iSad

Steve Jobs

February 24, 1955 – October 5, 2011

Old Post: Does Conservatism Exist?

Sept 24, 2011: I wrote this on June 5, 2009, and for some reason never took it out of draft status. I don't know why it slipped past, and now it's terribly stale. So stale, in fact, that I'm not going to even attempt to do a job of final editing. So I'm publishing it as a draft, complete with half-completed thoughts, poor structure, and jarring segues.

This past weekend I joined in a discussion regarding Sarah Palin resigning her office. Someone commented that Palin has done more harm than good for the conservative movement. Since I haven't asked permission to name him, I'll paraphrase his main points:

• Conservatism is no more than empty words.
• No conservative candidate is really conservative.
• Sarah Palin hurt the ticket as she came across as cocky and insincere.
• Mark Sanford always held himself up as a Christian Conservative, but his move toward fiscal conservatism was more to gain national support down the road than what might have been bad for this state.

I pointed out that a philosophy isn't the same as the representatives of that philosophy. It's true that some conservatives aren't "real"... but that's a far cry from conservatism itself not being real. The challenge for conservatives is to find people who can honestly represent the philosophy.

He responded with this, which I won't paraphrase:

"The problem is there isn't anyone. Conservatism in politics dosn't exist. Never has. Anyone who points to Reagan either doesn't know better or is too young to remember."

Now, that's blind, absolute cynicism, but I think it's probably not terribly uncommon in broadcast media. Now, as I'm about to explain, this is B.S. And if something is B.S. when someone else says it, it's B.S. when I think it. That's why I thank God for comments like this, because in refuting them I find my own cynicism dispelled and I find that my belief in my ideals and this country are renewed.

Now, I'm neither too young to personally remember Reagan, nor do I not know better. In point of fact, I worked two years at the Presidential/VIP radio station, under Reagan, and seven years in the network overall. I did this as a member of an all-volunteer military, who had joined in peacetime, during the Cold War. So I have more than a little experience with living according to my ideals. To be told that these ideals do not exist by someone who has not shared those experiences is, quite frankly, a little off-putting.

It would be easy to dismiss such flawed reasoning out of hand. After all, if your mind is clearly closed to opposition, then I'd be fully justified in simply dismissing your own argument in kind and out-of-hand, simply saying, "You're wrong, case closed."

But I'm not that cynical. The problem here is that the speaker has been distracted from the true nature of conservatism. He continues to confuse the philosophy with the individuals that promote it. Since he brought up Reagan, let's start there.

Now, Reagan did compromise, no doubt about it. But politics is the art of compromise. I'm going to engage in my own bit of hyperbole, and state that anybody who doesn't understand that has no business discussing politics. I'm fairly certain that the speaker did understand it, though the knowledge has been overshadowed by cynicism. But compromising on issues is not the same thing as abandoning an ideal. Rather, it's a pragmatic understanding that in order to govern effectively, you can not ignore those people that do not agree with you on every single little point. The idea that compromise = betrayal is naive, to say the least.

Even as he compromised on some issues, Reagan never lost sight of his conservative ideals. He continued to espouse them and promote them, eloquently and vigorously; with the result that even his detractors had a hard time making mud stick. So much so, in fact, that representative Pat Schroeder coined the term "Teflon President" to describe him. Keep in mind that Reagan himself didn't coin or seek that label (nor did Rep. Schroeder mean it in a positive way). He didn't espouse ideals because they would allow him to maintain his popularity... he wasn't terribly concerned with popularity at all. He espoused conservative ideals because that's what he believed. And he believed that most Americans shared those beliefs, when they're communicated directly, clearly, and without distraction. I happen to think he was and is right.

Part of the art of compromise is to pick your battles, and recognize what can or can't be accomplished during your term in office. Reagan compromised on budgetary issues, but picked the toughest battle of all of our lifetimes, and made the ending the Cold War possible. And it happened. Those of use who "know better" and aren't "too young" to remember actually practicing cowering under school desks in the '60s in preparation for a nuclear Armageddon that we were dead certain was just a matter of "when" rather than "if" thank him profusely to this day. Sadly, some people quickly forget what a scary place the world can be. To them, "never forget" is no more than the fickle promise of a mayfly.

Ronald Reagan was a true conservative in politics. Was he the last?

Hardly. But rather than go through politicians person-by-person, let's tackle the flawed reasoning directly. Here's the flaw, as I explained it:

The problem here is that you don't know what you should be looking for. You can't find perfect people in the world, so you conclude that the ideals of real people are non-existent. Wrong answer. We all aspire to things that are greater than ourselves. By definition, that means as individuals we're less than our ideals.

Pretty simple, right? You don't say "chairs" don't exist simply because you can't find the perfect chair for you. Nor do you say that "liberalism" doesn't exist, though the Democratic party is utterly devoid of "true liberals", filled as it is at the top with millionaires who satisfy a lust for power by appealing to the class envy and greed of constituencies with which they have precious little in common.
People aren't perfect. Christians aren't Christ. We can't demand unwavering, absolute perfection from politicians any more than we can demand the same of our flawed and human pastors. To suggest that we even should make such a demand, or expect such perfection is outrageous to the maximum extreme.

The real question is, can we find people who move us toward our ideals?

Yes, we can.
Now, Sarah Palin left her office for reasons she herself has stated. Cynical reporters are looking for some hidden meaning, but there's no reason to take her at anything but her word. She's a lame duck. She's run up a half a million dollars of debt defending herself from charges that it costs nothing for her detractors to levy... charges of which she's been acquitted in their entirety, by the way. She agrees in matters of policy with her Lt. Governor. She can count on him to continue her policies through the 18 months left in this term, and has placed him in the strong position of being an incumbent in the next election.

I have no sympathy for Sanford, or any other hypocrite. He set a torch to his life and knew (or should have known) what would happen. It may be that he simply has no further interest in politics; I won't guess. But he chose to live with the consequences of his actions, and I won't change those consequences just because I've voted for him in the past.

But being wrong on one subject doesn't mean that a person is wrong on every subject. These "bailouts" simply heap long-term debt atop real problems that won't get fixed because they're masked. He was right to turn down Federal bailout money. It was the conservative thing to do.

REVIEW: Digital Fortress

Note to Dan Brown: If you insist on making your heroes look like idiots at the end of the story, do NOT talk up how super-intelligent they are at the beginning.

As you can tell from the note above, I didn't like this book. It's nominally about cryptography and computer security, which is something with which I have a passing familiarity. Now, if you knew nothing about either you'd probably come away from this book thinking it was an entertaining read... even a thriller. But for me, Dan Brown's treatment of these subjects is about as accurate as The Flintstones' treatment of archaeology.

** DO NOT READ THIS REVIEW **

I am going to shamelessly include SPOILERS in this review, as I cannot possibly spoil it any worse than the author already has. DO NOT READ THIS REVIEW if you are completely ignorant of computers. You might actually like this the story... just remember that it's a juvenile fantasy, and that the "facts" and events depicted within have no relation whatsoever to reality.

** DO NOT READ THIS REVIEW **

Here's the summary: the NSA (National Security Agency) has a big honkin' supercomputer that can break any code. A Lone Genius writes an unbreakable encryption algorithm which he puts on the Internet in encrypted form (encrypted by itself, no less), and offers the passkey to the highest bidder. The NSA wants to get their hands on the passkey so they can surreptitiously re-write the algorithm to include a back-door so they can easily read any encrypted message that's encoded by what is sure to become a world-wide standard.

Now, even this far into the story we see a glaring hole. You see, what's being auctioned is simply a passkey to unlock the program that's already in the hands of the bidders. There's no way the NSA could possibly re-write the algorithm and get it into the hands of the bidders. These "super-geniuses" display astounding ignorance even to contemplate their course of action. A twelve-year-old as enough savvy to say, "OK, so you re-wrote YOUR copy. What's that got to do with the guy in Japan who downloaded it last month?" Dumb and dumber.

Back to the story: the NSA director has been using the big honkin' supercomputer to try to break into the code, with no luck, so he sends Joe College Professor (who's not a cryptographer and not an agent, but who is inconveniently dating the plucky Crypto-Geek-Babe) to Spain to retrieve a ring on which the password is engraved from Lone Genius, who's just died most inconveniently. Apparently this is high priority because if anybody knew what the password on the ring meant then they'd have an unbreakable code.

They shouldn't have bothered. The ring, which occupies our attention for all but the final chapter of the book, is a red herring. The program isn't encryption code after all, it's a computer worm, and it's intended to expose the NSA's top secret databases. Lone Genius was going to blackmail the NSA then turn it off with the passkey. If only he hadn't died. But the passkey was never on the ring. The clue to the actual passkey rests in orphaned code within the file itself, which I don't feel bad at all about revealing since Dan Brown never mentions it once until the final chapter, thus cheating you of any possibility whatsoever of solving this on your own merits. He then proceeds to misunderstand how code is 'orphaned'. It's just code that through inattention or bad editing never gets executed. Often the entry point to the routine is simply commented out during debugging. Orphaned code may be fragmentary and distributed about the program. In this case it can be retrieved in its entirety and assembled in order, on the first try. Meh, we'll let it slide because this is deliberately orphaned. Then we are treated to Joe College Professor telling them how to solve the puzzle while all the geniuses at the NSA (including his crypto-geek-babe girlfriend) scratch their butts and whistle Dixie. This yields a puzzle truly worthy of the Riddler, which you are to guess the prime difference between the elements responsible for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Again, this riddle is just thrown in at the last second with none of the foreshadowing that marks a great thriller. Then you get to spend several pages shouting at the moronic imbeciles who populate this story as they spin around in circles and chase their tails until (literally) the last possible second. Meanwhile we're treated to the visual representation of Internet "sharks" circling the NSA databank just waiting for the shields to drop so they can get at all that juicy classified data (I'm not joking).

It doesn't help that the thing reads like a screenplay. Most assuredly Dan Brown had the big screen in mind when writing this turkey. It's all Hollywood, from the quick-cut bite-sized chapters to the condescending "VR" (visual representation) of the "sharks" circling to the last possible second saving of the day. We have a stalwart hero (the professor) tossed into the middle of things he doesn't understand; the beautiful girlfriend; some steretypical comic relief in the form of "Jabba", the tech guru who programs with a soldering iron (I'm still not joking); a couple of black hats; an evil minion; a chase scene... hell, we even get giant explosions. It's as if Dan Brown had watched every Bond movie ever filmed in the company of an adolescent, and made a note every time he heard the kid say, "Cool!" Then he put it all in one book. The result -- needless to say -- sucks.

There's more to complain about, but I don't think I'll bother. I read the book all the way through because I was willing to step into an alternate reality where computers worked the way Brown describes. If I knew he was going to throw away EVERY SINGLE CLUE and pull a completely different ending out of his ass... one where his main characters suddenly become blithering idiots... I would've gone outside and done something more worthwhile, like waxing the grass.

The Mouse-Cat

I read a story a great many years ago which I wanted to recommend. However, I've long ago misplaced the book in which I thought I read it. Astonishingly, I haven't been able to find any direct references to this story on the Internet!  Not just the Web, mind you, but Usenet, IRC, and those places we dare not name. Nor did it show up in a search of Google Books. This is all the more astonishing in that, if a thing exists at all I can generally find it in 5 minutes or less. Not only that, but I found the book that I thought it was in, and the story's not there!!

After much consternation, vexation, investigation and search, I found it re-printed in a Malaysian newspaper from 1983. This just very recently (as in, today) popped up in a Google News search. And now having found the story, and being unsure as to how long it will remain visible this time; I am, for the purpose of preservation and scholarly critique under Fair Use in accordance with Title 17 of the US Code, going to reproduce it here in its entirety. I do not recall the original title, so I'm going with, "The Mouse-Cat".

After the unsuccessful colonial revolt, the British colonies in the New World were organized into the United States of Canada. In time, this vast and peaceful nation grew to include the entire North American continent. One of its most famous heroes was the Cisco Kid of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Strange reports were coming in from prospectors in the Yukon. A new animal had been seen, a swift, elusive beast that the miners called a mouse-cat.

What made the reports so remarkable was the news that the mouse-cat, unique among mammals, had three ears. The Cisco Kid was sent to investigate.

The Cisco Kid returned from the Yukon empty-handed. The mouse-cat had proved too shy and clever to be captured. He had, however, observed the little animals closely, and he could vouch for the fact that they had not three ears, but four!

The controversy was referred to the Science Court, and in short order they handed down a verdict in favor of bilateral symmetry. "For," said the Chief Justice, "who are we to believe, the three mouse-cat ears or the count of Mountie Cisco?"[*]

I believe the story was originally written by Isaac Asimov. If not, it was collected by him. I do not believe it would have stuck in my memory since childhood, forever associated with his name, if it had not been. And the story's status as an extended cringe-worthy pun is certainly typical of the excessively convoluted pun for which he was so well-remembered.  (UPDATE: As we now know, the story was by Rick Norwood, and did indeed appear in a collection edited by Asimov... But wait! Something interesting! The hardcover edition of this book was published in April 1984; the paperback was published in August 1985; but remember the Malaysian newspaper I linked to above? Monday, April 25th, 1983[**]. 

It is possible that I introduced some spelling errors or inaccuracies. It's also possible that the Malaysian newspaper did so. They certainly didn't feel the need to attribute this work. Feel free to leave scholarly preservationist comments below, as scholarly preservationists are wont to do. And seriously, if you know where this story first appeared... or better yet, if you have the book... please contact me.

---

[*] If you didn't recognize this as The Three Musketeers or The Count of Monte Cristo, then you need to read more. Follow the links, the books are free. 
[**] According to the "100 Great..." collection, “The Abraham Lincoln Murder Case,” “Freedom,” and “Mouse-Kitty” by Rick Norwood copyright © 1982 by TZ Publications, Inc. Originally published in Twilight Zone under the group title, “Three Timely Tales.”

Are All Religions Created Equal?

This is the second of the two religious posts that I promised you in A Registry of Atheists?

This is sort of a reply to a post of nearly the same name by Jules Sherred. I say sort of a reply because I'm responding to the title alone, and am not responding so much to the content of the post, which basically boils down to a declaration of how all-inclusive her church is. I'm glad she's found a lovely group of like-minded people, but my analytical mind is obligated to point out that it cannot as inclusive as "all that".

First, if we assume that this statement, "all religions are created equally," means that they're all equally valid, or true, then the statement contains logical fallacies that make it incapable of being correct.

For one thing, many religions teach fundamentally different things. Some assert that you must accept the divinity of Christ to get into Heaven. Others say you cannot accept the very same thing, for the very same reason. Still others say there's no Heaven to get into. They simply cannot all be simultaneously correct. In fact, the only way for them all to be equal at all is for them all to be completely false. This includes, of course, the religion that asserts that all religions are created equally, for in order for it to be valid and true, this one religion must be as false as all the others, otherwise "all religions..." is incorrect.

So logically, the assertion is either just wrong, or, if correct, still wrong. It's not often you get to do that without bothering to discuss doctrine at all. A religion that asserts that all religions are false is basically atheism, so why not just save a step?

I personally would not argue to a Muslim that my religion is equal to his. It's a pointless exercise, in that he'd see through such a thing immediately and point out the very fallacy I just did. By asserting that all manner of contradictory things are equal is to remove any meaning whatsoever from the concept of religion. Between you and me, I think it would be more than a little cruel to do that to someone else, and I'm not willing to do it to myself.

But I am willing to do this: I assert that I have a strong conviction that my religious beliefs are correct. However, I don't know this to be factually true. Even if I thought I knew it to be factually true, I recognize that God so highly prizes Free Will that He refuses to show himself. To do so would be proof, which negates Faith, and biases our choices. I respect that your unbiased choice is important to God, and therefore I respect your right to have whatever Faith you will... even where that Faith is at odds with mine; even where that Faith is in no god at all. I am more than just willing to do this... I'm obligated to.

In return, I demand the same consideration, even if you don't agree with my faith-based reasons. There are secular reasons that are equally compelling.  The Golden Rule ("And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." -- Luke 6:31) isn't just some superstitious religious admonition... it is the primary basis for any just and fair social contract. An atheist's attempt to silence prayer is no more "right" ... i.e., socially valid... than the forced conversions of the Inquisition. Make no mistake: The zealot who forces you to engage in his practices is a tyrant. The atheist who feigns "offense" to force you to stop your practices is likewise a tyrant. Both use excuses to force their will on others, and some even believe the outrageous lie that they do so for the good of Humanity.

Ignore them both. If you want to worship, go ahead; but don't insist that others join you. If you don't want to worship, don't; but don't insist that others stop.

This is called tolerance.

A Registry of Atheists?

I'm about to post about religion twice in a row. I promise I'll try to make them short. I'll try to make them interesting. I'll try to make you think. If you think you already think, I'm going to try to make you think harder about what you thought you thought about. (UPDATE: The second post is here.)

First up, pastor Mike Stahl recently posted that he thought a registry of atheists would be a good idea. It would be similar to the sort of registration that is imposed on sex offenders. That's his comparison, by the way... not mine. In fact, he couldn't see why anyone would be opposed to such an idea. I'll link you to this blog post by P.Z. Myers, because Meyers thought to quote it in detail. Stahl, on the other hand, locked down his blog's comments almost immediately (here's me, being unsurprised), and locked down the entire blog shortly thereafter, as you can see for yourself (UPDATE 2011-09-24: If you follow the link now you'll see that the website is open, with a couple of interesting things to note. First, the 'Registry of Atheists' post has been completely removed. While that's an improvement, actually addressing the issue instead of pretending it never happened would have been even better. Second, there's text on the sidebar: "BWAAHHHH!! DOES THIS BLOG "OFFEND"? TOUGH!!! THEN LEAVE, HEATHEN!"  Hmmm.  Jesus did not confine his preaching to the already converted and was pretty vocal about loving his enemies. Also, I can't help but notice that this is a hefty chunk of bravado from a man who denies his mistakes instead of teaching from them. I find myself wondering exactly what Pastor Mike thinks he's there for. Under other circumstances I might not care, but here I feel obligated to point out that this man has represented Christ falsely, and it neither began nor ended with this PR disaster.) Between the time he locked down the comments and withdrew the blog, I gathered his email address from his profile page and sent him this letter, to which he has not responded.

Mike,

I'm writing this in email because it wasn't possible to do so on your
blog, even after subscribing. Apparently, the comments are locked down. Unfortunate for a blog that literally invites free discussion.

It bothers me that you think so little of your own right to practice the
religion of your choice that you would persecute others for
exercising their religious freedoms, including the right to have no
religion at all. After all, if you can do that to them, it's only fair
that the same be done to you. Let's finish the thought and espouse a
national registry where everyone must declare declare his religious
persuasion. Give everyone a number so there's no ambiguity about that
list. Or perhaps, you should refer back to a volume of our own
religion's scripture (namely the Revelation of St John) to see what
Christian doctrine is on such a subject.

Of course I am opposed to such a disastrously ill-conceived idea. I hope
from the previous paragraph that you, as well, can now see why anyone, even the most devout Christian, should oppose it. If it isn't clear yet, let me say that you have proved to me today that all it takes is a
momentary lack of thought to pave the way for the Antichrist, and you
don't have to be hateful to do it.

Even God himself respects an atheist's right to be wrong. So lead by
example and persuasion, not coercion. I do hope you pray about his, see
the obvious folly of it, and retract the idea publicly.

Peace to you,

Dave Leigh

Well, I can't exactly say that what Stahl has done counts as "retracting the idea". That would, of course, require him to say it's wrong. Rather, following Brave Sir Robin's lead, he has bravely run away. (The second post is here.)

REVIEW: My Dog Needs Surgery

Steve Hockensmith's dog needs surgery, but vets are expensive. Not being independently wealthy, he did what any good tradesman would do... he packaged up some of his wares and started selling. Now, this being the 21st century, we're not talking about selling pots from a horsecart. Steve Hockensmith is an author; his words are his wares; and the Internet, not the sidewalk, is his marketplace.

I must admit that I'd never heard of Steve Hockensmith until I saw a tweet where he offered a free copy of his ebook to anyone who'd review it. I didn't know he was a critically successful author whose first novel, Holmes on the Range, was a finalist for the Edgar, Shamus, and Anthony awards for best first novel. I didn't know that his short stories had been published again and again in Ellery Queen magazine. I didn't know he was the guy who wrote Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. I didn't know he had a Wikipedia page.

No, all I knew was that I will write a review of the ad copy on a cereal box if it earns me free cereal; and hey... free book!  I also knew that I liked his approach and attitude. This may be the 21st century, but since the dawn of Time a man's survival has depended upon his willingness to go out there, kill something, and drag it back to the cave. Steve Hockensmith has that. He makes no bones about it... he's writing for a living, this is how you pay the bills, and please just buy something already, so the vet can get paid. Even if it proved to be a chore I was going to read this book.

Well, it's not a chore. To give you the ending first, Columbo-style, I like the book a lot. so much so that I'm going to refer to the author as "Steve" from now on, as if he were my buddy and not some writer guy who sent some random schmuck a free book to review just because his dog needs surgery (which is all true, but beside the point).

Having not even read the blurb before diving into the book, I suppose I was expecting it to be in the Erma Bombeck or Dave Barry tradition. Not so! I was pleasantly surprised to find it to be an eclectic collection of mystery, humor, and essays. My first impression, of course, came from the very first story, "The Unfortunate Fortune", in which a diner is treated to an "explanation" of the history of the fortune cookie from his his bullshit artist friend... an explanation that involves a court case in which no less than the future of an entire industry is at stake. This is an old-school American Short Story, very much in the tradition of Mark Twain or O. Henry.

I was impressed, so I kept reading. I found the next piece to be, not another humorous short story, but a humorous essay about writing, and very good advice at that. Still impressed, I kept reading. The third was a cop story entitled "Erie's Last Day". Not humorous, but poignant and intelligent, and it hooked me. Steve is an artist with more than one emotion to share. Where there's humor, it isn't forced; where there's pathos, it isn't thrust upon you. He doesn't tell you what to feel... he puts you in his characters' shoes so you can feel it for yourself.

What we have in this book is a Whitman's Sampler of my pal Steve's work for only 99 cents from Amazon or Barnes & Noble or Smashwords, easily worth eight times as much. Read this and I dare you not to go back and buy one of his other books. I'll let you in on a secret. Even though I got a copy of this one for free, I still bought it, and went back for Dear Mr. Holmes.

So what are you waiting for, you heartless bastard? The dog needs surgery!