students. Merit-based, not based on how wealthy your parents are.
Bret: Do you think the cost of medical school is something up for debate? Or is it a private sector commodity off-limits to regulation.
His Lordship: I think it’s of vital public interest to lower the cost. Right now conservatives want to douse me with boiling Holy water for saying these things.
Bret: Do you consider yourself conservative, or do you just find they gravitate to you because of your love of guns?
His Lordship: I consider myself not conservative at all. Guns aren’t conservative. They’re just inanimate objects. I got the inspiration for the title of my blog from a site called Gun-toting Liberal.
Bret: Do you own guns?
His Lordship: Next question.
Bret: Why do people who love guns also love privacy?
His Lordship: I think we are people who love independence. Self-sufficiency and privacy go hand-in-hand, I think.
Bret: I find privacy kind of suspicious.
His Lordship: Dammit, you found me out. I’m Elvis Presley. In my line of work, I have to be really careful about the image I project. Some clients do not have a sense of humor.
Bret: It’s unfortunate privacy is so important to people, in my opinion.
His Lordship: It’s not unfortunate. I’m not after fame.
Bret: Right, but if people were more open, the world would be a very different place.
His Lordship: It would. But some people would freak out if they knew of my position regarding firearms. And some people would flip out if they knew I secretly make fun of their faith online.
Bret: But wouldn’t there be such a wealth of information that our little liberties would be of little import? Could you imagine someone caring about your view on firearms if they find out their pastor is gay, for example.
His Lordship: I am wary of sharing too much personal information online. I don’t even have a Facebook account. Not every pastor is gay? Just kidding, for religious folks reading this.
Bret: Only like half are gay, and the other half... let’s just say you wish they had sex with adult men.
His Lordship: Red Hot Catholic Love
Bret: Oh it’s not just Catholics. That’s what shocked me when I looked into it.
His Lordship: (from the South Park episode)
Bret: Right. I just think society needs to be more open... I think people are better off losing the business of bigots. And bigots should run themselves into failure by refusing to do business with the best people because of their foibles. But instead, everyone fakes it and we just go on unhappy.
His Lordship: There’s a scary amount of data-mining going on online. I googled myself the other day... and I found some stuff that surprised me. Apparently I graduated from college in 1977 with an Afro hairstyle.
Bret: Now I’m going to google “1977 college graduate afro” and I’ll have your name. You’ve played directly into my trap. You’ve revealed too many cards, His Lordship. Or should I say... Jerome Brown.
His Lordship: Seriously, some of the stuff I found about myself is really accurate, but I have no idea how they got to the data.
Bret: But who is googling you?
His Lordship: Me.
Bret: Anyone else you’re worried about?
His Lordship: A crazy ex. I mean, really, really crazy.
Bret: You didn’t kill her and dissolve her body in lyme? You have to think ahead, my friend.
His Lordship: No, but she tried to burn my house down because the voices in her head told her to.
Bret: Why do the voices in people’s heads never tell schizophrenics to do nice things? Like, why are there no schizos on corners handing out flowers, being like “Sorry, the voices in my head told me to.”
His Lordship: I don’t know. In college, my friends and I were fantasizing that our calculus professor would fall asleep during her boring class and that we would secretly implant a wireless earphone into her ear canal, then stream speed metal 24 hours per day.
Bret: Did a voice tell you to do that?
His Lordship: No. The voices quiet down when I turn up the volume. But seriously, innocent looking pieces of information could be the answer to your bank account security questions. Mother’s maiden name, name of favorite pet, make and model of first car, etc.
Bret: Doesn’t that just mean banks should come up with better security questions?
His Lordship: That means the NSA recommends that you lie when setting those up. The government telling you to lie. Now that’s awesome.
Bret: I always select “Favorite color” because no one can guess what it is. The drawback, if you lie, and then you forget the lie, you are screwed and can’t get back into your account if you forget your password.
His Lordship: What is your favorite color?
Bret: Clear.
His Lordship: What is your quest?
Bret: I seek the grail. Hehe. I think banks can figure out something. They make billions off of us just playing with money. I’m sure they can pay someone very smart to solve this, but they don’t.
His Lordship: I am so fed up with passwords. Just at my job, I have to memorize 24 different ones.
Bret: I have the same one I used since I was like 12 when we got AOL. Do you write them down?
His Lordship: Against regulations. And they change all the time too. I think passwords are a necessary evil, only it’s a very f*g annoying kind of evil.
Bret: I imagine. Maybe some day we’ll have biometrics take care of it.
His Lordship: Then they’ll just cut your finger off to get into the ATM.
Bret: Well, then I definitely hope they don’t use retina scans. What about a spit cup that analyzes your DNA?
His Lordship: A semen analyzer. Sorry, your Y chromosome does not match.
Bret: “Damn, I wish I could log in, but my aunt died and I’m just not in the mood.” Yeah, someone smarter than us will have to work on this one.
His Lordship: I’m not sure how I feel about DNA for identification purposes.
Bret: Is your DNA private?
His Lordship: There was a recent case in France where a cop planted someone’s DNA near the scene of the crime.
Bret: But they caught the cop planting it?
His Lordship: How else would we know about it?
Bret: Maybe the guy had an air-tight alibi, and they deduced it.
His Lordship: Not sure. What I have seen is that jurors take DNA like gospel. To them it’s like the Word of God. Ignoring circumstantial evidence.
Bret: Well, there was corruption and poor decisions on the part of juries before DNA. It’s good to talk about, though, so that the word is out.
His Lordship: Agreed, but this one type of evidence is put on a pedestal by uneducated people who think the science is too complex, “so it must be true”. It’s good that it is used to exonerate innocent people who have ben wrongfully incarcerated, but it could be misused.
Bret: Maybe the government should regulate CSI.
His Lordship: You mean the TV show?
Bret: The show, not the police... though also the police.
His Lordship: “It is unlawful for any producer of a TV crime drama to put DNA evidence on a pedestal.” The cops I know are good people.
Bret: Same here, to my face. I don’t blame the police as a whole for what individuals do, but there could be better over-sight. There is a blue code that prevents bad officers from being brought to justice. It’s always a small miracle when you hear a story like that one out of France.
His Lordship: I heard of a really bad case of corruption out of Canada a few years ago. Cops screwed up, beat up the wrong suspect, started blackmailing him so he wouldn’t rat them out. Well he did. I think the key to prevent corruption is to pay them well. Many police departments pull the recruits credit report. You cannot become a cop if you have had a bankruptcy.
Bret: That helps bribery corruption, but does it prevent violent abuse?
His Lordship: No, they need something else for that. Psychological screenings and such.
Bret: What about more stringent internal investigations? Or a more fully independent department for internal investigations.
His Lordship: I don’t know how every single department operates, but the ones here are pretty well run. But I live in a really low crime area. Except for stupid kids smashing mailboxes.
Bret: If that’s your worry, then it’s a low-crime area. Most gun-lovers aren’t very trusting of the police. Which is part of why they love guns; they see the police as inadequate. Or worse.
His Lordship: The police can’t be everywhere at once. Where I live, the police department is closed from 9 PM to 7 AM. Then I have to call the State Police if I need help. And God knows what town they’ll be in when they get the call. But again, I’m in a low crime area. I just need to install a motion-sensing night-vision camera in front of my mailbox.
Bret: But having a gun can be a comfort?
His Lordship: I guess it can be. There’s freakish wildlife where I live.
Bret: New Jersey?
His Lordship: I mean rabid things with teeth and claws.
Bret: Oh, I get you. Texas.
His Lordship: You’ll never know.
Bret: I think a person’s right to own a gun is proportional to how far away their nearest neighbor is. If you can’t see your nearest neighbor, you can own an AK-47. If you share a wall with your neighbor, tasers.
His Lordship: If I walk my dogs at night, and shine my flashlight onto the side of the road. I can see eyes staring me down. Whole packs of eyes.
Bret: See, you live nowhere near civilization, I don’t care if you own a machine gun. How else can you thin the herds properly? Plus, what else is there to do in the sticks? Shooting beavers is like a night at the opera in some rural areas.
His Lordship: So anyway, I think that a basis for justifying firearm ownership is to give people the ability to defend themselves. I don’t buy into this whole ‘revolution’ crap.
Bret: Well, I hate to bring up an annoying current event we’re all sick of talking about... but there was a famous person who was recently shot dead while within arm’s reach of a gun. Are guns really protection?
His Lordship: Are you still talking about bin Laden?
Bret: I suppose, but there are plenty of times it happens besides him.
His Lordship: They are for protection “if used correctly at the right moment.” A gun is not a guarantee that you will survive, but it gives one a fighting chance.
Bret: Would you agree they are used more for harm than good? That is, when actually used, as the majority just collect dust.
His Lordship: You said it, the majority of guns rust away collecting dust, true.
Bret: The overwhelming majority, something like over 90% never get used in a crime or self-defense.
His Lordship: So they are not that dangerous then.
Bret: Well, there are those who say this is largely because of the sheer numbers involved, and that the gun-soaked American market makes it easy for the wrong kinds of people to get guns. I know you’re for gun control. But there are many loopholes, both legal and illicit. I know for example you oppose crazy people owning guns.
His Lordship: I don’t think everybody should have a gun. I think it is acceptable to do a background check on someone, and check someone’s mental health record. A kid who’s been treated 6 times for depression and attempted suicide shouldn’t pass the test.
Bret: But in some cases this is difficult, like at gun shows.
His Lordship: I think transfers should be performed by a BATF licensed dealer who can perform the correct background checks. I have no intention of buying a gun from some dude in the classifieds. Who the hell knows what it’s been used for?
Bret: How about a national gun-owner’s license. You could carry it with you and it would denote that you have passed the background check at gun shows or any other gun purchase. Because I’m thinking specifically of how hard it is to buy and sell guns, and I think that is something that could be addressed this way.
His Lordship: I wouldn’t mind that, unless I lived in Vermont or Alaska, who don’t currently require a permit. I still think transfers should be done in the presence of a licensed dealer. The NRA will shun me for saying this, but I think it is a small common-sense concession gun owners can make to appease the anti-gun movement.
Bret: I’d be happiest knowing people are qualified to own their guns. I’d even be down with government funded gun classes. Spend my taxes on making more responsible gun owners, sounds good to me.
His Lordship: Many states require training before a license issued. I just don’t agree with outright bans. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with semi-automatics, even if you live in Brooklyn. If you are licensed, you are licensed.
Bret: What good can come from amateur crossfire from a semi-automatic weapon in an urban setting? I mean, honestly. It’s a travesty that cities can’t impose bans on types of guns, keeping in mind they can ban stun guns and mace.
His Lordship: NYPD officers carry AR-15 semi-automatic rifles in their patrol cars, they don’t seem to hit too many bystanders. I think stun guns and mace should be allowed everywhere.
Bret: What about background checks on them? Because those are favorite weapons of serial killers. Stun guns are notoriously a serial killer stereotype.
His Lordship: Bottom line, Ginx, if someone is too much of a wildcard to know how to safely use a firearm, they shouldn’t have passed the background check in the first place.
Bret: But millions do pass and commit crimes every year, at higher rates in the US than elsewhere.
His Lordship: I think a very small minority of licensed gun owners are responsible for crime. If you want background checks for stun gun purchases, I won’t have an aneurysm over it. But I’m really not worried about serial killers using them. They can use clubs just as effectively. Jack the Ripper didn’t need a stun gun.
Bret: But can you imagine if Jack the Ripper had a stun gun?
His Lordship: He would have stunned people?
Bret: Craigslist personals would become sparse very quickly.
His Lordship: Stunning possibility. And if he had had a car, he would have driven people over?
Bret: You mentioned something earlier I should bring back up. I think police should be disarmed. You mentioned police with assault rifles. In Britain, most police don’t even carry a side arm. Sure, there are special forces teams that are heavily armed, but not the average officer.
His Lordship: Well, I don’t think they should be disarmed. They do a dangerous job, and they have a need to protect themselves. Same as the average citizen in a high-crime area. Or a high wolverine area.
Bret: I’m all for wolverine massacres, but there has been a silent arms race on the streets of America.
His Lordship: Really? A silent arms race? How come I’ve never heard about it?
It must have been silent.
Bret: You have heard about it. Do you think police carried military grade assault weapons 40 years ago?
His Lordship: Some PD’s carried M1 Garands.
Bret: When they needed that kind of fire power, they called in the national guard.
His Lordship: I think it all started with the Prohibition. The rumrunners were heavily armed.
Bret: Modern drug prohibition is certainly a factor. But things have seemed to get worse since the Brady bill lapsed under Bush. Especially on the southern border.
His Lordship: I think poverty is a major factor behind crime.
Bret: Maybe, but poverty stricken citizens don’t own assault rifles, usually. The poor commit a different sort of crime.
His Lordship: But when they turn to drug dealing, they do. Rich kids don’t go become drug dealers
Bret: You don’t know a lot of rich kids, obviously. As someone who is a spoiled rich kid, I can finally call on my expertise.
His Lordship: Educate me.
Bret: Rich kids sell the best drugs, are you kidding me? No one wants to buy from poor people, their shit is whack, dog.
His Lordship: Do the rich kids go into turf wars with other rich kids. Oh yeah they do, it’s called the government, sorry.
Bret: There is no turf for rich kids, they just have a cell phone and their home. Poor people sell on the street.
His Lordship: So they’re not the ones with assault rifles, then.
Bret: Well hold on there. I wouldn’t go that far. But they are the sort that have guns just rusting away. I can’t picture a rich kid actually using a gun. I think he would pull a bin Laden and just die reaching for it.
His Lordship: “Is it gonna blow?”
Bret: The other thing, though, is that police target poor people for enforcement. I think the arms race is not over turf so much as with the police. The turf war is a person asserting themselves in a place, not against other dealers, but against the police. The real violence that is like what you’re talking about is happening in Mexico.
His Lordship: Well, now you have BATF illegally selling guns to Mexican drug dealers, what a farce. And then turning around and blaming American gun shops.
Bret: Maybe they just want to boost jobs at Colt?
His Lordship: I thought that’s what Iraq and Afghanistan were for.
Bret: Colt can never have too many jobs... and I couldn’t even begin to understand why various unregulated government agencies do what they do.
His Lordship: I couldn’t care less about drugs, but maybe they should be legalized, and sold at Wal-Mart. There, no more drug crime.
His Lordship: Drug use is a medical issue, not one that should be criminalized. Ooh listen to me... gun-loving flaming liberal hippie.
Bret: Lots of libertarian gun lovers are pro-legalization of drugs. I think it’s just logical policy at this point, I don’t even understand how drugs can still be illegal. What would the DEA do then?
His Lordship: The DEA, I don’t know, integrate it with the border patrol or something. Not that we would really need a border patrol anymore if drugs were legal.
Bret: Oh no, say it ain’t so... you support immigration control?
His Lordship: Look, I grew up in Canada. I don’t think we need borders
Bret: I couldn’t agree more. So what should the border patrol do, then? Teach math and science?
His Lordship: Look for illegal wolverines? The kind that tried to eat my neighbor’s cat?
Bret: Too long the wolverine menace has gone unpublicized.
His Lordship: Here’s one issue though with immigration. How do you keep welfare programs sustainable? Do you hand it out to everyone, or are there rules regarding how you can get on it?
Bret: Personally, I think proper economic policy allows total coverage for all applicants, even if they come here to be a leech. I mean, we could feed the world if we reduced our military.
His Lordship: Maybe. I would have to see the numbers.
Bret: We have very low taxes, and yet we could have a huge budget even if it were balanced. And I’m not talking gourmet food, just Ramen Noodle, but still.
His Lordship: How much welfare is too much? At what point is it going to break the bank?
Bret: I guess that’s for each year’s budget to determine.
His Lordship: Ramen noodles, come on, rice and beans is healthier.
Bret: They’re already poor and you want to give them flatulence... for shame.
His Lordship: As an environmentalist, I worry about the effects of a growing population on ecosystems and natural resources.
Bret: So you are pro-death?
His Lordship: What I’m saying is that as a species, we have no predators. We are destroying this planet. This is where I become an apathetic nihilist.
Bret: We have predators. Like... AIDS. And serial killers with stun guns. And lest we forget the wolverines.
His Lordship: AIDS is almost curable now.
Bret: Yeah, it’s just like Chris Rock said, not cured, but you can live with it on medication for decades. Very suspicious…
His Lordship: My major concern is the long-term sustainability of our civilization on this planet. There are a finite number of resources. Thankfully, industrialized countries have low birth rates. Maybe that’s an instinctive survival mechanism?
Bret: There are sociological factors there, that as more children survive, women have less kids. My wife actually studies that, demography and fertility and what not.
His Lordship: But global population is still growing.
Bret: Right, because women in poverty have more children because less survive and she couldn’t afford birth control either way. Plus education is a big one. Women with more education have fewer children.
His Lordship: At what point do we say; “Dang! We just cut down the last standing tree on this planet! What do we do now??”
Bret: I’m not worried about the trees. Fuck the trees. They’re doing fine.
His Lordship: “Dang! No more tuna fish in the sea! What do we eat now?”
Bret: Okay now you have my attention. Do you think they’ll run out of cake?
His Lordship: Let them eat cake.
Bret: Just not tuna, or salmon, or... what else are we running out of? I heard bananas might disappear at one point.
His Lordship: Topsoil in the Midwest.
Bret: Well, that’s disturbing.
His Lordship: Soil erosion, ocean dead zones.
Bret: Yeah, and the plastic continents.
His Lordship: My favorite author is Jared Diamond. I read his book called “Collapse” about the factors that historically cause civilizations to collapse, and wanted to jump off a bridge after I was done. We are screwed unless we get our act together.
Bret: So we’re screwed.
His Lordship: No other civilization in history has used resources on such a scale. We risk literally eating ourselves out of a planet to live on.
Bret: Do you think it will come to cannibalism?
His Lordship: Well, the good news is that once civilization collapses, population will go back to sustainable levels. The Earth has survived massive extinction events over the past few million years. But life goes on.
Bret: I don’t know of any that were caused by life forms, though I know life forms have changed the environment.
His Lordship: In the greater scheme of things, we are insignificant. We are a puny little species on a tiny rock in the middle of a big cold Universe.
Bret: True, but we are the first to realize that. So that’s interesting of us.
His Lordship: Nothing we are building here on this planet will survive 3 billion years from now when the Sun expands into a red giant and bakes the Earth to a crisp, after, of course, boiling off the oceans.
Bret: That’s not true, we sent objects out into space.
His Lordship: Yeah, some 1970’s piece of crap technology with dead batteries.
Bret: Well, it has a gold plate with information on it. I’d like to see wolverines do that.
His Lordship: It has electrolytes.
Bret: LOL. I seriously laughed at that one.
His Lordship: from Idiocracy.
Bret: Yep. It has what plants crave. Well, I think you hit on an ultimate goal for humanity, which is too leave the planet.
His Lordship: Conservatives will say “Well, I’m not going ANYWHERE!!!”
Bret: Good, stay and die, I say. Don’t adapt for all I care.
His Lordship: Even if our descendants leave Earth, what will they do? Enslave alien civilizations? Destroy distant ecosystems? Deplete worlds of resources? Then what? next planet?
Bret: Float around in suits that feed and sexually pleasure them for all eternity...
His Lordship: Until thermodynamic entropy freezes us to death as the last red dwarf goes dim in the dark infinite sky.
Bret: I’m optimistic about the end of the universe. I think people could fix it. The universe, I mean. Just fix the whole thing.
His Lordship: With electrolytes. I often wonder... what will the last person (or being) think just before they die... knowing that they are the last living creature in the Universe.... freaky thoughts.
Bret: Will they know they’re the last?
His Lordship: Not with dead batteries they won’t.
Bret: So you’re saying we need to pass along to that person a message: bring extra batteries.
His Lordship: I find astrophysics terribly depressing... the authors I’ve read don’t paint a rosy picture of the end.
Bret: Yeah, everything just falls apart in the end.
His Lordship: I think this is why the superstitious mind turns to religion for hope.
Bret: Well it’s not like people knew this information long ago. Most people saw existence as cyclical, not linear.
His Lordship: Oh that’s right, my grandmother believed the world was flat and rested on the back of a giant tortoise.
Bret: Most people before we understood the universe was expanding thought the universe was more or less sitting around still.
His Lordship: I like Buddhism and Jainism in that respect. They teach that the Universe is eternal that it has always existed and will always exist.
Bret: Is there any religion you can think of where the world just ends and nothing is left?
His Lordship: I don’t know. Norse mythology is pretty grim. The world will burn, then it will freeze.
Bret: But two people live. And some of the gods. It’s not too bleak, just violent, like Christian Armagedon.
His Lordship: Depends what version you read. I think there is a version where no one survives.
Bret: I choose not to believe such a version exists... I’ll have to check into it.
His Lordship: Tell me how depressing it is
Bret: I should know this already, since I would say I know Norse mythology more than any other besides Christian/Jewish. But I know there are many versions of the story of Ragnarok.
His Lordship: I’ll bet you these two people who survived didn’t have extra batteries.
Bret: Wouldn’t it suck if they hated each other? That’s like the one time where rape has an exception.
His Lordship: Like Freja and Fenris stuck together in the end?
Bret: I know they both die though.
His Lordship: Oh so now we are going to argue Norse Theology. What is the gender of angels?
Bret: Well, Fenris has to die, because Odin’s son kills him to avenge his father’s death. I bet angels are hermaphrodites.
His Lordship: Freaks
Bret: Aww, I didn’t go that far. To all of my intergender readers, no offense intended. I know you’re out there because you send me pictures, no matter how much I tell you to stop.
His Lordship: That’s right, I shouldn’t make fun of angelic birth defects.
Bret: Well, if they’re all like that, is it a defect? Wouldn’t the one Angel with a penis and no vagina be mocked?
His Lordship: Probably, but that’s how God made it, so it’s perfect.
Bret: I bet God’s “perfect” is really just an exhausted “good enough.”
His Lordship: I bet you God was drunk off cheap tequila when he made the world.
Bret: Was that the deep that he looked out over before he created everything? A giant vat of tequila? Look at us, practically sprinting to hell here.
His Lordship: In my line of work there’s two possible things to blame for a bad design : a stupid designer, or a stupid accountant. Or a combination of both
Bret: Maybe God had funding problems. Which explains the collection basket.
His Lordship: “Sorry we couldn’t get you the titanium flux capacitors you wanted, you’ll have to make due with tin foil and these two paperclips.”
Bret: And that’s why we have an appendix. It all makes sense.
His Lordship: There you go.
Bret: Okay, last question: would you rather give up guns or eating meat?
His Lordship: Eating meat. Believe it or not, I am a part time vegan.
Bret: I am stunned. Well that wraps it up, thanks for chatting with me.
His Lordship: Stunned? Watch out for those serial killers with tasers. You’re welcome, thanks for having me.
Bret: I would probably become a eunuch to keep eating meat, so long as I could keep some semen on ice for later. But that’s too much info. Good night.
His Lordship: Good night.
HR: Officially, yes. I believe there are several prominent secular conservatives out there... the ones that never refer to God... but for the most part, the Party is assumed to be primarily religious. I still run into plenty of conservative bloggers who just don’t believe it’s possible to be both conservative and atheist.
Bret: Are there any core issues of Republicanism that you disagree with, and does your atheism play any part in that?
HR: I’ll address it as conservatism. Even though I’ve named myself The Heathen Republican, I still consider myself conservative first. Anyway, I don’t think there are any core conservative issues that I disagree with. My areas of disagreement are around faith-based positions like teaching creationism/intelligent design in schools, stem cell research, etc. So policy differences, but I can’t think of any core issues.
Bret: What is your stance on abortion?
HR: I’ve written about this some. Basically, I’m pro-choice before (about) 15 weeks, and pro-life after 15 weeks. I believe the entire issue revolves around when we define “human-ness.” Religious conservatives believe that to be at conception, but I think it comes later in the pregnancy.
Bret: So if you find someone living in your attic, you can’t kick them out if they’ve been there like 16 weeks?
HR: If for the first 16 weeks they are simply a mass of cells, have no brain stem, and don’t look like a human baby, then yes. I think that’s a bit of an unfair analogy, but I’ll play along.
Bret: Well, is it really about the fetus or the mother?
HR: It’s about both human beings, not one or the other. I’m sure we can both agree that at some point, the baby is a person and has its own rights. This is independent of the mother. Once the baby is its own person, the mother loses some rights to how she treats it. I don’t think that’s a controversial position.
Bret: Right, but no one has the right to use someone else against their will after their born. If I needed a liver transplant, and I only need 1/3rd of your liver to stay alive, I can’t force you to give it to me, even though yours will heal back completely. Why does a fetus have privileges a person with a birth certificate doesn’t have?
HR: I’m not seeing the connection. Are you saying aborting a 16 week fetus is like forcing someone to share their liver?
Bret: No, I’m saying forcing a woman into being a concubine after a certain arbitrary point in a pregnancy is a violation of a woman’s sovereignty over her own body.
HR: Okay, but I don’t think the point in time we’re talking about is arbitrary. 15 weeks is the line I draw, but I can’t make a scientific case for it. What I know is that there is a point in time when a fetus is its own individual person. Is your position that that point in time is the moment of birth?
Bret: It doesn’t matter if the fetus is a human or not, is what I’m saying. You’re focused solely on the fetus and its personhood. Let me ask you another question, then... Do you believe we have the right to use force to defend ourselves from a home invader?
HR: Of course.
Bret: Is a home invader a person? Assuming it’s not a bear looking for food of course.
HR: I assume so.
Bret: So it’s okay to use force when someone is doing something to you against your will?
HR: Yes.
Bret: Then why can’t a woman stop a fetus from ruining her life?
HR: Maybe you only heard the last part of my answer, but I believe that a woman CAN stop a fetus from ruining her life for the first 3 1/2 months of her pregnancy. I think after that, abortion is immoral.
Bret: Do you support planned parenthood funding?
HR: No, but on different grounds. I believe that our government has a very limited role, and that doesn’t include Planned Parenthood.
Bret: Do you realize that Planned Parenthood is one tool that helps women detect pregnancies earlier and take care of abortions before 15 weeks? Not to mention prevent the need for an abortion at all.
HR: I’ll save you some time. You can tell me all of the wonderful things that Planned Parenthood does, and I’ll agree with most of them. I believe they fill an important role in society (as I make your Republican readers’ heads explode). No matter how many good things they do, it’s not the role of our federal government to give them tax dollars. There are a lot of good things in the world. That doesn’t mean I’ll support giving tax dollars to support them.
Bret: But stem cell research is okay?
HR: Again, there are two factors here. I think stem cell research is okay. If it has as much promise as proponents suggest, then I see no reason why private industry won’t finance it. There’s a big payoff at the end if they’re right. That doesn’t mean I would support federal funding of research. And I would oppose banning of the research.
Bret: But that’s what Bush did, I believe. He banned federal dollars from funding stem cell research, which really means any university that receives tax dollars can’t do the research, which is every public university. Opposing a ban is essentially lifting the restriction from public research institutions.
HR: My understanding is that he banned federal dollars, but he didn’t ban the research itself. If he banned the research, then that’s something I would disagree with.
Bret: Right, but most money for research comes from the government. It’s certainly not coming from pharmaceutical companies who make billions selling overpriced pills. Which is why the research isn’t done if it can’t be funded using tax dollars.
HR: Assuming you’re right, I think that’s outside the role of government. I think there are arguments to be made for some kinds of research that fit within the government’s constitutionally-defined role. But the two examples you’ve offered I don’t think need funding from government sources.
Bret: What about abstinence education?
HR: You’re hitting me on a lot of issues I haven’t dug into before. My blog is more about big ideas than specific policy issues. I’ll get repetitive here, but the answer really doesn’t change no matter how many issues you throw out: when I read the words that define the government’s role, I don’t see anything that would include abstinence education. In my opinion, the federal government is involved in way too many social issues.
Bret: When you say that, are you simply deferring all of these decisions onto states?
HR: That’s one option, and the states have very different constitutions that could allow that kind of funding. There are also plenty of private organizations that raise money for a variety of causes. There’s no reason to think there aren’t some wealthy donors out there that would support an education program like that.
Bret: Well unfortunately there are, mostly churches. And abstinence education is a state choice, I believe, as are nearly all issues of school programs. So knowing that, how do you feel about abstinence education, keeping in mind that I will point out that it increases teen pregnancies and STD infection rates where it’s taught.
HR: Respectfully, I’m not comfortable offering an opinion based on your stated statistics. Personally, I’m not involved in those programs. If someone knocked on my door looking for a donation, I would turn them away. I support the right of people to create abstinence educational programs as much as contraceptive education programs.
Bret: I’m not sure why you’re so socially callous. It makes me think of the comment you left [on my blog] about how you see homosexual marriage as inevitable. Why do you see that particular issue as inevitable, but still something worth fighting against?
HR: Have we transitioned from the friendly portion of the interview? Naturally, I don’t see myself as socially callous. If you think I’m socially callous because I am not against an education program that increases teen pregnancy and STD infection rates, then I understand your position. I don’t know the source of your statistics, so I’m not going to jump on board quite yet. If it were demonstrated to me that a program was having the opposite effect that its proponents intended, I would agree that something should change. I would hope those proponents would also say the same thing. So I think you’re being unfair to throw statistics at me now, and when I don’t automatically accept them to label me as socially callous. As for same-sex marriage...
Bret: Sometimes I take for granted certain pieces of what I consider “common knowledge.”
HR: One of the things I’ve developed at The Heathen Republican is the idea of the three tensions of politics: the ideological, the political, and the pragmatic. From an ideological perspective, I’m predisposed to prefer tradition over change unless I see very compelling reasons to change. I’m not a fan of change for the sake of change (as most people are not). I think the traditional definition of marriage is a good one, and I have not heard good reasons why it should change. I know that you’re familiar with my post [The Non-Faith-Based Case Against Same-Sex Marriage], so I won’t rehash it here. My statement about inevitability is me being pragmatic: I assume that the progressive movement will win this cultural battle, and eventually same-sex marriage will be the law of the land.
Bret: I know you don’t hate gay people, and I am tempted to say, “Why not just join the winning side,” but on the other hand, I know you’ll be voting Republican regardless of your view on gay marriage, or abortion, or abstinence education... which basically means it doesn’t matter if you change your mind. Do you ever feel like Republican candidates don’t represent you or conservatives as a whole, who I have found to not be as homogenized as the Republican party’s politicians?
HR: Republicans generally represent my ideological views and Democrats never do, so my voting decision is an easy one. The problem that I see with politics is that people like me, a self-described ideologue, expect our politicians to always fight the fight and stand their ground. But there are always political and pragmatic reasons for compromising, which annoys the hell out of the ideologues. I see that this is also happening with the left right now. Many people are upset with Obama because he’s not toeing the ideological line, and they can’t stand to see him compromise. Frankly, the idea of the three political tensions has helped me to cope with the cognitive dissonance I sometimes feel when I watch Republicans and how they behave.
Bret: I have no problem understanding why politicians do what they do. It’s pretty similar to understanding why an old guy has a hot, young wife: money. Is that usually the “pragmatic” tension?
HR: Yes, but that’s true for both sides, so knowing that doesn’t help decide who to vote for.
Bret: I should tell you I’m not a Democrat, not that it matters. But I have nothing to sell in the political race. I’m of the opinion that voting for someone who doesn’t represent you is not worth doing.
HR: But am I wrong that you tend toward the progressive side? Based on what I’ve read, that seems true.
Bret: Oh, I’m left of liberal. I think Democrats are just Republicans who minorities vote for.
HR: So yes, it’s pragmatic, but also political. The Politico says things like “Republicans want to kill seniors.” The Pragmatist looks for people to make a deal with because they think voters measure them by what they get done.
Bret: So then you’re for cutting Medicare?
HR: I recognize that we have an established social safety net that includes Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment benefits, welfare, etc. While ideologically I think these are outside the realm of the government’s role, I recognize that we can’t take it away. Honestly, I wouldn’t want to. If I had been around at its inception, I probably would’ve opposed Medicare. Now that it’s established law, I’d rather get it so that it’s self-funded and doesn’t break the bank.
Bret: What do you see the role of government being then, just shooting foreigners and defending whatever laws are already on the books?
HR: If you read my post on limited government (in depth), it outlines the basics. The usual: common defense, administer justice, foreign affairs, ensure free commerce, coin money, post offices, and don’t infringe on individual rights. But remember, that’s the ideology talking. When I say things like maintain a social safety net, that’s the pragmatic side of me coming out.
Bret: Wouldn’t you say the government also has a role to defend rights, not just avoid infringing?
HR: That feels a little like a trick question (I realize you probably don’t mean it as one). I’ll give it more thought and post something if my answer changes, but off the top of my head, no, it’s not the government’s role to defend rights. Rights belong to individuals and the government is the greatest risk to those rights. I would not ask a fox to guard my hen house, either.
Bret: So I don’t have the right to drink unpolluted water or breathe unpolluted air?
HR: That’s a very broad definition of rights. But no, you don’t have an inherent right to those things, nor do you have a right to health care, a good paying job, or annual vacations (unless you’re in Scandinavia). I’d say we have a societal obligation to clean up our water and our air, but describing these things as rights takes it too far.
Bret: So we have the right to life... unless we’re being slowly killed for profit?
HR: I don’t have a brilliant retort for that one.
Bret: Well, I only say because I don’t see things so black and white. I don’t see government as the biggest threat in my life. I don’t even interact with the government on a day-to-day basis, but I do interact with private organizations, and many of them don’t treat me as though I have any rights at all.
HR: Do I really sound black and white? I used to think the one thing that progressives and conservatives shared was a distrust for government. But that only lasted while Bush was in the White House. Now it’s only conservatives that don’t trust government.
Bret: Don’t misunderstand me, I know government has the potential to infringe on my rights. What I see as a problem is, I look at the problem of individual rights being infringed by individuals, private organizations and government, while conservatives have tunnel vision and only blame government... unless a Republican is in office. When a Republican is in office, they blame Democrats and Muslims. And who can tell the difference between those two, right?
HR: I don’t think that’s accurate. We conservatives recognize when corporations do evil things, and they do them often. More accurately, they are amoral so they don’t actively do good things. We have faith in a system... capitalism... to control most corporations and to punish those that do wrong. When the system doesn’t do it, we believe that some government regulation is appropriate. We’re not whacky libertarians who think we don’t need regulation (that’s for Free). What I see is that progressives ONLY blame corporations. That’s who’s wearing the blinders when they can’t see the problems in government. I happily blame government even when Republicans are in office. There’s an inertia to government that it interferes and grows no matter who’s running it. While I trusted Bush, I never trusted “government” while he was in charge. And I’m ignoring the Muslim comment.
Bret: Does it bother you that we lost civil liberties in a big way under Bush?
HR: I’m not aware of any civil liberties that I lost. Which one did you lose?
Bret: Well for one, I don’t fly anymore for obvious reasons.
HR: I fly 25% for work, so I can tell you I haven’t lost any civil liberties there.
Bret: But it’s not about you and what you’re okay with sacrificing. Just as you don’t see what’s wrong with gay people not being allowed to marry someone of the same gender since neither can you, your own tolerance for tyranny isn’t really justification for nullifying freedoms we should all be afforded. Why does the government get to ignore its own basic bill of rights whenever it gets scared?
HR: You do realize that you just altered the argument because you couldn’t respond to mine? You made the question about me when you asked “does it bother YOU that WE lost civil liberties...”
Bret: Well, I’m asking why you’re callous to the feelings of others and only self-concerned. Like asking a white person in the South during the sixties if they have a problem with racism, and them saying “Well, it doesn’t bother me.”
HR: Sorry, I’ll try next time to answer your question as you meant to write it instead of how you actually wrote it. I’m not aware of the government under Bush ignoring the Bill of Rights. If you can offer me an example, I’ll be happy to respond to it. I’m angry that Obama is nullifying my freedom not to purchase health insurance, but I don’t see your anger over that. That’s my example; let me hear yours.
Bret: Do you have health insurance?
HR: I do.
Bret: So then it doesn’t affect you, why complain?
HR: So let me address the point you’ve repeated a few times: that I’m callous to the feelings of others. I opine on the topics of religion and politics. I try to talk about big ideas. I don’t believe a government can craft legislation based on its compassion or feelings for individuals. This way lies ruin. I am compassionate. I feel for the people around me. I want my government to abide by its defined role and make broad policy decisions that are good for everyone as a whole, not everyone individually. I realize my mistake has been to answer you in the same language that I blog, which has led you to think that I don’t care for the feelings of individuals. It’s not true, but I don’t write about my gay friend at work; I write about ideology.
Bret: Well, here’s what I see: I see someone who claims that they care about other people, but when it comes to changing anything that doesn’t directly affect themselves, they don’t really see the need to change anything... unless a Democrat came up with the idea fairly recently (but 80 years ago is okay now). I could say I love gay people all day long, that I have gay friends, and I could even have gay sex in bathrooms on weekends. If I oppose an issue like gay marriage, it doesn’t much matter what else I do, I’m standing in the way of people’s dreams for no reason.
HR: I’ll have to read back through the text of this and see how I gave you that impression. As you describe me, I don’t like me either.
Bret: That’s just it, you might be the most polite and nice guy in the world, but it doesn’t much matter what a person’s personality is if they support policies which ignore the rights of others. Like when you ask me if the PATRIOT ACT or some other Bush policy ever affected me, it’s not about me. I don’t make my choices about what to believe based on what I am, I base it on the concept that we live in a society with different people with different goals and aspirations.
HR: Sounds like we can’t leave the same-sex marriage issue behind. Just because you don’t like the reason stated, doesn’t mean I’m standing in the way of their dreams for no reason. I say it clearly at The Heathen Republican, but for those readers who don’t click that far, I fully support civil unions. I think they are the perfect compromise to allow equal rights for homosexuals and maintain the traditional definition of marriage. Our federal government should recognize them.
Bret: Right, but the “separate but equal” doctrine is always abused. It’s always been a tool used to try to placate people and stall the expansion of liberty.
HR: I don’t find the possibility for abuse to be a compelling reason not to support something. For the record, civil unions are one thing that progressives came up with that I support. On the Patriot Act, let’s not talk about you and me. Tell me the “concept” that violated the Bill of Rights. I love big ideas, but I haven’t heard specifics on what rights were lost conceptually, either.
Bret: Well let’s start with the basic principle of expanding the federal government’s power. I guess that’s only a problem when a Democrat does it?
HR: Do you have any specifics in mind? As I’ve said, common defense is a prescribed role for the government, so I won’t automatically object to government expansion for the purpose of national defense.
Bret: Well we’ll get back to that, since our interview has to wrap up. Final question, which for me is always a random tangent: would you rather have the right to bear arms or privatized health care? If you had to choose one.
HR: I think a government-run health care system would kill me faster, so I guess I’d have to choose privatized health care. Thank god (sic) it’s not a real choice that has to be made.
Bret: We also would have accepted “The right to bear arms, so conservatives could fight a Civil War to end universal healthcare.”
HR: Yeah, but that’s cheating. Basically a way to get both. I’m a conservative so I try to play by the rules.
Bret: Thanks for taking the time, and I’m sure we’ll do this again soon.
HR: It was fun.
Mike Brownstein: I would say it’s a blog where I post my thoughts about hockey and politics. I generally stick to politics, but I like to think of my blog as a way to talk about political science and politics and make it accessible to everyone.
Ginx: How is West Lafayette this time of year?
Mike Brownstein: It’s pretty nice and calm. We’re actually in an interesting political season where we have a city council race that is seeing some interesting candidates. Two undergraduates in the Purdue political science department are running against each other. We also have some other familiar faces I’ve blogged about during the 2010 election who are in these races.
Ginx: What happened politically in Indiana in 2010? I used to live in Carmel, but I have really lost touch with what’s going on in the state.
Mike Brownstein: Locally in West Lafayette, we actually had all our state legislator incumbents win re-election. Overall in Indiana, it’s become highly conservative in the state Congress. Outside of that, a lot of local Democrats lost their positions. We were pretty active when it came to tea party candidates, including Donn Brown (one of the candidates that I wrote a lot about, and was interesting to say the least) that lost by 19 points locally.
Ginx: Why do you think Indiana swung Democrat for Obama in 2008?
Mike Brownstein: Having discussed this with local OFA volunteers and leaders, we all agree that the Obama Campaign was very good about reaching out to young voters. During the election, the McCain campaign was virtually non-existent on Purdue’s campus, which is surprising for how conservative it is.
Ginx: What are your thoughts on Obama?
Mike Brownstein: I think he’s in a considerably difficult position. Overall, I think he’s done a good job, considering the crises he’s had to deal with. I wasn’t someone who thought he would change the world by being POTUS [President of the United States]. My biggest issue with Obama has been his handling of media. I think the White House’s communication with the public has been poor, which is very surprising considering his campaign was built on Web 2.0 communication. Overall a strong B+.
Ginx: I don’t think I would even recognize Obama’s press secretary. I don’t understand how he’s so bad with media.
Mike Brownstein: I really liked Robert Gibbs as a Press Secretary. He gave the position more of a personality that it didn’t have in the Bush years.
Ginx: Where did you see him? What channel?
Mike Brownstein: I watch C-Span, the White House posts their press briefings to Youtube. Gibbs would also post pictures and leak information on Twitter
Ginx: So you had to go looking for it?
Mike Brownstein: Yeah, but I expect that.
Ginx: Really, because Bush and his press team were all over every channel during his presidency
Mike Brownstein: Yes and no; I think there was more attention because the press and the Bush Administration were not on the best terms
Ginx: Maybe the press should start hating Obama, because the exposure only seemed to help bush, especially early on. I feel like a B+ is awfully generous, like a high school grading scale, not college level.
Mike Brownstein: I’ve been in college for 6 years, it’s hard to remember what the standards were like (for clarification I have a bachelors).
Ginx: Going for a Master’s or PhD?
Mike Brownstein: The end goal is a PhD. I am working on a Masters right now, and I’m looking into PhD programs.
Ginx: In Poli Sci?
Mike Brownstein: It is very likely to be political science. I’m also looking into political communication.
Ginx: What do you think of the overall political discourse in America today?
Mike Brownstein: I think we’re in a position right now where there’s a lot of frustration with the economy. When that happens, it’s not uncommon for there to be distrust and cynicism towards government. I think the discourse has gotten a bit nasty, but from a completely unempirical standpoint, I think it’s a generational effect. My generation thinks radically differently from the generation in power, and they’re scared. My generation is completely okay with LGBT culture, atheists are not evil people, and we’re a little more open to social change.
Ginx: So then based on that and your assessment of Obama, you seem like an optimist. So what are you seeing that I’m not?
Mike Brownstein: I am a bit optimistic. I think the older generation is not comfortable with the changes in social structure, the era of nuclear families is over. Another example of how I think the older generation is scared is DOMA. My generation is going to have to overturn that, because we tend to accept LGBT a lot more than the older generation. There’s a lot of social damage that my generation will likely have to undo.
Ginx: DOMA also prevents polygamy. What are your thoughts on that?
Mike Brownstein: I think DOMA is mostly aimed at LGBT individuals, because polygamy seems to be an afterthought in these debates.
Ginx: Certainly, but there is a very careful wording that “marriage is between one man and one woman.” I only ask because conservatives incite the fallacy of a slippery slope, and I’m curious what your feelings are on expanding the definition of marriage.
Mike Brownstein: I think it’s mostly an issue that has to do with religion, wanting to hold on to the little influence it really has left in government. I really don’t have a strong view either way on the issue of polygamy to be completely honest.
Ginx: I’m actually interviewing someone Friday or Saturday who is atheist and a Republican, and I’ll be talking to him about his opposition to gay marriage
Mike Brownstein: That sounds very interesting.
Ginx: Not really, it’s the same old “fear of change” argument. What is it about change that people are so afraid of?
Mike Brownstein: It’s uncomfortable.
Ginx: Well then they’re not using enough lube
Mike Brownstein: :-D
Ginx: But seriously, what is uncomfortable about it? It’s not as though gay people aren’t having sex, holding hands, pr kissing now, and letting them marry will just open the flood gate.
Mike Brownstein: Well, I think the problem is that it still makes Americans uncomfortable. As someone who considers themself to be a strong ally of the LGBT community, I think it’s hard to tell two individuals who are together in a committed relationship that they cannot enjoy the same benefits that a straight couple can.
Ginx: It makes me wonder what might be legislated against next... maybe a law banning May/November marriages, since that makes me gag. If the guy is older than the girl’s dad, maybe it shouldn’t be a marriage, it should be prosecuted as prostitution.
Mike Brownstein: Right, which is an attempt to legislate morality, which I think is a terrible way to run government because social standards change over time.
Ginx: Do you believe there are still wedge issues, or has the 24 hour news cycle killed them by introducing new issues on a constant basis?
Mike Brownstein: Absolutely wedge issues still exist...abortion, same-sex marriage, atheists, tend to still scare people.
Ginx: So you think there’s just more?
Mike Brownstein: More wedge issues?
Ginx: Yeah, it used to be that there was one or two things you were electing someone to do, but now there’s like a dozen things, and no one seems to focus on doing any of them upon election.
Mike Brownstein: It’s just the posturing that candidates do on the campaign trail. If a Republican doesn’t say they’re pro-life, they may miss out on a lot of campaign funds.
Ginx: Why is funding so important? It’s not as though votes can be literally bought, so why are the American people are easily swayed by marketing?
Mike Brownstein: Well, political science would tell us that there’s a number of ways to look at this question some people who research media politics will tell you that advertising does nothing, some will tell you that they do make a difference. Funding is vital in campaigns because it covers a lot of basic costs: transportation, staffers, etc. It doesn’t always determine the winner, but it definitely helps to have a warchest.
Ginx: It’s obviously too early to hold you to any prediction, but who do you think will be the Republican candidate in 2012?
Mike Brownstein: This gets discussed among my cohort at school a lot... every day I seem to have a different answer, but I think it will come down to three candidates: Huckabee (if he chooses to run), Romney, and Pawlenty. I think all of the candidates are fairly weak...and let’s all keep in mind that it’s very, very early to even start talking about who is the front-runner
Ginx: Do you think any current probable candidate has a shot at beating Obama, as it stands now?
Mike Brownstein: At the moment, no.
Ginx: What makes you think Obama is doing well? I have to know, as a liberal who hates the guy.
Mike Brownstein: I think he is doing well for one reason alone: the economy. We’re out of the recession, which could have been a very deep depression.
Ginx: You think the worst is behind us?
Mike Brownstein: I think so, however, I think if the Republicans take the Senate I think we will have a lot of rough economic times ahead...
Ginx: I’m not sure things are so rosy. Unemployment is still high and education spending has been cut.
Mike Brownstein: Its coming down. I’m unemployed and I’m all too familiar with the statistic that 1 in 5 in my cohort can’t find summer work. It’s rough, but I think unemployment around 7-8 percent is okay for the economy. I’d love for that number to be lower, but economic dynamics are changing globally.
Ginx: You mean like how companies go overseas so they can pay their workers a pittance?
Mike Brownstein: It’s become a very international and global economy...
Ginx: Well, that’s one way of turning it into a euphemism.
Mike Brownstein: It’s not the best thing to say, but sometimes America loses...it’s the nature of economics.
Ginx: Most countries enact protectionist policies, but this country has decided to clear any roadblocks or taxes or tariffs on operating over-seas.
Mike Brownstein: I don’t like it when that happens either. The free market can’t solve everything, but protectionist economic policy would isolate us.
Ginx: I don’t think that’s true. There are creative solutions, such as banning the import of products which would not meet legal standards had they been produced in the US. So, if the workers were payed what was essentially below minimum wage, it wouldn’t be imported. If the environmental impact would have been illegal here (assuming we still have environmental regulations anymore), it shouldn’t be imported. It’s not isolationist to prevent companies from circumventing measures meant to stop abuse here by going somewhere else, it’s simply enforcement of American law on American companies.
Mike Brownstein: I can agree with that.
Ginx: But democrats can’t, because they’ve been bought.
Mike Brownstein: Of course.
Ginx: So why are people even voting for democrats? Where is the liberal movement to actually be represented?
Mike Brownstein: I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that they’re less crazy than Republicans, and I think liberals are identifying less with the party, but don’t see a viable alternative party.
Ginx: Are there any politicians at the federal level that you can point to and say they represent you?
Mike Brownstein: I do feel represented by Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH, Toledo area).
Ginx: Are those local for where you’re from?
Mike Brownstein: I used to live in Toledo growing up. Brown is someone I generally agree with.
Ginx: Is there anything about the Democrats from 2008 until now that disappointed you?
Mike Brownstein: Yes, I think they could be stronger on social issues. They’re doing well with issues of church and state, LGBT...but they can be doing a lot better.
Ginx: I don’t get the impression atheism and religion are something discussed all that much in politics, at least from a perspective I would find constructive. It mostly seems to be about Muslims and attacking them.
Mike Brownstein: Actually atheists get targeted a lot, too.
Ginx: What are the big atheist issues in politics at the moment?
Mike Brownstein: I think one that is being discussed a lot within the atheist community is religious influence in the military. There was an event that was going to occur at Fort Bragg a few weeks ago, and it was cancelled due to a lack of funding.
Ginx: So atheists want to join the military and shoot people without all that preaching?
Mike Brownstein: Or be allowed to be exempt from religious obligation. There’s a test that is given that tests “spiritual fitness,” and atheist military members have reported chaplains using this as a bully pulpit.
Ginx: I bet if they institute a draft, a lot of atheists will be glad to be found spiritually unfit.
Mike Brownstein: I think so, but I think that there are soldiers who are atheists, are proud to serve their country, but would rather not have religion dictate their standing with the military. If we’re allowing LGBT, we should also be allowing atheists. It’s absolutely wrong to tell someone they can’t serve because they are attracted to their same sex, just as it’s wrong to tell someone they can’t serve because they don’t want to pray and read a holy text.
Ginx: But if we let atheists into the military, there will be atheists in foxholes. We can’t have that...
Mike Brownstein: But they’re already there
Ginx: At least they’re in the closet, where we belong.
Mike Brownstein: I don’t like being in the closet.
Ginx: Maybe yours isn’t as big as mine, mine is a huge walk-in.
Mike Brownstein: Mine’s kind of small and uninhabitable.
Ginx: I just wonder why the military is often the first to get liberalized. It was accepting women before a lot of businesses. It is more accepting of gays now than the national marriage policy, and they enjoy socialized medical care. I want to know how this is the case and yet the military is considered conservative.
Mike Brownstein: I really don’t know either, it’s a strange phenomenon that maybe a social scientist should look into.
Ginx: Do you feel liberalism is even represented in the national debate? Because i feel like liberalism is dead in America.
Mike Brownstein: It’ll come back. The same thing was said about conservatism in the 1970s.
Ginx: 1970’s conservatism did die, though. Modern conservatives don’t even remotely resemble Republicans of the 70’s, or even democrats of the 60’s (which I think they’re closer to).
Mike Brownstein: I’d say so... the Republicans are a lot like the Dems were in the 60s or the fringe-y GOP in the 1950s.
Ginx: Do you see the tea party as a real movement?
Mike Brownstein: In what sense?
Ginx: Well, I see it as an attempt to rebrand Republicanism post-Bush, like Philip Morris changing its name to the Altria group. New name, same bullshit.
Mike Brownstein: Right. I see them as a function of Neo-con rebranding...but I also see it as a reaction by conservative whites to changing demographics.
Ginx: You think there’s a racial component?
Mike Brownstein: Yes...if you look at census projections...whites will be a minority within 15 years. I’m perfectly comfortable with that, as I think many of my generation are.
Ginx: But it’s not like tea partiers know statistics. If they believed in scientific observation, they wouldn’t be tea partiers.
Mike Brownstein: Of course not...
Ginx: Do you think there is any liberal counter to Fox News?
Mike Brownstein: MSNBC...but I’m not the biggest fan
Ginx: you really think MSNBC is as liberally biased as Fox News is right-wing biased?
Mike Brownstein: No, MSNBC is biased left, but not as far right as Fox is.
Ginx: Okay, final question: if you could change any 5 policies, what would they be?
Mike Brownstein: Wow… liberalize abortion similar to Scandinavia, remove complete tax amnesty from churches, work on transitioning away from gasoline by investing in alternative energy resources… 2 more.
Ginx: And no making policies for more policies!
Mike Brownstein: Increase the standards for background checks for gun ownership, and make birth control more widely available. There’s five.
Ginx: Excellent. Alright Mike, thanks for taking the time.
Mike Brownstein: Not a problem, thanks for having me.
Ginx: Have a good night, and good luck with those boiler makers.
Mike Brownstein: Will do.
Mike: I am a police officer in Michigan... have been for 13 years now.
Bret: How would you describe your work to an alien who doesn’t know what a police officer is?
Mike: There are bad people who either can’t or won’t control their urges to make other peoples’ lives miserable. It is my job to keep them from repeating their actions. sometimes that requires jail time.
Bret: Why doesn’t the government just put cameras everywhere?
Mike: I don’t think Americans like the idea of “big brother” watching everything we do. I’m certainly not in favor of it. As is the case with all government policy, power corrupts and absolute power absolutely corrupts. I only see bad things come out of that.
Bret: And yet, that’s sort of what God is, correct?
Mike: Big brother watching? Explain...
Bret: Well, I’m this alien who knows nothing... but I did hear something about this being called God who watches everything and knows everything. I mean, even aliens know about God.
Mike: That assumes that always watching and knowing is automatically evil. Humans are corrupt, and we’ll corrupt just about everything we touch. I don’t think we can compare God to us in the way we behave and respond.
Bret: So aliens know about God, but I don’t, having never met Him. How would you describe God?
Mike: God is difficult to describe, but He is said to have attributes similar to ours (we call them communicable attributes). For example, love, jealousy, etc are communicable attributes. On the other hand, He also is a being who is so unlike us. Those attributes are what we call incommunicable attributes. For example, his holiness, his omniscience, omnipresence, etc.
Bret: Where do you think God is?
Mike: Wow. Well, that’s challenging. Because He is omnipresent, He is said to be throned in His heavenly kingdom, as well as present among us.
Bret: Does God have any family?
Mike: In a spiritual sense we could say He does: the Bible calls those who put their trust in Him “children”. The Bible speaks a lot about “adoption”, a very deep theme. But the Bible writers used a lot of descriptive language of difficult-to-understand theological topics that people could more easily understand. And “adoption” is one of those themes we understand. We have the possibility of taking children into our families who were not physically born to us. But then, somehow, they become our children. Spiritually, the same occurs with God and us
Bret: That’s right, you have an adopted child.
Mike: I have a son we adopted. He was once a foster child of ours, and we adopted him. We consider him our own. I would have never understood the power of that had I not adopted my own.
Bret: Are you pro-life?
Mike: Very much so. But I can probably guess where you’re going next...especially considering my profession
Bret: Really? Tell me, cause I’m at a loss. If anyone has a right to be pro-life, it’s people who adopt. I can’t stand people who want to foist parenthood on people and they aren’t part of the solution to the real problem, which is all the children out there who need parents.
Mike: “Capitol Punishment” and “police use of deadly force” maybe???
Bret: Eh, liberals are going to kill me, but I believe in capital punishment. And deadly use of force happens, I’m more horrified at how common it is for police to use tasers now. I don’t think they’re rushing for the gun, they seem to be reaching for the taser any time someone is remotely non-compliant. But that’s just the perception from my limited exposure to law enforcement from the media, which only airs the extreme cases.
Mike: I think you’re right though. Many police, rather than calling for backup first, trust solely in the power of the taser as their backup. As mentioned earlier, power corrupts.
Bret: But it’s better than the night-stick or the gun. So I wouldn’t dream of taking the taser away.
Mike: On the flip side, more and more police are being assaulted these days. It shouldn’t be expected of us to simply roll over and take a hit for the citizens.
Bret: There is an extreme amount of hostility towards law enforcement officials. Are there any root causes, in your opinion?
Mike: That’s a hard one to pinpoint. Where I work, racial tension is a huge issue. A sagging economy would probably come in at a close second...people are stressed and angry and want to take it out on others. Sadly, it often happens to be on their loved ones or on police.
Bret: Yeah, which are usually the people there to help, not the cause of their problems. It’s always the people who roll up their sleeves and try to do something, huh?
Mike: Seems that way
Bret: Do you think God feels that way?
Mike: Not sure, but I do know that one day all wrongs will be righted, and justice will be served. That is the hope I have in Christ.
Bret: I hear a lot of atheists say things like, “I don’t believe in God because of the appendix,” implying that if they were in charge, they would have done things “better.” How do you feel about that as an argument against God?
Mike: I’ll be honest with you... you’ll blow me away in the realm of science. I’m not so proud to say there’s a lot I don’t know...and I’m not afraid to admit it.
Bret: Obviously you never read my college transcript...
Mike: But I know that there are things that exist that we may consider useless or bad, but maybe we just don’t understand the purpose behind it. One can only guess...
Bret: What to you is the single most compelling reason to be Christian?
Mike: Great question. The most compelling to me is my knowledge of my sin. I am convinced sin is what’s wrong with the world...I am what’s wrong with the world. I prove daily that I am in need of a Savior. I believe that Savior to be Jesus Christ. The Resurrection assures Jesus is like none other.
Bret: Do you feel being Christian can make you a better person, or is it just about getting saved and you’re pretty much who you are regardless of your religion?
Mike: I know many people who have found reasons to be “better” people. My issue is not so much about trying to be “better”. Instead, it’s about dealing with my sin. If God is holy and I am not, then I stand to face some serious consequences. As I trust Christ for salvation and my sin has been dealt with and is in the process of being dealt with...and will be dealt with in the future, how can that not cause me to be a better person? I have no choice but to be gracious with others, merciful, thankful, etc.
Bret: I’m tempted to ask you what’s the worst sin you’re willing to publicly confess to...
But that would be pretty Catholic of me.
Mike: I’m not willing, sorry. I’ve confessed it only to a couple close people. It’s pretty heinous, I confess. And not I’m not referring to something so simplistic as stealing a candy bar. Much worse.
Bret: So you stole a candy bar?
Mike: I struggle with things unbelievers struggle with. Porn. Anger.
Bret: You struggle with porn? I can refer you to free sites. No sense in dealing with those complex credit card accounts.
Mike: Thanks for helping! That’s funny.
Bret: Hey, if you’re struggling, you’re probably doing it wrong. And I think anger comes with your job. I don’t know how anyone can be surrounded by the kinds of people you interact with and keep all their marbles. Aren’t we all entitled to a few holes punched in the wall?
Mike: No joke, there! It is a daily struggle to not throat-punch a few people.
Bret: Okay, last question for this interview: Who’s better, Buddha or Mohammed?
Mike: I don’t know much about Buddha. However, I have read a large bulk of the Qu’ran and a few books written by clerics. Muhammad’s writing was confused...he’s illogical, he changed his mind a lot, etc. I guess I can’t really answer, cuz I don’t favor either. Sorry!
Bret: I would just say Mohammed, because no Buddhist will kill you for saying so.
Mike: Hahahaha
Bret: Alright, good night, and thanks for doing this. Hope we can do it again soon.
Mike: Absolutely! It inspires me to think more!!!!
Bret: Thinking is fun... sometimes.
Mike: G’nite, friend.
Tristan: Basically, I think people who ask that sort of question are simply under the misconception that marriage is about love. Marriage, until quite recently, has NOT been about love. For over 200,000 years marriage has been a means to an end.
Bret: So you got married to ally your tribe with your wife’s?
Tristan: First it was tribal allegiances, yes. When agricultural societies developed, and patriarchies matured, women were bartered for as part of the man’s property--as chattel. This is the sort of marriage we find in the Christian Bible. Marriage traditionally had to do with sustaining the family. So either you procured a wife who could produce many sons to help maintain the land and do labor, or you used your daughters are bargaining chips to attempt to marry them into a wealthier family--this usually involved arranged marriages.
Bret: Though to be fair, women did work as well. It’s not like women stayed at home sipping wine and watching soap operas before the 50s.
Tristan: Another thing that strikes me odd about that question is that it sounds very Eurocentric, in the Christian sense, as if non-Christian cultures could even possibly comprehend the concept of marriage. The Chinese were paying dowries and marrying thousands of years before Jews ever walked the face of the Earth. I’m just saying, it seems to me that this notion that marriage is supposed to be about love is relatively recent. So why get married? Because you love someone. My sarcastic answer would be, why not?
Bret: Good answer, we also would have accepted “for insurance” or “for citizenship.” I guess you don’t have to worry about the former in Japan. Though what about the latter, was citizenship a factor when you got married?
Tristan: Those are other reasons, yes. All this just goes to show that marriage is not a simple construct. No, citizenship never entered into it. Japanese law is so strict that it is nearly impossible to naturalize and become a Japanese citizen. It’s been done, but I have never thought of myself as anything other than American. That said, marriage to a foreign national does have its benefits, such as Visa status.
Bret: Do you plan to live in Japan permanently?
Tristan: No. I think of Japan as my second home now, but I’ve already enrolled to begin my Masters and PhD at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Also, JET Programme, the teaching job I do, has a limit of 5 years. I’ve done all five. So it was either find a new job or return to the States and continue my education.
Bret: How are things in Japan? We don’t usually hear much about that country, but obviously it’s been in the news a lot. How do you think the nation is handling the recent disaster?
Tristan: The people are great. Natural disasters are commonplace here. Every month there is an earthquake or a volcanic eruption or typhoon. This time it was a daisy-chain of events; one of the worst earthquakes in human history off the coast of Tohoku Japan devastated the entire Eastern seaboard. This set off a massive tsunami, waves 43 feet high, traveling at 800 km/h (about the speed of a jet) which crippled half the country. So it is devastating to say the least. The good news is Japan is well prepared, and well equipped, to handle it. The bad news is that foreign aid isn’t getting to the victims of the disaster because of too much red tape.
Bret: Here in the states, everyone is focused on what they perceive might affect us here, namely the nuclear power plant meltdowns. Have mutated zombies taken to the streets there yet?
Tristan: If the zombies are as cute as the Japanese girl in the opening scene of Resident Evil 4, then I’m not worried.
Bret: One thing a lot of people in the US (particularly on the right) obsess about is deregulation. Do you think the strict regulations placed by the Japanese government saved lives there?
Tristan: They’re more organized because of it. I don’t know. It works both ways. Regulation can be beneficial, but at the same time, as I mentioned above, things can get caught up in red tape and become unnecessarily time consuming. I would say that having Government mandated social healthcare/insurance has been hugely beneficial for me and my family. When my wife and I had our first child last year, the Japanese government paid us! We had a $4,000 bill wiped clean. This included hospital bills, ultra sounds, and even now my daughter gets free immunization shots.
Bret: Yeah, but in return you have to work the salt mines in the Communist labor camps, right?
Tristan: It’s about three hundred dollars a month for a family of three. But heck, my last dentist check up cost two dollars. So I think it evens out somewhere.
Bret: My insurance is like six hundred dollars a month, and I get a reduced rate through my wife’s job. I’ve been so misinformed about socialized medicine! And yet I haven’t been to a doctor in like 3 years. Anyway, what is the religious situation in Japan? Lots of atheists?
Tristan: Mostly. Yeah. About 75% of the Japanese consider themselves secular free thinkers. Another portion is Buddhist, again the secular kind. Which leaves Shinto as the largest theistic faith with a presence in Japan. There are Christians too, but few and far between. And nothing like “American Christianity.” Sometimes I wish Christians would just go to other countries to see how Christianity has evolved there. A lot of the time, I don’t think they would even recognize it as Christianity.
Bret: But of course with the disaster that just hit, that will all change as people flock to churches to find answers, right?
Tristan: Nope. Not here. Japan is a humanist culture first and foremost. What will likely happen is they’ll do what they always do, help each other up, and get things back. As I mentioned, natural disasters hit here every week basically, it’s been this way since the first people came to Japan, and it’s part of their psychology. They deal with it and then move on. Religion is not part of the equation. And even if it were, the Japanese do not believe in talking about their faith with anyone. It’s meant to be a personal matter.
Bret: Ah, now I see. God is punishing them for not spreading the good word enough.
Tristan: That seems to be what a lot of American Evangelical fucktards are saying--but they’re just ignorant.
Bret: True, it might be gay people that caused it, you never know.
Tristan: I just read on the ‘Atheist Revolution’ blog a list of Christians who think God is punishing Japan or that it’s a sign of the apocalypse, or some such drivel. Basically these people are out of touch with reality. They have a world weariness, as I like to call it, and are so terrified, or so utterly stupid, or both... that they can’t help but play the part of the fool.
Bret: Why do you think Christians accept tectonic plate theory and not evolution?
Tristan: Confirmation bias, plain and simple. Tectonic plates don’t interfere with the core theology near enough for it to constitute a problem for them. God made the world that way... so be it. However, evolution suggests that much of Christian theology is incorrect. That we evolved from a common ancestor, and were not created (from clay) by some divine God. What’s more, it implied we were not created in God’s image, therefore evolution does away with the whole first man concept vital to get original sin rolling. Evolution also suggests we’re not special, that the universe was intended for us, that we’re just another animal species--without design and purpose.
And religion constantly tries to suggest that we are special, that there is design and purpose. These are just some of the implications of evolution on Christian theology as I see them. But apparently the Catholic church is in support of Darwin’s theory of evolution now. Times are a changin’.
Bret: Yeah, the pope even started speculating that there might be aliens. I found that kind of... L. Ron Hubbardish.
Tristan: Well, there have to be aliens. It’s a statistical dilemma. You’d be more incorrect to say there weren’t aliens than to say there are, but this isn’t probably the Pope’s line of reasoning. But then again, I don’t know what goes on under that pointy hat of his. For all I know he could be a math genius.
Bret: This pope is particularly scholastic. I don’t know about his math credentials, but he’s much more professorial than the last pope, who was more of a well liked, charismatic figure compared to the bookish nature of Benedict. But you weren’t Catholic before becoming atheist, right?
Tristan: No. My mom recently married a Catholic though. They couldn’t get the blessing of his church because she’s twice divorced, and so they hired a retired priest to marry them. Weird religious politics.
Bret: When did you deconvert from Christianity?
Tristan: About a year and a half ago I became atheist. Before that I was about two years in limbo. And two years prior to that I was attending a Messianic Jewish temple. But I was born and raised an Evangelical Christian, Assemblies of God.
Bret: So you can clearly remember being religious, unlike me.
Tristan: Oh yeah. It was a large part of my life. My mom is extremely religious, and so I was inculcated early on. At 14 I was born again and on fire for Christ. I became a Bible Camp Counselor and taught the ‘good news’ to children--basically indoctrination. I joined Campus Crusades for Christ in college. I was head of my youth group. I went on many interfaith youth retreats... I was pretty much a ‘Jesus freak’.
Bret: That’s funny, I used to deface the signs that Campus Crusades put up at my college.
Tristan: I probably wouldn’t vandalize something, but I may tear something down if I found it overtly offensive.
Bret: I don’t see any harm is writing on a 10 cent photo-copied piece of paper that Christians should remember to bring their suit of armor to the Campus Crusades, or that Muslims should look out. It was more public service announcement than vandalism, really. I hated the use of “Crusade” like it was anything but a bloody reminder of religious violence. Could you imagine if the Muslim student union held a Jihad event?
Tristan: It was motivated by religious politics, definitely. I’d go to a Jihad event just to see the FBI raid.
Bret: What is your stance on religion’s existence, like... do you think the world would be better off without religion or does the mere existence of religion not matter to you?
Tristan: I think those who think religion has to be eradicated and wiped off the face of the Earth don’t understand anything about religion. Bruce M. Hood has written a great book on how our brains naturally create supernatural explanations for things before we are fully aware we’re doing it. He has tested many children in the field of children’s psychology to test mind design theory, and his book ‘Supersense’ is a must read. David Eller also has a good book on the religious anthropology called ‘Introducing Anthropology of Religion.’ Also, the anthropologist Pascal Boyer has an amazing book on religious development called ‘Religion Explained.’
My take is that as long as there are humans there will be religion, in one form or another, since it seems that religion is just something our poorly evolved brains generate to compensate for our lack of understanding about the world. David Eller also has a good book on religion. His book ‘Atheism Advanced’ is also excellent.
Bret: I’m not a big anti-religionist, but I’m not sure I’m sold on the idea that a concept we have naturally cannot be overcome. Bigotry is a natural thing that occurs among all people across the globe, but I also believe it’s possible to overcome, though I don’t necessarily see religion as something that needs to be erased.
Tristan: The difference is in that our minds aren’t hard wired to generate bigotry. Bigotry occurs, most likely, for other reasons. Upbringing, social status, etc. Religion seems to be, at least in part, related to human psychology. When I critique religion I am usually looking at either the history, the philosophy, or the consequences of active belief. These are things I feel I can comment on.
Bret: I’m pretty convinced bigotry is hardwired. Kids treat people who appear strange in a different way, and I think there’s even an evolutionary reason for this, in that seeing outsiders as something to be feared may be a useful trait to have in a world full of violent human beings. So if religion was somehow erased from human culture, you think kids would reinvent it?
Tristan: Only if our minds hadn’t progressed enough to cope with not understanding the world. Basically is has to do with how our brains substitute information and make inferences. Take, for example, the evolutionary vestigial trait of ‘jumping in fright’ at a scary noise, being startled when someone unexpectedly happens upon us, or that spooky old tree outside the bedroom window--our brains our programmed by natural selection to fear these things... because if they were real threats it would pay to be aware of them instead of oblivious, because we’d be dead.
Now we can exploit this physiological reaction by watching scary movies and triggering it for pleasure. Other than that, it serves us little purpose today.
Bret: Well besides giving us great fodder for prank TV shows.
Tristan: My point is, when our brains substitute ‘old scary witch’ instead of spooky tree, this is the same thing which is happening on various different levels when it comes to religion. Also, perhaps in part, it is also due to the awareness of our own mortality. One of the growing theories is that because we often have the experience of seeing or feeling loved ones after they have passed, in pre-modern times, these experiences would have seemed spiritual in nature. Now we can explain such events with modern science, but to the scientifically illiterate (which it seems most religious are) these experiences constitute a mysterious reality. The brain then assumes, like the false assumption of the tree being a threat, that similarly dead people aren’t necessarily gone forever. In a sense, they haunt us. Thus ghost stories are generated. Fables and folklore. Religious ideas. And so forth.
Bret: You bring up an interesting point, because I think most people today think of religion as being about gods, but it’s more than that. There are entire religions that have no gods, or else acknowledge the idea of gods but put no importance in them. Do you think religion will evolve beyond gods?
Tristan: I think it mostly has. Although theistic monotheism is the dominant religion in sheer number of adherents, it is the minority when it comes to types of religions. In fact, non-theistic religions outnumber theistic ones. That is to say, there are more religions without gods than with gods. David Eller actually emphasizes this point in his book. The problem is, however, that we’re so saturated with “God talk” on a daily basis that we often forget that other religious perspectives exist. The Buddhism that is in Japan is mainly secular, it is ancestor worship more or less, but it has nothing to do with any active theology or belief in Buddhist gods. So I’ve seen first hand a non-theistic religion, and it works just fine, if not better than other theistic varieties.
Bret: Do you think religion has to contain some element of the supernatural?
Tristan: Yes, because I think that is the key component in how our brains generate religious thought. The belief in the supernatural is, in my view, a prerequisite for full on religion. But another aspect is ritual. These are the two key elements in every religious belief, to varying degrees of course.
Bret: Oh without a doubt, I was taught in every course I ever took on religion or theology that religion is ritual more than anything else. But in that sense, anything can be a religion, since even brushing your teeth is a ritual, but that doesn’t make dentistry a religion to me. So, I think that the supernatural aspect tends to be what separates religion from sciences or philosophies.
Tristan: Well, most religions are comprised of various beliefs, tenets, and practices. There has never been a religion based on just one belief and one belief only.
Bret: Evangelical Christianity comes close with the concept of “saving grace.”
Tristan: Belief in the tooth fairy is supernatural, but it’s not a religion in itself. Just as dentistry isn’t a religion unto itself. But if you combined them somehow so visiting the dentist, brushing teeth, and belief in the tooth fairy are all part of the same system of belief... it would be much closer to a religion than any of those things independently.
Bret: Like I needed another reason to hate going to get my teeth worked on... How do you feel about people saying science is a religion?
Tristan: It’s sort of like saying auto-repair is a religion. They’re idiots and they need to be corrected for the very fact that such ideas are painfully stupid.
Bret: What about those who say atheism is a religion or a faith? Oh and for the record, when I do auto-repair, I do a lot of praying...
Tristan: It can be. It depends on the atheist I suppose. Atheism doesn’t technically have a dogma, but many atheists try to give it one. The atheist John Loftus, of Debunking Christianity, is one such atheist. He seems to have replaced one fundamentalism for another--but much of what he is on about is simply echoes of his past Christianity. If he’d realize this he’d spend less time being a zealous atheist and more time being a real atheist.Which is to say... I personally do not see how atheism can be misconstrued as a religion as per the nature of atheism itself. So no, atheism is not a form of religion, although it can certainly sometimes appear that way. What it lacks, however, is belief in the supernatural, regular rituals, tenets, and dogmas. It’s theology is evidence--so no--I don’t see any logical progression from atheism to religion.
Bret: Yeah, atheism is a religion like a sauce pot is a hat. It can be, but that’s not really what it’s for. I hate to ask, but do you think I take atheism to the lengths of being a religion?
Tristan: I wouldn’t know. Just this week I was accused by a family member of being a ‘militant atheist.’ I don’t think they meant it as an attack, but I think any criticism of religion is going to come off as seeming a bit strident--perhaps overzealous--even when it’s not.
Bret: Well, religion is serious business. What could matter more than the destiny of our eternal souls?
Tristan: Let me give you an example of atheism as it should be vs. atheism as many use it. When a religious person comes up to tell you that your soul is on the line, that your very eternal salvation depends on you accepting Jesus Christ as your lord and savior, the wrong sort of atheism will simply assert the opposite--nuh-uh! This is what I see John Loftus doing. Christianity says one thing, he tries to disprove it by showing the opposite to be the case. An analytical technique which works for deconstructing various ideas and concepts, but it misses the point. The true atheist would simply respond to all the religious talk with, “I don’t understand you--you make no sense.”
Bret: So a good atheist is an apatheist? Or would it be more accurate to say a good atheist is almost an agnostic?
Tristan: Not exactly. The ‘good atheist’ is one who has no belief. In order for belief to be properly sustained, one needs evidence for proposed theories. If someone comes to me and tells me a wild tale about sin and salvation, talking snakes, God becoming incarnate in the form of his own son, only to sacrifice himself to himself, to atone for the original curse of sin he put on us in the first place... it seems to me to entertain such the notion, even in the slightest, let alone to pretend to know what it means in the literal sense, and is simply not possible, given the complete lack of evidence. As interesting, engrossing, enticing, moving, and powerful of a story it may be... in the real world it is completely without basis. To be asked to take it on a matter of faith... then... is to simply raise the question, “What could you possibly mean by that?” As atheists don’t believe, playing the religious game puts the ball in the court of believers. They can then dictate the rules. If atheism is to effectively deal with religion, it can’t allow religion to dictate the terms of the debate. Atheism will simply have to fall back on the defense that the religious proposal lacks all basis for support and makes no sense, that is, is mainly incoherent, which it is. And that is atheism proper, when belief in the supernatural, and theistic belief, is taken out of the equation. But atheists can be agnostic as well. I personally do not know whether some Deistic entity exists out there somewhere (over the rainbow). But somehow I highly doubt it.
Bret: Do you think the very name “atheist” is allowing theists to define the debate? I am all on board with redefining the label to something else like irreligious, but even that still pays lip service to religion itself. Any thoughts on that?
Tristan: I personally like the rule of parsimony when it comes to terminology. Atheism is the simplest, most straight forward, and clear term. It’s not all encompassing, however, and that’s why modifiers are added, e.g., militant atheist, new atheist, naturalistic atheist, and so on. As a term it suffices. As a philosophy, I think there is more to atheistic philosophy than commonly assumed. It’s still evolving.
Bret: I used to like “humanist,” but I kind of lost my faith in humanity. I’m not sure I like the idea of almost implying I have faith in us. And I certainly wouldn’t raise human beings up to the level of gods.
Tristan: I’ve coined the term Augere Atheist to explain my sort of atheism. But in terms of god belief, I consider myself a post-theist atheist.
Bret: Do you worry that post-theist may imply there were gods at one time?
Tristan: It literally means ‘after theism’--implying that I was once a theist but not any more. I don’t see how one could derive deity from mere belief in deities in the generic sense.
Bret: Anything else you want to tell the world (or the limited portion of it that reads my blog) before we let you get some sleep?
Tristan: I actually thought you were going to ask me more controversial questions, like what sorts of Christians piss you off and what tenet or belief makes you the most irrate.
Bret: Well feel free to tell me. I try not to ask people what pisses them off, that isn’t the best mood setter. But yeah, lay into those damn Christians with all your hate if you want.
Tristan: I don’t hate Christians, per se. I hate certain people and I despise their love of ignorance and am astonished at certain people’s level of credulity.
Bret: Anyone in particular?
Tristan: I guess the sort of Christian I dislike the most is the Christian who thanks God every other word, and quotes the Bible, then thanks God again, quotes the Bible, and never makes a damn point. And they talk like this ad nauseam. The tenet which makes me irate is the belief that we aren’t born innocent, that for some reason, we are born tainted, corrupted, all inherently programmed to be sinful child rapists and cannibal nudists. Original sin is, in my opinion, the most sinister, most puerile, most wicked of assumptions.
Bret: Well, now I feel bad because I believe in that. Not “original sin,” but that we’re born horrible people. To be fair, we are born as nudists... check and mate. But little kids also lie, steal, hit, say mean things... basically all of the things we have to make rules for, kids have to be taught not to do. Our first act on this Earth is to cause great pain to our mothers, also.
Tristan: It depends if you view human emotional suffering on the same level of sin, or just a consequence of our biology. I think a lot of human nature comes from our adaptation to things like our environment and what not. Children lie, steal, and do mean things because, a) they don’t know any better, b) it’s a survival mechanism, c) they weren’t taught properly. So we may be born rough around the edges, but this doesn’t mean we are morally deficient--or outrigh immoral--which is what the doctrine of original sin suggests.
Bret: I think it’s because we’re born selfish and needy. And helpless.
Tristan: Yes, helpless, needy, and selfish--all part of the human condition. But this doesn’t connote moral depravity. Otherwise we could never be moral. I guess the best example of this is the person forced to steal food for the first time or starve to death. Maybe if they were not selfish or needy, if they were a Tibetan monk, they would choose to starve to death. Let’s say you are a father, and your only child is starving to death, your failure to steal food for her survival is a greater moral evil.
Bret: Well, if they were a Tibetan monk, they would beg for food with an open bowl and probably be given something. But I get what you’re saying.
Tristan: For me, to suggest we are all morally depraved from the beginning is to suggest we could never make the necessary moral choice--because our morality would be hindered by some supernatural force--i.e., sin. That’s just absurd.
Bret: Some, like Epicurus, would say self-sufficiency is a moral issue.
Tristan: Epicurus also taught moderation. Whether sinful indulgences or moral extremes, I think he’d say to take the middle ground.
Bret: Certainly. Anything else before I finally let you get to bed?
Tristan: Epicurus also believed wine helped one think more clearly. Maybe he was on to something?
Bret: I don’t know... I turn all Mel Gibson when I drink. Maybe it’s different for people with Greek genetics.
Tristan: Do you mean to tell me that you become anti-Semetic when you’re drunk?
Bret: Oh no I don’t turn anti-Semitic... I just let my anti-Semitism out when drinking. But it’s okay, my wife’s Jewish. Though that does mean she starts all the fights in our relationship.
Tristan: I think my wife has the best advice to those who share different religious views and are married---just don’t talk about religion. We did fine when I was a Christian, and we do even better now that I’m not.
Bret: Oh she’s an atheist, but you know how Jews are. It’s a religion when they want it to be, an ethnicity when they want it to be, or a culture when they want it to be.
Tristan: It’s a versatile faith, yes.
Bret: The worst part is my kids will have a Jewish mother. So in that case, I hear they round up.
Alrighty, I think we offended enough people for one day. I feel bad I went 30 minutes over. It’s past 2am there now, right?
Tristan: No problem. It’s 2:07.
Bret: Time flies when talking atheism.
Tristan: I’ll head to bed the moment I log off.
Bret: Be sure you do, I can’t be held responsible for it if you’re crabby tomorrow.
Tristan: Before I do however, I’d like to thank you for the conversation and if you have follow-up questions feel free to drop me a line sometime.
Bret: Oh of course, and being interviewed once doesn’t mean you can’t be interviewed again in the future. This is always a good way to get ideas out there. I sometimes think blogs run by one person end up a little stagnant in their ideas, since it’s all coming from one point of view. It’s been a pleasure, Tristan.
Tristan: Thanks Bret, have a good one.
Bret: Good night.
Tristan: Oyasumi-nasai. (Japanese for goodnight)
Nikk: Oil is a finite resource, drugs we can create an endless supply. Draw your own conclusions.
Bret: Actually we might run out of ecstasy. It’s harvested largely from the oil of some tree in Asia, I think it’s primarily found in Cambodia. The illicit production of the oil results not only in deforestation, but pollution, because the chemical run off from the on-site manufacture pollutes the area.
Nikk: Well, then, we run out of it, there’s always something to get high on.
Bret: True, but how will people dance all night and die of dehydration? The electronic music industry will collapse.
Nikk: I wouldn’t shed any tears over that...
Bret: I just shudder to imagine all of those house DJ’s beat boxing on the streets, begging for change. So you don’t have any problem with drug use or abuse?
Nikk: No, of course not. People have the right to do what they want with their bodies. Drug abuse is sad, but sadder still is the toll the drug war has wrought.
Bret: Do you know much about the Anglo-Chinese Opium wars?
Nikk: A little.
Bret: So do you think the economic exploitation of a population caused by pushing an addictive substance on a people is a problem?
Nikk: Pushing? The illegality drives the process. Those drug gangs in Mexico don’t want legalization. Alcohol causes millions of deaths, but prohibition wasn’t the answer.
Bret: I agree, but how would you tread the line between these two problems?
Nikk: I think all economic exploitation is a problem. The banks do it, the company you work for does it...
Bret: Right, but we don’t have to swing between two extremes. I wouldn’t make banks or corporations illegal just because they can and have exploited people, just as I wouldn’t try to deny the usefulness of government. But I wouldn’t have them be completely free to do whatever they want, be it a bank, company or government. I mean... just look at the pharmaceutical industry. They have the freedom to do pretty much anything they want, within some limits, and look what we have: a bunch of kids running around doped up, diagnosed with phony “diseases” because they don’t sit still like an adult.
Nikk: Let free exchange take place, and get people into treatment who need it (you can’t force it, but you can make it a very open process where they feel they’ll be helped to a better life). Overall, we have to end the economic exploitation of capitalism so people can earn a decent, human living.
Bret: Who pays for treatment, considering most people who seek it are flat broke after hitting bottom?
Nikk: Well, Big Pharma, you know I hate that state-supported industry.
Bret: Yeah, but the state-supported part is the important part, namely development.
Nikk: Who pays for it is like asking who will build and maintain roads. Some things will be done voluntarily but in common. No one should own large tracts of land that they can’t possibly use personally, and people can choose to pool their resources for things like drug treatment so it’s available when they or a freind or family member needs it. I’m more of a socialist than you think I am, but an anarchist socialist.
Bret: Yeah but most people don’t want to willingly do that. You’re talking about a population that doesn’t want to give poor kids medicine, and you expect me to believe people will pool their resources out of the goodness of their own hearts to help drug addicts? Most people are just going to say “Fuck ‘em, they made a dumb choice, why should we pay to help them? We should spend our money on helping orphans and the physically disabled.” Except here in reality, we have to deal with the consequences of everyone’s actions, and we can’t just dismiss a person as not worthy of help when they are in trouble. I get what you’re saying, but you have to realize that the people who are making millions of dollars would never give 30% of their income to help people, which isn’t even what they’re giving now after tax loopholes. And yet we’re still short on cash. I just don’t understand how a selfish people will magically become generous in the absence of government.
Nikk: IP, like real property claims that aren’t based on use, is a fraud. You can’t patent something and then morally make the claim that someone else, who may have come up with the same idea independently, is stealing from you because they failed to get to the patent office before you did.
Bret: Most IP has nothing to do with independent discovery. It has to do with compensating those who innovate while discouraging those who poach ideas and seek to put creative and intelligent people out of business. We can talk about how IP law should be changed in many cases, but to say people don’t have a right to profit exclusively from their discoveries is not a very good idea. It might work in medicine, because most medical research is done in public universities funded largely by tax dollars. So in that case, yeah, it would be nice if publicly funded discoveries were public.
Nikk: Even if they did “steal” your idea, you can’t morally prevent them from using their own property to create something using your idea. I’ve gone over this before, and the history of invention really doesn’t support your notion.
Bret: Actually the history of invention shows that in nations that defend IP, science and industry grow at a more rapid pace. And what’s more, from an artistic point of view, IP is the sole method for success. If I write a book and someone else can just print thousands of copies of it and sell it for a dollar less than I sell it for, how is that going to encourage me to write another?
Nikk: So, you’re a utilitarian? I’m not. And again, I don’t think the facts support what you’re saying anyway.
Bret: I’m just a pragmatist, I see that certain things work and certain things don’t. I don’t see people like Edison as particularly amazing, but I know his drive to invent was largely premised on the goal of making money. I don’t think people would make a career out of innovation if there was no incentive to do so.
Nikk: What encouraged Shakespeare to write all those plays? Not to mention that he stole all his plots.
Bret: Shakespeare earned money for having his plays performed. Do you think he would have written more than one if he hadn’t? I know I don’t write for the hell of it, I hope to one day be paid to be a writer.
Nikk: But he couldn’t copyright them. Today, musicians can still earn from performing their music, too, and most earn far more from that than record sales.
Bret: Meh, record sales and online piracy are fundamentally different. No one is making money off of pirated music. Well, not the online piracy anyway. Plus there’s also a unique situation where the pirated version is superior to the legitimate version. MP3s are more useful than CDs. So yeah, if someone was giving away vaccines that were better than regular ones, I would support that. But that isn’t happening.
Nikk: I’m not sure what your point is...the argument goes that “illegal” downloading cuts into music industry profits, but like Shakespeare and his plays, you earn most of your money from live performance anyway.
Bret: I’m not saying downloading music illegally for free is wrong, nor would I see it as violation of IP, since no one is profiting off of someone else’s IP. If downloading a song for free is IP infringement, than so would pulling up to someone who has their music on loud, since you could hear it without paying for it. I’m even on the fence about sneaking into a concert. Is it wrong? Who’s to say? Now, if you’re charging people to sneak them in, you’re an asshole who should be punished.
Nikk: Again, profit or not isn’t the point or focus of the copyright Nazis. They say that the fact that you can get something for free makes people unwilling to pay for it, depriving record companies of profits.
Bret: Right, but we’re talking about how we would do it. I also wouldn’t be in Afghanistan or Iraq, but I am not willing to say war is always wrong. IP can change, I just don’t think it should be eradicated. In fact, I can’t even think of something off the top of my head that ought to be eradicated at all.
Nikk: Well, you’re more reasonable than the corporate assholes who control most copyrights, then. Reform would be better than what we have now.
Bret: I’m more reasonable than people who would directly benefit from overzealous application of an otherwise useful concept? Shocking. This is why I think we need government, there is no such thing as self-regulation. You need someone standing apart from it all saying, “Uh, excuse me, what the hell are you doing?”
Nikk: Society can govern itself, that’s all I’m saying. We don’t need a class of people to do it for us and lord it over us.
Bret: Society is governing itself, some societies better than others. I think your fundamental flaw is in seeing government as apart from the rest of us somehow.
Nikk: Exactly. But society is not the same as the state. Don’t make the mistake of conflating them.
Bret: I see the president as no different than me (besides him being wrong, of course). “The state” isn’t a thing, it’s an idea. It’s certainly not a person or group of people or some particular class.
Nikk: Yes, goverment is apart, because it claims special privileges for itself that don’t apply universally to everyone.
Bret: There are going to be certain actions I don’t want the average person to be able to have. And yet those actions may need to be taken in some fashion. But I think you’ll find that citizens have more of those rights than you think. Most states allow for basic things like citizen’s arrests, and people are arming themselves (despite the fact that I don’t even want most police to carry weapons).
Nikk: Well, I don’t want them to have the power to kidnap people for non-violent actions either, the difference is, the state does claim that right.
Bret: But you can’t use another example to justify this one. If drugs were legal, for instance, would this even be an issue? Isn’t the hostility most people have towards the police these days a product of the perception that they enforce laws we don’t want or need? And if this is the case, why are we blaming the executive branch for a problem of the legislature? I want cops to be able to “kidnap” people, especially people who are committing crimes and would just commit more if they were left free to do so. And I’m assuming real crimes here.
Nikk: Well, it would still be an issue as long as there are any laws that make non-aggressive activities or actions (including refusing to pay taxes that you didn’t agree to) illegal. Real crimes are crimes with or without a state. It takes the state to invent crimes where they didn’t exist before.
Bret: Why not go some place you don’t have to pay taxes? I think it’s a crime to refuse to pay taxes. It’s like saying you’re more important than everyone else. I don’t see why anyone should just get a free ride because they morally object to taxes.
Nikk: Why should I have to leave? You’re begging the question and assuming the government has the right to tax me in the first place.
Bret: No, I’m looking around at the things taxes have paid for and thinking “This wasn’t free.” You should fight to have taxes spent the way you want, not try to justify to yourself that you are above paying taxes. I don’t like knowing my taxes go to bomb foreign nations, I don’t like knowing my taxes go to oil companies and farming corporations. But not paying my taxes isn’t going to fix that.
Nikk: No, it’s saying you don’t have the right to steal from me, just because you’re bigger and stronger than I am. If everyone refused, that would fix the problem.
Bret: No, it would kill millions of Americans who rely on the kindness of others to live. Besides, income tax is much better and more equitable than sales tax.
Nikk: If they’re relying on kindness, then you don’t need to take from anyone by force.
Bret: I don’t think you understood what I said... there are people who rely on a government check to pay for assistance and basic amenities just to live. They won’t find that kindness elsewhere, or else they may find it with conditions through some private means. I guess if you’re trying to push people into the waiting arms of churches, then yeah, this is a brilliant plan.
Nikk: Well, we’re dealing with a different subject. But theft is theft. Are you saying that people don’t want to help anyone, that they’re so bad and selfish that they need to be forced to give their money to the state to do it for them? You’re saying even Wal-mart workers would rather keep their own money than have to pay income taxes, but if that’s true, then the whole system you support is anti-democratic. You can’t have it both ways...
Bret: There are countries that don’t have taxes. Want to guess how they’re doing?
Nikk: You didn’t answer my question, though. If taxes were voluntary, including sales taxes, would anyone pay them? People would give to help others, but that’s not what I’m asking.
Bret: I don’t understand your question.
Nikk: If people would not willingly pay, then the system is anti-democratic to its rotten core.
Bret: If I could kill someone, I would, does that mean it’s oppression to prevent me from doing so? I think you’re mistaking selfishness for democracy. Democracy doesn’t mean we all just give in to whatever we want to do.
Nikk: Not wanting to pay a tax is the same as wanting to murder someone? Most people don’t want to go around killing people, but the vast majority would not pay a tax if doing so was made voluntary, not mandatory, that’s my point.
Bret: That’s weird, because the vast majority don’t pay the vast majority of taxes, so we’re almost there. And I can come up with a thousand things from speeding to littering that would be allowed if people were just given free reign to say “Do whatever you want.”
Nikk: Everyone pays sales tax. Do you think most would if they were asked if they wanted to add another 5, 6, 7 or even 10% to their purchases?
Bret: I not only find this to be am empty argument, I think the ultimate result is so monstrous I don’t even want to bother thinking about it. We can argue all day about how we’re all forced to wear clothes or we’re required to not yell fire in a crowded theatre or whatever miniscule thing it is that makes you think you’re somehow being oppressed. But ultimately the freedoms paid for with taxes are mountains compared to the molehill of “tyranny” that results from the “force” applied to collecting taxes.
Nikk: The speed laws are also anti-democratic and mostly about making money for local government, not about safety. Most people ignore them when there are no cops around, at least when it is reasonable to ignore them. If only a few people are speeding on certain road, then my point about governing ourselves is made.
Bret: Speed laws are largely about safety and fuel consumption. Tickets are about income. Tickets wouldn’t even be written if people followed the clearly stated law. You’re really hitting on a nerve here with me, because you’re talking about something that kills thousands of people a year. You can’t convince me auto safety laws are tyranny, if anything we have far too few.
Nikk: Yeah, thousands die, on GOVERNMENT roads.
Bret: It’s the government’s fault people drive like psychopaths? If only there was some group that would educate people on how to drive and regulate who is allowed to drive... I can’t imagine who could ever do that...
Nikk: I’m in favor of abolishing all state DMVs. They’re just another government extortion racket. Driving your own car is a right, not some government granted privilege.
Bret: I think I have the right to not be endangered by other drivers. Maybe I’m insane for wanting that right, since it requires a governing body that can tell people “you’re too old and blind to drive.”
Nikk: Who said you didn’t? But what’s that got to do with it? I have to keep getting my driver license renewed, even though they no longer test me on anything. In my state, I just send in the fee and get a new one. So how is it about safety? If I fail to renew, though, suddenly I’m a dangerous driver because I don’t have the approval of the state?
Bret: Again, it’s not about what it’s like now, it’s about what could/should be done. I think the licensing process (especially for new drivers) is a joke that should be taken seriously, but my point is that dismantling the DMV system doesn’t bring us a step closer to what I want, it’s a huge step back.
Bret: Where do you see the US in 10, 20 and 50 years?
Nikk: I’m going to attempt to eat a giant chocolate chip cookie before I answer that.
[time passes]
Nikk: Okay, cookie was too big. I had to break it up into smaller pieces. Just like the U.S. is too big, both geographically and in population. You can’t effectively govern such bigness from a single capital city. In ten years I see the US as a dying superpower, with such massive debt that it must pull out of its overseas military operations. In 20 years, either some form of temporary stability through real reform, or a strong man named Bret Alan comes to power to “solve” our problems [editor’s note: not a role I ever want, and not something I imagine I will ever have to worry about being offered]. In 50 years, I think the country will be broken up into smaller, independent states.
Bret: So which state will attack another first when we break up? My money is on Texas invading Calizona. No no, Calizonada. Hmm…. or Calizonadagon… ooh and Texahomsas.
Nikk: Don’t mess with Texas! I’ve known a couple of people who’ve moved there. They like it. No one will attack; they’ll have learned the foolishness of such things by the failures of the old Federal government’s invasions.
Bret: See, I disagree. European history indicates that people don’t “learn” that lesson. As does Chinese history.
Nikk: The US isn’t Europe.
Bret: True, we didn’t last even a fraction as long as Rome.
Nikk: No, we didn’t, and it would be interesting to see what future historians will say about the United States.
Bret: I think historians will talk about the US like they talk about the Habsburg Empire... which is to say only historians will be talking about us. So you believe in American exceptionalism? Or am I mistaken in my interpretation.
Nikk: To an extent, I do. I think something different was created on this American continent, and those ideals are still there below the surface. What other nation gives at least the lip service that we do to freedom of speech, even offensive speech, as one example. There isn’t the commitment to such things as basic principles anywhere else.
Bret: Well, Japan is pretty free. Holland is pretty free.
Nikk: Okay. I like Japan. Hate speech, openly racist speech, use of certain symbols, denying the Holocaust, in Europe those are an issue. I can’t speak to Holland in particular.
Bret: You know what I find interesting about Japan? While our biggest production industry is weapons, we prevented Japan through government order to not produce weapons and not even keep a standing army, and look at their industry.
Nikk: Big standing armies are bad for economies and bad for liberties.
Bret: Well that’s just it, they aren’t bad for economies (at least in some respects), which is one reason why people support it.For example, if you shuttered the doors of businesses that produced the weapons of war, you’d have hundreds of thousands of people unemployed. You or I would say “They should get another job,” but those jobs don’t exist yet.
Nikk: Oh, I disagree. In the long run they are bad. They cost too much without producing real growth except through government spending, but that party doesn’t last forever.
Bret: I agree, because we’re just dropping our future in the form of explosives over innocent people. How to put this... I’ll approach this another way, do you agree that government can have an effect on an economy?
Nikk: Positive or negative? Both. But anything it does is harmful over the longer term. In the short term, it can create what looks like prosperous times (especially if it has some free markets as the foundation of wealth generation).
Bret: I don’t get it... how can everything it does (or doesn’t do) end up being harmful?
Nikk: Well, it’s best when it’s not doing much of anything. When it does, it creates more problems, though they may not come for generations. I’d throw Social Security in there, as there is no way to meet those obligations, certainly not now with the baby boomers beginning to retire. You can inflate and destroy your currency, or go into more debt and tax young workers at higher rates, but none of those solutions will really fix it without doing even more harm to the economy.
Bret: And yet countries like Japan have effective social security and socialized medicine (not to mention very high life expectancy), despite a stagnant fertility rate. Plenty of countries have very effectively governed themselves into success, which is undeniable on many counts. Norway, Sweden, Finland, and pretty soon we might even see nations that were once thought to be too large to succeed coming into the same success using similar methods, like in China. I don’t understand how you can actually ignore the numerous examples we have of effective governance. Look at the education systems in these nations: run by the state, more successful than in the US, and their teachers are even unionized.
Nikk: Well, the money has to come from somewhere. The US government has tens of trillions of dollars in currently unfunded liabilities with both Social Security and Medicare. Social Security is in the red right now, with less coming in than is going out in retirement checks.
Bret: But the logic of anarchists, libertarians, conservatives, and other “small government” advocates is that those countries should be falling apart like the Soviet Union. Those other countries have higher taxes rates, that’s how they pay for their success. We have pitifully low taxes, especially on our mega-wealthy. I mean. come on, we have people pulling in billion dollar bonuses who add basically no utility or productive capacity to the system. I could be a CEO of any company in this country, and I’m not even that bright.
Nikk: Who says they’re not going to? Other European countries are already seeing the strain and experiencing unrest.
Bret: Other European countries... that foolishly invested in America. You want to talk about a collapsing system, that would be unregulated capitalism.
Nikk: Well, I don’t think higher taxes can solve the enormous obligations that exist under those entitlements. They’re too big. What will happen is that average workers (not the rich) will see more and more taken from their paychecks, as was the “solution” under both President Carter and President Reagan to “save” social security. It worked for a while, but now we face it again. Young workers will start to resent it and resist it.
Bret: I don’t think you’re ever going to see anyone get rid of something they paid into, and if you are seriously expecting the young to get politically active about an issue, you picked the wrong one (though I think picking any would be foolhardy, given the apathy of American youths). You could actually not tax 90% of the population and still pay for social security, to be quite frank. Some very high percentage of the population doesn’t even pay taxes, because they either don’t earn enough or they earn nothing. I don’t know it off-hand, but it’s approaching 40% I believe. Taxes are not why Americans are pressed for cash, they’re pressed for cash because the pool of money that the rich are looting for their undeserved fortunes is the same as the pool that workers are paid from. No one goes bankrupt due to taxes. Hell, half of all bankruptcies in this country are due to medical bills.
Nikk: If they work, they pay the tax to fund Social Security, though they may not end up owing any income tax.
Bret: That’s true, but no one is losing their house because of SS tax. And if they’re that poor, they’re the type of person who can’t afford to pay for their retirement and need SS the most anyway. If you want to save on SS, there are ways to do it, like means testing for benefits.
Nikk: I myself have difficulty paying my rent because of taxes. I’m going to owe again this year, with my income tax at several thousand dollars, and I earn less than $30,000 a year. That money would make an enormous difference to me. I don’t even know at this moment where I’ll come up with the part I’ll have to pay on April 15.
Bret: I think it’s criminal that you work and can’t even get by, but the criminal isn’t the one who’s taking some tiny percent of your paycheck to pay for poor people to eat and heat their homes or for children to get an education and a warm breakfast. The criminal entity is the company who is not paying you a decent wage for your work. The criminal is the jackass who drives a car worth more than your house. And a house worth more than your life is valued by an insurance company.
Nikk: As for means testing Social Security, it won’t ever happen. It was designed to be a univeral program that you “earned”, not welfare. Trying to change it would create a thunderous lobbying effort from senior citizens, many of them well off enough to not really need that SS check every month to survive, but they feel that it’s their’s because they paid into the system for decades.
Bret: I wouldn’t say many are well off enough. Some are, probably not even enough to make SS break even right now without additional funds from non-SS taxes. But it’s just a start. It’s strange that you think means testing is a stumbling block while ending SS entirely is plausible. Besides, in any good system, there will still be people disappointed. My goal isn’t to make everyone happy, it’s to make sure everyone can pursue happiness. Right now, there are entire classes of people and regions of the country that are doomed by our system, or lack thereof. What’s more, I think extreme taxes on the rich solves one of the major problems we both have with government, namely that our politicians are bought and paid for by the wealthy.
Nikk: But yes, I’m against the current system, too.
Bret: I think everyone is, which is why I’m so confounded as to why no one is moving to change it. I imagine it’s a function of the fact that we have no unified direction.
Bret: So Nikk, I’m gonna get right to it... what kind of sandwich are you eating?
Nikk: Tuna. I don’t eat it much (mercury levels you know) and I don’t eat albacore as it has about 3 times as much mercury (I think) as other tuna species.
Bret: Delicious, any mayo?
Nikk: I just use generic brand mayo. Sometimes I like to add chopped pickles or relish to my tuna
Bret: Classic. So how would you describe your blog in one sentence which can be easily taken out of context?
Nikk: The Nikk Jakson/Bret Alan fight blog! No, it’s just a blog. I had the name (and owned the domain) long before I even knew it would go with a blog. At first it was going to be just about atheism and James Randi type skeptical subjects. In one sentence? How about a long sentence? “A libertarian, anarchist and left-wing blog that also covers music, food, books and religion, actually just about everything, but never in too serious a manner”. Or I could go with “exposing the machinery of mass conformity.”
Bret: How long have you been an anarchist?
Nikk: Good question! Believe it or not, I was a traditional socialist before I moved to libertarianism. I would say I’ve been an anarchist for about 5 years, but it was an evolution. I slowly moved over to more of a left-libertarian, more socialist anarchism, very anti-corporate and anti-capitalist (state capitalism, that is, though I’m against all kinds).
Bret: How long have you been an atheist?
Nikk: I was a Christian of a very evangelical sort for years. I had an awakening upon reading a book called “The Mind of the Bible Believer” by Edmund D. Cohen. It really went into detail about the way Christianity was really a form of mind control, and a very clever one at that. I still retained some belief in God for a while, but couldn’t get past the problem of evil (still can’t). I would say I’ve been outright atheist for about 6 years, though I’d call myself agnostic right now.
Bret: Would you say your atheism and anarchism are ideologically linked?
Nikk: I thought that for a long time, as if the two were inseparable (perhaps influenced by the fact that almost all anarchists are atheists, and also by Bakunin’s “God and the State”). I once got into an argument with Lew Rockwell about the subject (he’s a Catholic) and he told me basically that he didn’t care what I thought, but as there are many Christian anarchists, and I don’t think a majority of the population will ever become atheists, I wouldn’t say anymore that they are necessarily linked.
Bret: But for yourself, you would say there was a sort of connection?
Nikk: Yes, because if you are against all hierarchies, how can you believe in the ultimate hierarchy of God ruling over everything, like a complete dictator.
Bret: But you would say you’re agnostic now? What to you is the difference between atheism and agnosticism?
Nikk: Okay, sure. Well, I’m no longer as certain as I used to be that the arguments (and they are good ones) of atheists are as unassailable as I thought they were. There is always room for doubt, so I prefer to be called an agnostic. I honestly don’t think we can know for sure one way or the other.
Bret: True, but I find that how someone self-identifies may not always be an indication of their actual actions. If you don’t believe in a god, are you not without theism? I don’t mean to be cornering you on changing how you label yourself, but I guess what I’m asking is... do you pray or go to church or throw spilt salt over your shoulder?
Nikk: I don’t do any of those things, no (well, I do find little prayers on occasion are a hard habit to break from my Christian days, but they’re like playing the lotto; I don’t really believe it will make a difference). I’m an atheist in the sense that an agnostic doesn’t have a belief in a god, but thinks maybe a god might exist.
Bret: Which gods do you hope exist?
Nikk: I said might, not “hope”. However, I hope if there is a god it would be the god of philosophy, outside of any religion, who loves all people and will provide us with life after death. He/she wouldn’t be much of a god worth caring about or hoping for, if there’s no afterlife to right the injustices of life on earth.
Bret: So you’re not keen on reincarnation?
Nikk: I see reincarnation as just another form of life after death..we continue on in some way. I’m don’t feel strongly about it one way or the other. I’m going to do more looking into the work of Ian Stevenson (which I know has critics) which has interested me for years. My girlfriend is a Buddhist, so it’s kind of part of her belief system.
Bret: Supposing you had the choice, what would you reincarnate as?
Nikk: A very healthy, young billionaire! I’m tired of being poor. Actually, the thought of coming back as anything doesn’t appeal to me too much. I don’t want to go through all the nonsense and heartache again. The eternal sleep of the grave almost is more desirable.
Bret: Dark stuff. So, enough religion, I know that isn’t your thing. The Daily Show just ended [11:33 pm] , after being off the air for a week. So as a liberal, I finally know what’s happening in the world and I can ask questions about topics you’re more used to covering. So... Libya... there must be a question in there somewhere... what are your thoughts on all that mess?
Nikk: I don’t like dictators, but I also don’t think it’s any of our business. You can be for the rebels without wanting intervention by the U.S. and its puppet states (and our wars aren’t about freedom and democracy anyway, our leaders have other motives).
Bret: How would you feel about selling cruise missiles to the rebels? That way, instead of spending millions of dollars, we make money AND fight against dictatorships.
Nikk: That would still be by our government, which would still be intervening, so no, I don’t think I’d be for that. I’m not a pacifist, but I don’t think we should be selling weapons of death either.
Bret: Well, in an anarchy, it wouldn’t be up to us, it would be up to arms manufacturers, right?
Nikk: Well, if the whole world was anarchist...No, I think it WOULD be up to us, or to those who owned the arms company, which would be the workers in an anarchy. Without the national security state to support it, the arms industry would collapse as we know it. We would still need some weapons for defense against foreign enemies, and there might be the temptation to sell arms to various rebel groups around the world, but it might not be wise. Better to live in peace with all nations but be ready to defend yourself if attacked.
Bret: Well I’ll be honest, if there was no one manufacturing the weapons of war, that sounds like the industry I would break into, since it would lack competition. Why would ruthless men cease wanting things like bombers and tanks and unmanned Predator drones?
Nikk: Oh, they wouldn’t cease wanting it, I suppose, but without a state, what’s the point.?
Bret: Without a state, who would stop them? It wouldn’t be a stateless world for long, I guess is what I’m saying, unless we managed to make all people “wise.” I agree, I would like to live peacefully with people (especially after the people I hate are dead), and it is wise to seek peace, but there is a type of peace on the other side of war which cannot be achieved through talks, or do you disagree on that point?
Nikk: Without a state, who would stop any sort of crime? Anarchy doesn’t mean there aren’t rules of conduct. Society is quite capable of managing without rulers who impose their values and laws on everyone. But I don’t think the existence of nation states has lead to peace, just the opposite. I don’t think war is necessary to achieve peace, you don’t need to “defeat” an “enemy”, though you may have to repel them. Some modern wars may or may not have been unavoidable, but were talking about a world where states are the only governing systems, and they’ve proven their capacity for mass murder over and over.
Bret: That first question is a good one, who would stop any sort of crime without government? I don’t think a nation or even a state is necessary for enforcement of rules, as humans did it for thousands of years before the first true nations were formed. But what would be your ideal model for mitigating power in such a way as to prevent abuse?
Nikk: Well, these are good questions. I will say this first, and that is you don’t have to know all the details or provide complete solutions before you can be against something or know it’s just wrong. There were atheists long before there was any scientific theory of evolution, and the gods must have seemed like the only explanation for life and complexity, yet thousands of years ago, there were atheists who knew god wasn’t a good explanation for anything. As for what I do think, first, the current system sucks, and it’s evil. Hierarchies are wrong. You have to have decentralized democracy on a small scale, such as decision making in the workplace, where workers govern themselves.
Bret: I don’t want to go off on a religious tangent... but I’m going to. Atheism is actually not that old, and it did appear right alongside the rise of scientific answers. Are you speaking of philosophers like Epicurus as “atheists” in the modern sense of not believing in gods?
Nikk: Well, go back to more modern times if you want. David Hume didn’t have a good explanation for the existence of complex organs such as eyes, but he was no doubt an atheist (many atheists weren’t open about it when it was too risky to proclaim such defiant unbelief, so they called themselves deists, or whatever). My point is, you don’t have to provide all the answers before you declare you no longer believe in something.
Bret: Would you say it’s important then for anarchists to focus on finding those answers?
Nikk: Of course. Part of the answer we know already, it’s just the details that have to be worked out. We know we have to built alternative social structures to the state that can exist alongside it and eventually fulfill many of its functions after the state has been dissolved or overthrown.
Bret: Part of why I find Skeptical Eye frustrating is that I see more criticism than I see problem solving. I shouldn’t be surprised given the name (it’s not Solution Eye). But I see a fundamental difference between criticizing religion without all the facts and criticizing government without hardly any answers. If I stop believing in gods, the sun will rise tomorrow, gravity will still hold us down to the Earth, babies will still be born, flowers will still bloom... basically nothing depends on our religions. Some stupid people might lose their minds, but that doesn’t seem too different than the situation we have now regarding religion. Governments, on the other hand, do things, and the roles they play won’t continue to be filled without tangible solutions. What’s more, everything I have ever seen regarding anarchism relies upon models which require privatization (which is code for, “You pay for everything yourself”). The biggest problem I see in anarchy is this: how does an anarchy handle millions of orphans, millions of people who are too disabled to even breathe on their own and whose very ability to live is funded by taxes (or as it’s called on SE, “thievery”). I guess my question is this... what is wrong with stealing (if you insist on that language) from people who have so much in order to solve the problems which private charities and churches have failed to handle throughout history?
Nikk: Well, I don’t think the state has solved those problems either. We have inequality now, and we have to look at why we have it. Taxation in the arbitrary manner it’s done, where basically the government decides how much of the money I earn I get to keep, is wrong. I don’t believe justice can be achieved through unjust means. However, the system of state capitalism we have now is the root problem, so I don’t really disagree with many left-wing critics of the super rich and their enormous weath. How did they get so weathly? Most likely through some form of exploitation or state-granted priveledge. I want to address your point about criticism without solutions, though. Part of my aim, or any anarchist’s aim, is to undermine the legitimacy of the state in the minds of people. Anarchy has no hope if people continue to give legitimacy to the state because of continuing propaganda that says states have rights that no one else has and that the legal monopoly on the use of force is somehow moral and right. People have to doubt and question the existing system before they can begin to see there might be an alternative. Capitalism and statism are the problem. The solution is liberty AND equality. You can’t have one without the other. The state cannot provide or guarantee it because it exists to give special rights to a ruling class. All states have done this, even “socialist” ones.
Bret: I’m not sure I really asked about equality, simply that there are people whose very survival depends upon the state, and these are people who have fallen through the cracks of the systems I have seen various libertarian and anarchist thinkers say will take care of people in absence of government. Not really a question, more a critique.
Nikk: Fair enough. But when we have a society that is based more on cooperation than on the dog eat dog competition we have now, we’ll have far less poverty, and I don’t believe anyone will starve of go without basic needs. It will be a less cruel society.
Bret: Well, time to steer this interview into the lightning round, since I bet you’re losing interest. I’m going to go through a laundry list of issues, and I want you to give simple and straight forward answers regarding your stance, don’t worry about explaining it. And remember, you aren’t running for office, so no bullshit.
Bret: Abortion: yay or nay?
Bret: Abortion: yay or nay?
Nikk: Abortion? I’ve said before that it is NOT an issue about the humanness of the fetus, but about the right to control your own body. A woman has the right to expel an unwanted parasite. It’s that simple. Whether she should or not, that’s another question. I believe in the right to abort a pregnancy for any reason.
Bret: So... can I get a yay for abortion?
[long pause]
Bret: Kidding... Unions, yay or nay?
Nikk: As long as they’re not public schoolteacher’s unions! Yes, I believe in unions, but more, I believe in the right of workers to their workplace. It belongs to those who are the real creators of the wealth. I’m a real big fan of the IWW (Industrial Workers of the World).
Bret: I’ll resist the urge to point out the hypocrisy of saying it’s okay for a government to step in and tell people how they can organize... failed. I’m so weak.
Nikk: Well, I’m just against the coercion of the public school system, so its teachers aren’t much of a concern of mine. Compulsory education is anti-human and anti-child, and exists to prepare wage slaves for the capitalist system. It’s also funded through property taxation, which is immoral and makes the government a landlord and the homeowner merely a tenant. No one should be forced to pay for a service they don’t use, either.
Bret: That’s not how the lightning round works, cheater!
Nikk: Well, I’m sorry!
Bret: How about child pornography, yay or nay? I’m determined to just get a simple answer on one of these.
Nikk: Child porn violates the rights of children, as they don’t give their consent to be in it. It’s a form of very cruel exploitation, of course.
Bret: So nay on child porn?
Nikk: I answered that.
Bret: You said nay? Or you said child porn violates the rights of children... blah blah blah. Just say nay, it’s not a trick.
Nikk: I’m against child pornography, yes. I’m also against expanding its definition to things where no real child is ever involved.
Bret: You’re over-thinking this.
Nikk: No. The law has tried to claim it’s illegal to depict children in sex acts in a comic book that is entirely the creation of someone’s imagination, for example. I wouldn’t be in favor of such comic books, or novels, or whatever. But you can’t arrest people for thought crimes.
Bret: Torturing Bradley Manning, yay or nay?
Nikk: Nay on the torture of real heroes.
Bret: If you could have lunch with anyone, who would it be?
Nikk: Dead, Karl Marx, to ask him if there’s any substance behind that enormous beard. What was up with that beard?
Bret: I think him and Darwin were having a Satanic beard-off.
Nikk: Living? Someone who will pay for a very nice restaurant. I’m too broke to afford a good meal
Nikk: Dead, second choice, Isaac Asimov. He would be fun.
Bret: How many free meals are you expecting here? Maybe you are left-wing.
Nikk: At least one! When do we eat, Brett?
Bret: We just did, you had a tuna sandwich.
[End of part 1 of 3... the interview went for hours and stretched 18 pages single spaced. Intense.]
An article from Truthout was posted a few days ago. Here's the interview Keith Olberman did with Mikey Weinstein
Truthout's reporting on the Army's so-called "spiritual fitness" test was featured on Thursday by MSNBC host Keith Olbermann on Countdown.
Mikey Weinstein, president and founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, discussed Jason Leopold's report detailing the forced spiritual testing of over 800,000 uniformed soldiers as part of the Comprehensive Soldier Fitness Program.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
... Read more
PZ Myers is an associate professor of biology at the University of Minnesota at Morris and the man behind the popular science blog Pharyngula.
Q: What’s the first thing you read in the morning?
A: My site, Pharyngula, of course. I have to clean up spam, catch up with the conversation, and feed the fires with my own contributions.
Q: What newspapers and magazines do you subscribe to or read regularly? What do you read in print versus online or mobile?
A: I read Nature, Science, BioEssays, Development, Developmental Biology, PNAS [Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences] regularly, and a few other journals irregularly. I read almost nothing printed on paper—I prefer to download PDF’s and read them on my laptop or iPad.
Newspapers I might read occasionally for the novelty, usually if there’s one left on the table at the coffee shop. I do browse The New York Times online
Q: What books have you recently read?
A: I read a book every day or two, except lately when I’ve been swamped with work. Last book read was Lone Frank’s Mindfield: How Brain Science Is Changing Our World, before that was Oren Harman’s The Price of Altruism, Erik Larson’s Thunderstruck, a fun little book called Quirks of Human Anatomy by Lewis Held, it goes on and on. I tend to slurp up any printed matter that stumbles before my eyes.
Q: Has your reading of professional journals changed in the past 10 years? If so, how?
A: Not in subject matter, which remains almost entirely in developmental and evolutionary biology. I have picked up browsing the PLoS journals. The big change is in the switch to electronic media—10 years ago, it was a matter of regular trips to the library to photocopy papers. Now I just stuff PDF’s onto a hard drive.
Q: Do you read blogs? If so, what blogs do you like best?
A: My faves right now are Why Evolution Is True, Sandwalk, Butterflies and Wheels, ERV, a few others—anything where the personality of the author shines through, and I do favor hard-edged godless science writers who don’t mince words.
… continue reading

