Reason and Freedom

Politics: Questions for Leftists

2005-08-22T11:14:00.000-04:00

Dear Leftists,

Please forgive me for being presumptuous, but I have some questions for you in light of your superior intellect and finely-nuanced cultural understanding.

1. What happens when one oppressed group oppresses another oppressed group? For example, U.S. blacks oppose gay marriage in overwhelming numbers.

2. What do anarchists do for a living? I'm talking about anarchists currently living in the U.S. who currently self-identify as "anarchist".

3. Should multiculturalism trump women's rights? Remember that Islamic law and culture oppose equal rights for women.

4. Is Liberal Massachusetts culture superior to Conservative Mississippi culture?

5. Should I tolerate Islamic culture even if it is highly intolerant of my homosexuality?

I look forward to some answers. Based on my understanding of your ethics and philosophy, I hold you in the same ethical esteem as I do Pat Robertson. Perhaps your answers will help improve the way I feel about you.

Religion: The Selling of Sickness

2005-08-18T09:10:00.000-04:00

There is a terrific article posted over at MSNBC regarding how drug companies are seeking to market drugs to people who are not sick. Since I don't believe the "mainstream" view of HIV and AIDS, this naturally fits into my bias: Manufacturers of "AIDS therapies" market their drugs to people who are not sick.

The article is an interview with Ray Moynihan, who has written a book on the subject of the selling of sickness. In the interview, he makes this very interesting quote:

"There’s an informal alliance between the drug companies and aspects of the medical profession and aspects of the patient advocacy world who all seem to have interests in defining more and more people as ill."

It's sad but true. Suppose we have a disease called "Syndrome X". Doctors treat this disease, drug manufacturers make medicine for this disease, and patient advocacy groups try and raise awareness for this disease. If more people start catching "Syndrome X", then are those three groups helped or harmed? I think we have such a huge need of thinking of those three groups as "good" that we don't allow ourselves to think that they might piggyback on a disease in order to improve their lifestyles. We give those groups far too much leeway over our lives. We permit creeping doom, if I can inject a nasty little bit of rhetoric.

Moynihan also makes this comment in the article:

"We’re seeing fear of disease, decay and death becoming a central part of life. I’d like people to investigate the psychic impact of being told 10 times a day you might actually be sick."

Perhaps they might also investigate the psychic impact of being told 10 times a day that you're a sinner and that you're going to suffer eternal, burning torture. It's the same misanthropic message in new trappings: "You're bad. You're broken. You're doomed. Give us money and we can save you."

This new Trinity (doctors, drug makers, patient advocates) is becoming a new religion all of their own. The god of this religion is Death.

Culture: The Looming War over Gay Adoption

2005-08-11T16:35:00.000-04:00

Though I *never* chose to be a parent for the sake of a political or moral cause, I believe that gay parenting will ultimately be the phenomenon which shifts society's attitude about gay people from one of superiority to one of equality. After all, if gay parents can raise children that are as happy and healthy as the children raised by straight parents, then by what measure can someone call a gay person "degenerate" when comparted to a straight person?

Conservative politicans are well-aware that successful gay parents changes society's attitudes about gay people (for the better), and whipping the "gay boogeyman" provides a lot of political strength to drive fearful religious zealots to the polls. They haven't had a very good response (for them, politically-speaking) to the swelling numbers of gay parents since the Lawrence v. Texas U. S. Supreme Court decision.

Julian Sanchez of reason.com (my favorite online publication) has written a terrific article describing the looming war over gay adoption. It's going to get ugly, but I think that the Conservative politicans will lose. Too many straight people now know that gay people make fine parents, and they won't take kindly to seeing their friends and their friends' children suffer from stupid legislation.

Cuisine: Sourdough Bread Complete Success

2005-07-26T13:24:00.000-04:00

I have been baking sourdough bread every weekend, following the Cooks Illustrated recipe as a basis for what I do. I basically have been repeating it, trying to make slight changes from week to week to enact changes from one loaf to the next. Here is the most recent iteration of the recipe:

Ingredients:

2 c active sourdough starter
10 oz distilled water
24 oz bread flour
1.5 t table salt

Procedure:

With dough hook on KitchenAid mixer, put starter and water in the bowl and mix with the machine until combined.
Slowly add flour until combined
Knead for a while, say 10 minutes
Put dough in straight-sided, tall container, cover with plastic wrap
Wait for a long time
When dough has doubled (or more than doubled) in volume, remove it onto the counter, squish it alot with your fingers (think of it like playing a piano), divide it into two blobs of equal size, then put those blobs on lightly-oiled plates, lightly oil the tops of the blobs, cover the blobs with plastic wrap, and put them in the fridge overnight.
The next day, take out the blobs, remove the plastic wrap, take them off the plates, squish them alot with your fingers again, put them into two separate loaf tins, and cover the loaf tins with plastic wrap. Let them sit there until they bulge over the tops of the tins. (Did you remember to lightly oil the tops again so the plastic wrap doesn't stick?)
Preheat oven with pizza stone (I use a terra cotta planter base inverted).
When the loaves are bulging over the tops of the loaf tins, remove the plastic wrap, slash the tops of the loaves a few times with a serrated knife, and then bake them in the oven for an hour.
Use an instant-read thermometer to check the internal temperature of the loaves. They should be between 200 and 212 degrees.
Let them cool completely before you cut into them.

And they kick butt! They have a soft, sandwich-bread like texture with an even crumb and a wonderful sourdough flavor.

Here are my observations about baking:

Bread flour can make loaves that are both tough and rustic as well as soft and sandwichy.
Giving the bread three rises and two punchdowns seems to yield a more even crumb.
Cooking at lower temperatures yields softer crust and softer bread.

Culture: Why Using Animal Products is Not Cruel

2005-07-26T13:19:00.000-04:00

I posted this on atlantacuisine.com on a discussion about foie gras, and it pretty well sums up my thoughts about why using animal products is not "cruelty", as PeTA cultists like to claim.

Cruelty is deriving pleasure from causing pain or death in another living thing. The reason why cruelty is wrong is because such an individual might later do the same thing to a human being.

For instance, I have actively maintained a parasite-host relationship with several plants (where I was the parasite, mind you!). Was that cruel? No. But what would others think of me if I grew plants and then torched them all, bragging about how ending the lives of the plants brought me great pleasure? They would rightly be frightened by my behavior, and they would be frightened for the reason that I might decide to expand my sadistic impulses to affect their loved ones.

That said, foie gras production would be cruel only if the individual doing the force feeding was finding joy through causing suffering. And, in that case, the only person to be prosecuted for such cruelty would be the perpetrator of the cruelty. So to call foie gras production "cruel" makes no sense. To label me as "cruel" for enjoying foie gras makes no sense. I don't enjoy causing pain in other creatures. In fact, I'm mostly numb to the idea (which still isn't cruelty). I merely enjoy the yummy, succulent flavor of foie gras and many other products derived from animals.

PeTA is a misanthropic pseudo-cult that deserves to be exposed, ridiculed, and prosecuted. The fact that they would impugn me with the actions of a sadistic killer to support their anti-human zealotry excuses them from rational discourse.

Religion: We're all on the front lines of a religious war

2005-07-14T17:11:00.000-04:00

Americans still feel safe. For now.

What happens when a group of a few muslims decide to detonante a few bombs in several busy shopping malls at the same time? It will get huge press, the Leftist media will highlight it as a failure of the Bush administration, people will be afraid and stop going to malls, some businesses will fail, and many jobs will be lost.

We just don't have the resilience that Londoners have. They have the unfortunate status of being accustomed to their city being bombed by terrorists (not to mention the Luftwaffe). We Americans feel safe so bombs scare us much more.

I think we are all on the front lines of a religous war: a war of violent jihadists against us and our allies. They started the war, not us. And they view all civilians as soldiers. Until we realize that we *are* on the front lines by virtue of our target status, we're not going to have any chance of defeating the enemy. There are still far too many Americans who are weak and think that our failure to defeat the enemy is solely drawn from a lack of understanding. On the contrary, I understand the mindset of the violent jihadist perfectly.

They hate me and want to kill me and all my loved ones. They will do anything and stop at nothing to achieve this goal. They will happily exploit all of America's liberal cultural sensitivies in order to implement their wicked, life-destroying plans. I don't have to be in the army to be fighting the war. I merely have to live. I don't particularly like it, but they have made the choice and I will not go quietly.

Religion: My Blood Test is Perfect

2005-06-21T10:35:00.000-04:00

I recently had a blood test at my doctor's request and guess what? It came back perfect! I have perfect cholesterol, perfect blood sugar, perfect blood pressure (not part of the blood test, but important for the point I'm trying to make), perfect everything.

Why is this important, and why is this post marked under "Religion"?

Because I eat:

* butter
* cream
* pork
* beef
* chicken
* milk
* sugar

And who knows how many other "sinful" foods. There are people in the world who tell me that, in order to be "healthy" (read: holy), I have to exclude all meats and all dairy. Yet my blood test seems to state otherwise! What "health" is, in terms of what we eat, has much more to do with religion and superstition than it does with science and reason.

Cuisine: Updating a Childhood Favorite

2005-05-16T11:22:00.000-04:00

When I was a child, one of my favorite dishes that my mom made was cube steak with rice & gravy. Cube steak is, of course, some sinewy, stringy cut of cheap steak that has been machine-pounded into near-hamburger to make it at least edible. The preparation was to pan-sear the meat, use the fond in the pan to make a gravy, then finish cooking the meat in the gravy. When I made this dish as an adult, I was surprised at how bad it was. Well, last night, I decided to re-make this dish with the cooking knowledge that I've gained in the past few years of cooking. Here's the recipe:

Ingredients:
------------
1 T butter
1 c basmati rice
1 vidalia onion, diced small
1 3/4 c water

1 strip steak
1 T butter
1 T flour
2 c beef broth
1/4 c red wine
1 bay leaf

Method:
-------
0. Melt butter over high heat in saucepan. Add rice and stir until fragrant. Add water, diced onion, and cover. Let boil then reduce heat to low. Cook for 30 minutes and turn off heat. Do the remaining steps while the rice cooks.

1. Heat a saute pan until really hot. Pan-sear steak on all sides brown on all sides. Don't let fond (the "pan scab" that is left over from browning the steak) burn. Remove steak and reserve.

2. Melt 1 tbsp butter in still-hot saute pan. When foaming subsides, mix in the tablespoon of flour and whisk until it is tan (this mixture is called a "roux" and will thicken the sauce). Add the beef broth, wine, and bay leaf. Stir to incorporate the roux. Re-add the steak and cook over high heat until the sauce thickens.

3. Serve steak with rice. Ladle sauce over steak and rice.

Yum yum yum! A childhood favorite resurrected and improved!

Religion: Holier-than-thou Vegetarians

2005-05-16T10:56:00.000-04:00

My partner went to a "health trade show" for his company to pitch his company's services. Naturally, he saw several million references to "removing the toxins," "flushing the toxins," and "unhealthy toxins." The use of the word "toxins" sends my BS alarm into overdrive.

Anyway, his company delivers high-quality frozen meat, so to pitch it they were offering samples of cooked chicken breast to passers-by. Every time it was offered to a vegetarian, the vegetarian would respond in some condescending manner. "I never eat anything that was once alive!"

Honestly, vegetarians have no right to complain about bad treatment because they think they are better than everyone else and openly share their disdain whenever they have the opportunity to do so. Why should I be tolerant and understanding of vegetarian's needs if they're going to treat me like scum because I don't accept their religion?

The Goal: The Rational Pueblo

2005-05-12T16:14:00.000-04:00

I'm posting to my blog my desire to create a Rational Pueblo. It's much like the pueblos that exist in Northern New Mexico (a community of folks that is cenetered around a church), but based around reason and the love of life rather than around the Roman Catholic Church. I've put the link in my links secion, but it's also here.

Capitalism: My Son's Response to the Prospect of Selling

2005-05-08T19:51:00.000-04:00

I've been thinking and experimenting with trying out different ways of talking to people since I realized (a few days ago) that the rules of socialization that were taught to me by being in school did NOT apply in real life. More on that later.

Background: my son receives an allowance of 25 cents per week.

I was driving home with my son, and I told him that I wanted to bake some cupcakes and have him sell them to grown-ups. I told him that he would give them a cupcake, and they would give him money. His answer to this was, "I'll be able to buy a toy without waiting!"

My heart jumped. He's on the way to discovering using win-wins toward his own rational self-interest.

Religion: Vegan Candor in Vegan Proselytization

2005-05-03T14:43:00.000-04:00

Veganism is a religion. Vegans dislike talking about it in this way, and, in fact, they may angrily deny it. (In general, vegans get violently pissy when you are anything but completely accepting of their religion.) But if you look at the internal communications among vegans,you'll observe the same disingenuous behavior that you do among other proselytizing religious groups. For example:

1. Nothing is more important than gaining more converts.

Take a look at this page. I find it to be very interesting and revealing. In it the author lists the following problems that Vegans exhibit with "information" when trying to win converts. It includes:

If we are going to make such extraordinary claims in our literature, they must be backed up with overwhelming proof in that literature if we expect people to believe them.

Note that the author does not raise the question of the "extraordinary claims" possibly being falsehoods, but instead that they be backed up with "overwhelming proof." In other words, "Lie all you want, but make sure it looks really well-supported."

Unwarranted generalization is a related problem, such as taking the results from a single study (e.g., heart attack rates of vegetarianscompared to nonvegetarians) and generalizing those rates as facts for the entire population. Often this is done when there are other studies indicating more conservative figures, or even opposing conclusions.

Note that this is done "often."

Another problem is connecting unrelated or loosely-related facts, such as arguing that one should be vegan to avoid sterility.

Perhaps we can call this "playing hard and loose with the facts." Par for the course for Vegans (and all religious proselytizers).

The author states in his conclusion:

Getting accurate, complete, and unbiased information can be difficult. Until 1999, some of the information in Vegan Outreach's pamphletshad been based on secondary sources. When we finally had the time to go to the original sources, they often did not correspond to what was being attributed to them.

Yes, getting accurate, complete, and unbiased information is difficult, but since when was being accurate, complete, or unbiased more important that winning converts? The cavalier attitude that the author displays toward honesty and integrity betrays this common sentiment amongreligious proselytizers.

2. Don't be up front about the fact that your lifestyle will suffer if you convert, and try and diminish this fact if it does come up.

Christians almost never share the difficult, personal struggles that they have to face as Christians. Those facts just don't make it into the sales pitch. Likewise, I'm sure you remember Christians saying things like, "Christians have lots of fun!" and "Christianity isn't just a big list of rules." Again, let's visit the page I was ripping up for another choice quote:

In order not to scare off potential vegans, some advocates rarely mention any difficulties in being vegan. This can backfire by not preparing people well for a vegan diet. Our experience indicates there are a large number of people who become vegetarian or vegan, don't feel healthy, and go back to meat-eating. As one nutrition professor recently told Jack, "You're the only vegan I know. I know a lot of ex-vegans,but no vegans."

Wow, Vegan apostates! Who would have thunk! You don't hear of those folks all that often, do you? Notice that you have to be "prepared" for a vegan diet. Apparently, it's a difficult, inferior lifestyle.

Now let's turn our attention to this page. There are some interesting quotes in it as well:

Always, always, always remember: Veganism isn’t a dogma. Veganism is about stopping suffering. Let me say that again, as a 17-year vegan: Veganism is not a list of ingredients or a set of rules. Being vegan is about doing our best to help animals. So it requires thought, not a checklist.

The parallels continue: "Not a checklist" verses "not a big list of rules." "Veganism isn't a dogma. Veganism is about stopping suffering" verses "Christianity isn't a religion. Christianity is a personal relationship with god."

In the same vein, I went years refusing to eat with meat-eaters. Please be aware that many meat-eaters read your non-attendance as either deprivation, self-righteousness, or both, and that’s the sort of club nobody wants to join. “You can’t even go to parties, can’t go out toeat, whatever. Who wants to live like that?”

Don't reveal the difficult, personal struggles you have to face as a Vegan. I'm sure Christians can relate with potential converts seeing the Christian lifestyle as "deprivation" and "self-righteousness." That's because it is. Veganism is those things, too: self-righteous asceticism. It sounds like this: "I'm better than you because I don't do the sinful things that you do."

Because on some level, everyone knows that animals are treated badly and most people know that animal flesh is not good for them.

Animals are inferior to humans and affording them the rights that humans have is illogical. Furthermore, it seems that the author is fain to admit that Veganism is not good for humans, perhaps even more harmful than "animal flesh" is. How about we all much on some death cap mushrooms? It would be vegan, after all.

And for any Vegan reading this: that I am "cruel" for being an omnivore is Vegan dogma. It has no basis in reason or upon any fact that I derive pleasure from causing the death or pain of some other critter. And the only reason that such "cruelty" is wrong is because a person who expresses such cruelty is more likely to do the same thing to another human.

Cuisine: How to Grill over Charcoal, Carne Asada Recipe

2005-05-03T09:48:00.000-04:00

The popularity of gas grills seems to get ever higher. I think the convenience of a gas grill and the ability to cook outside are both very strong points to having one. The problem with the gas grill is that it's the exact same thing as my gas broiler in my oven, but upside-down. That was my prevailing thought when I considered buying a grill: what was the purpose in duplicating a cooking method that I already had in my kitchen? Hence, I settled on a charcoal grill and it was the best culinary decision I ever made. This post will explain what should have been explained to me before buying and using a grill.

The one and only reason you should have a charcoal grill is flavor. There is no other cooking method which can deliver the flavor of cooking over hot coals. What most people don't realize is that this grilled flavor successfully applies itself to more than just meats -- much more, in fact. Every other aspect of charcoal grilling is a pain the ass compared to gas grilling. But it's so worth it.

Charcoal comes in two useable forms: hardwood charcoal and briquettes. Hardwood charcoal is wood that has been burned in an oxygen-free environment. Briquettes are wood that has been burned in an oxygen free environment and then mixed with some other things to form them into neat little shapes. Which one is better? That depends. Behold the chart o' comparisons:

Hardwood Charcoal
Coal Temperature: Extremely hot (700 degrees F)
Time to burnout: 40 minutes at best
Ash residue: minimal
Flavor: Yummy

Charcoal Briquettes
Coal Temperature: Very hot (660 degrees F)
Time to burnout: hours
Ash residue: quite a bit
Flavor: Yummy, but can add off-flavors to delicate foods

So which one is better? Perhaps some examples would serve:

* Steaks for 2-4: Hardwood, since it will deliver the sear better and also burn out faster
* Burgers for 50: Briquettes, since they will hold the heat longer and cook more food
* A mess of vegetables and steaks: Briquettes, since you'll probably be cooking in shifts
* Salmon filets: Hardwood, since the delicate fish may pick up off-flavots from the briquettes

In conclusion, you should have both hardwood and briquettes on hand and know when each is appropriate.

Next, about lighting the charcoal. Do not use lighter fluid. Do not use briquettes that are pre-soaked with lighter fluid. It is dangerous and makes your food taste like lighter fluid.

I use a wonderful, cheap tool called a chimney starter to ignite the charcoal. It's basically a can in which the charcoal can all get very hot and light very quickly. It's safe,fast, and the chimney starter and a second, extremly valuable use that I will desribe momentarily. Here's my procedure for lighting the charcoal:

0. Remove the grates from the grill.
1. Get 1.5 sheets of newspaper. Wad it up in a loose ball and shove it in the bottom of the chimney starter.
2. Place the chimney starter on the charcoal pan in the grill.
3. Drizzle some canola or corn oil (I imagine other oils would work as well) right down into the chimney starter. It will ooze through thegrate and absorb into the paper. You don't want to completely soak the paper.
4. Fill the chimney starter with charcoal.
5. Ignite the newspaper and leave the area: it will produce a *lot* of smoke.

Easy enough. It will get *very* hot. My chimney starter glows red it gets to hot. Once the coals are covered with a layer of fine ash it's time for the next step.

0. Put on gloves and pour the charcoal from the chimney starter into the charcoal pan. Set the chimney starter away from combustible materials.
1. Replace the grates and close the grill cover to get them hot. Wait 5 minutes.
2. Open the grill and use the wire grill brush to scrape every bit of charred leftover food and grease off the grates.
3. Moisten a wad of paper towels with canola or corn oil (I imagine other oils would work as well) and wipe the grates so that they glisten. Eat the paper towel when you're done. Just kidding. Throw it away.
4. Start grilling!

The only limit to what you can grill is determined by whether or not it will fall through the grates. Asparagus is particularly notorious,so you might want to invest in a vegetable basket to help control them. I'll also add that grilling asparagus is a better preparation for that wonderful vegetable than any other; in fact, all the other ones suck in comparison. Grilled asparagus tips are delicious! I have also successfully grilled portabella mushrooms (they taste like meat when grilled), pineapple (for pizza), squash, toast,proscuitto, and god only knows how many kinds of meats.

This takes me into the enormous success that I had last night on the grill: carne asada tacos. Carne asada is grilled steak, but finding the right preparation and combination of ingredients turns a pedestrian dish into a superb one. This was an A+. The key is to get a *reallyhot fire* so that the steak can be cooked and have crispy, super-caramelized tips. Here's the recipe:

1 skirt or flank steak
4 fresh limes
1 fresh lemon
1/2 c olive oil
4 cloves fresh garlic, minced
2 T white vinegar

1 bunch of fresh cilantro, rinsed, destemmed, and chopped (substitute shredded lettuce if you hate cilantro)
1/2 onion, finely diced
corn tortillas

0. Slice the skirt or flank steak against the grain in thin slices (between 1/4 inch and 1/2 inch). Do not make diagonal cuts.
1. Juice the limes and lemon into a mixing bowl
2. Whisk the olive oil, garlic, and vinegar into the citrus juice until it emulsifies. (This is the marinade, though you may recognize it as citrus vinagrette.)
3. Add the steak slices to the marinade.
4. Cover the steak/marinade mixture with plastic wrap pressing the plastic wrap directly down onto the surface of the mixture until no air bubbles remain.
5. Refridgerate the steak for 1-3 hours.
6. Remove the steak from the marinade and thread them into metal squewers. Sprinkle on some kosher salt and pepper.

7. Prepare the grill as above using hardwood charcoal, but instead of pouring the charcoal from the chimney starter you should leave it in there. Instead, put a small grill grate on top of the chimney starter. You will be cooking on top of this grate. It will be *very hot*. Don't forget to oil the grate!

8. Grill the squewers over the ultra-hot fire until black and crispy on all sides. Use your judgement as to how "black and crispy" you like them.

9. Place the sqewers onto a plate and let them rest for 5 minutes.
10. Remove the meat from the squewers and dice it. It's better to dice it pretty small otherwise you'll end up with huge pieces of steak inyour mouth. (Maybe you like that, I dont.)
11. Assemble the tacos in corn tortillas making about 50%-25%-25% rations of meat-cilantro-onion.
12. Eat! You can add some hot sauce if you want it. I hate it, so I don't add it.

As I said, these are the best carne asada tacos I've ever had. The keys to success are:

0. Ultra-hot charcoal fire
1. Proper slicing of beef
2. Good marinade
3. Proper proportions of ingredients

Cuisine: Yogurt failure, Sourdough bread partial success

2005-05-02T10:08:00.000-04:00

I tried making yogurt following the recipe here. It didn't work. I used ultra-pasteurized goat milk and Dannon plain yogurt as a starter. The resultant "yogurt" is still pretty much the same consistency as the goat milk that went into it. I suspect one of two problems: 1. using the ultra-pasteurized goat milk won't work, and 2. the water in the incubator (a cooler) was too hot and the L. acidophilus were killed. I think I'm going to skip trying to perfect this recipe and move on to making cheese. Next up: neufchatel, a.k.a. farmer's cheese.

I also attempted my first sourdough bread and I would rate it a C- as far as sourdough bread goes. It has a nice flavor but was not nearly sour enough. It is also very dense: cutting through it takes some embarrassing effort. I have four different ideas about improving this bread: 1. use whole-wheat flour as part of the flour, 2. use some "extra-fermented" sponge as part of the sponge or in addition to the sponge, 3. add some milk or buttermilk to increase sourness due to L. acidophilus, and 4. increase the water/flour ratio.

Culture: On Being an Un-gay Gay Man

2005-05-02T10:00:00.000-04:00

I think the most confusing thing about being and becoming a gay man was what it was supposed to mean to "be a gay man." What is a gay man? What kinds of attitudes should he express? What kinds of beliefs should he hold? What kind of lifestyle should he lead?

If you are a gay activist living in the gay ghetto of some large, metropolitan area, then there are ready-made responses to these questions. Let's see if I can rattle them off:

- A gay man should have as much more sex with many more partners than any straight man. Sexual freedom without consequences is part of being gay.
- A gay man should be liberal in all ways that mainstream liberals say is appropriate. Only liberals will stand up for gay rights.
- A gay man should talk, walk, and act in a "gay" way at all times. If a gay man "acts straight" then he isn't gay because he actively hides his sexuality of which he should be militantly proud (read: elitist).
- A gay man should be proud (read: elitist) to the point of being insulting about being gay. Any discomfort that straight people feel about this is evidential of the fact that they're gay-bashing bigots.
- A gay man should live among other gay men and eschew straight society.
- A gay man should eschew anything that looks like marriage (such as having children or having successful, long-term relationships), which is for straights. Circuit parties are much more respectable than marriage is.
- A gay man should always know his "HIV status" and should get "tested for HIV" religously. A gay man's "HIV status" is the keystone of his gay identity.

When I finally accepted that I was gay, when I was 20 years old, I started to meet other gay men. In talking to them, I was eventually exposed to all of the ideas above and felt disgusted by it. I thought, "Is this what being "gay" has to be? Is this all I have to look up to?" When I came out to my mother she asked if I was sad about not being able to have children. Even my mother, a straight person who loves me very much, was subject to the bankrupt ideas about what "being gay" was supposed to mean. I answer her question without thinking twice, "I can always adopt." Lo and behold, I am a gay adoptive parent now. Don't misunderstand me: every gay man to whom we've talked has expressed happiness and admiration that we became gay adoptive parents. This ties into the point I'm trying to make.

I think that there are many gay men who, like me, reject some or all of the notions about being gay that are upheld by self-styled "gay activists." They want to have lives where they can succeed and florish. They want to have lives that integrate with those of straight people. They're not interested in obsessive grooming, unrelenting self-indulgence, and hateful Leftist politics. They're open to healthy relationships and parenting. And I think that this type of gay man represents the majority of gay men. I also think that this gay man is quiet about his desires becuase he wants to avoid the vicious attacks from "gay activists" that such attitudes invite. I don't mind that "gay activists" speak for the circuit-party crowd, but I think it's time for a gay man to step forward and speak for the rest of us, which I think is becoming the majority of gay men: Un-gay Gay men.

Cuisine: Cheese, making of

2005-04-28T20:08:00.000-04:00

I recently started reading about cheese making, and I've found it to be very similar to bread making and beer brewing (and I suppose wine making, but I have yet to try that). Cheese making works due to yeast and bacteria doing all the hard work. Before the days of refrigeration, cheese was the way that the extremely-perishable milk could be stored.

I found this awesome page on making cheese here. It's done by a professor of biology and chemistry who also happens to raise goats and make his own dairy products. He took the time to document his efforts with photographs and explicit instructions as well as explanations behind why things are done. This site is right up my alley!

Since I already have a healthy Lactobacillus Sanfrancisco (and yeast) culture in my refrigerator, I felt very comfortable reading about starter cultures for cheese. As it turns out, home cheesemaking is very popular in Europe.

I went to Star Provisions today to buy raw milk. It turns out that it's not legal to sell raw milk of any mammal in this fine state of Georgia. Stupid laws! Why can't they let us make our own informed decisions and suffer the consequences? Anyway, I ended up buying two quarts of (ultra-pasteurized) goat milk from Publix. My first project: yogurt.

Philosophy: When believing in a lie may be beneficial

2005-04-28T13:31:00.000-04:00

The older I have become and the longer that I have been a gay parent makes me feel ever more annoyed by the special rights that straight, married couples get in our society. For instance, straight couples' childbirth is paid for by their insurance company (premiums which gay men like me pay), but we had to pay dearly for our adoption. Straight parents can have their children subsedized by gay people. In fact, the law demands it. That's just one of many examples.

I suppose that the proponents of "traditional marriage" will argue that such rights and priveleges are necessary to support the family, ostensibly for the purpose of raising children. Well, since more than 50% of marriages fail, it seems like these rights and priveleges are being wasted on the ungrateful. Unlike straights, gay people rarely have children by accident (or subsedized).

So what could be the reason for such ugly disparities between the rights and privileges that gay families receive verses those that straight families receive? Well, namely, the fact that many people, particularly Christians, hate gay people.

As a parent, this frightens me. It frightens me with the gripping, "Don't you dare take my child!" primal fear that I started feeling once I became a parent. It's made me feel resentful of Christians and suspicious of their motives and actions. I was expressing this much to my partner, and he warned me that I may be becoming too angry over nothing. He indicated that, sure, there were some loonies out there, but, for the most part, things are changing are most people are coming around to a rational frame of mind about gay people in general and gay parents in specific. I disagreed. I told him stories of some things that I'd heard Christians say which I felt supported my point of view.

Then I had a different thought. What if I was right and my partner was wrong, but it was better for me to believe my partner's lie than it was for me to believe my truth? Meaning, what if the Christian threats would never materialize into depriving me of life, liberty, family, or property? "All talk, no action."

Is "believing a lie" merely code for my desire to remain paranoid?

Culture: There is Only One Race

2005-04-21T10:03:00.000-04:00

There is only one race: the human race. All other concepts of race come from culture, not from science.

Do you disbelieve it? Tell me, what is the scientific division between a person who is "asian" and a person who is "hispanic"? You can fill in any two races you with within the double-quotes and you're going to have equally a difficult time trying to answer the question. Let's take it further. What if a person who is "black" and a person who is "white" have a baby? What race is the baby? Are they a new race? What if a person has all "white" ancestors except for one "black" great-great-great-grandfather? Is that a different race from the person who is "half and half"?

We all rely on our culture to define races for us. In the South, "one drop" of "black" blood was all it took to make you "black." Of course, this betrays the "white verses black" mindset that pervades so many people in the South, but it might as well: that's part of Southern culture (and boy I wish that part of Southern culture would die).

I recently saw this fantastic movie called Europa Europa which tells the true story of a German Jew who joins the Hitler Youth as a means of survival during the Third Reich. There is a very instructive scene in the movie that takes place in a classroom. The teacher, a middle-aged German man, acts sinisterly in front of his attentive Hitler Youth students, intimating th
at Jews are, by nature, hideous and treacherous. Then he calls the protagonist to the front of the class. The protagonaist, still terrified that someone may learn his secret, stands in horror as his teacher begins measuring the dimensions of the protagonist's face. Then, after much measuring and judging, the teacher reveals to the class that the subject is a member of the "Eastern Baltic Race." So much for science!

There is a terrific website that I recently found at zompist.com called How to tell if you're American. It basically makes a bunch of generalized statements about American culture. What made this site interesting is that repres
enatives of other cultures then translated the statements into similiar ones that are relevant in their own culture (in English, thankfully). It's a fascinating view into cultural differences. For example:

American: You like your bacon crisp (unless it's Canadian bacon, of course).
English: You've never come across crispy bacon.
Turkish: You never eat bacon, but you will have kokoreç (fried sheep intestines) after a good night's drinking.

And so on. Fascinating, huh? But, more relevant to this discussion, check out what one of the authors (representing Brazilian culture) had to say about race:

"Between 'black' and 'white' there are many shades of race. Someone who is not very distinctively black looks white to you. You probably think you are white yourself, and it is only when you travel to the U.S. that you find out it is not necessarily so."

The reason why someone from Brazil could think that they were "white" but then learn that they are "black" when they travel to the USA is because race is defined by culture, not by science.

Hence, I reject all cultural definitions of "race." There is one and only one race: the human race. All racist thinking originates in the belief that there are separate races to begin with.

Culture: New York Leftists are Elitists who Merit Scorn

2005-04-20T11:22:00.000-04:00

I recently found this wonderful writer named Kurt Andersen who writes for the magazine "New York." You can find his archive here. I like his writing for several reasons.

1. His vocubulary is very impressive
2. His writing style is informative, entertaining, and honest
3. His attitudes betray exactly why New York Leftists are scum and worthy of mockery

Here's a choice quote from one of Andersen's articles:

"For New Yorkers, this massive dark cloud does have a
silver lining. We can now feel special again, and revert to
full-bore smugness: We choose to live in New York because
we are superior, and we are superior because we live in New
York."

Here's another one:


"New Yorkers think we are smarter than other Americans,
that the richness and difficulty of life here give our
intelligence a kind of hard-won depth and nuance and
sensitivity to contradictions and ambiguity. We feel we are
practically French. Most New Yorkers are also liberals. And
most liberals, wherever they live, believe that they are
smarter than most conservatives (particularly George W.
Bush)."

Hence, Leftists suck in general, and New York Leftists suck in particular. I would just love to see that caustic bitch Ann Coulter tear this guy a new asshole (without getting snot on her hands). Maybe I can get an artist to draw me a picture of Ann Coulter tearing Manhattan a new asshole.

Religion: Let's Claim the Term "Kaffir"

2005-04-20T09:17:00.000-04:00

Kaffir (I've also seen it spelled "kafir," "kaafir," "Kufr," etc.) is the term for "non-muslim" used by extremist, violent muslims. I'm talking about muslims who fully believe that force should be used to convert or punish non-muslims. Kaffir is a term of extreme derision. You can see it in this article about muslim extremists interrupting a moderate muslim event in the UK. Here's the link:

link

Here's a quote: "Kaffirs. MCB [Muslim Council of Britain] are dirty kaffirs."

In other words, kaffirs are odious people worthy of being on the receiving end of the muslim extremists' violence.

Other persecuted groups have made a wise decision to take the epithets of their enemies as terms of pride. Gays have chosen to call themselves "queers." Anti-Scientologists have given themselves ficticious SP ("Suppressive Person," Scientology-speak for bad guy, worthy of being on the receiving end of violence) levels in mockery of the Scientologist OT ("Operating Thetan") levels. Blacks have co-opted the notorious "N-word" as a term of brotherhood and pride. It's a smart way of refusing to allow yourself to be defined and harmed by your enemies' hateful labels.

Personally, I don't believe pride comes from being. That's called "elitism" and is immoral. Pride comes from doing. So I wouldn't say that I am "proud" to be a kaffir. But I would say that it's time that non-muslims claim this word. Christians, Jews, Wiccans, Atheists, Pagans, Buddhists, and all other non-muslims who do NOT want to convert to that religion and who reject the violence associated with its wicked extremists can then say, "Yes, we are kaffir, and it is good and right that we are kaffir!"

Cuisine: Sourdough Pancakes are a Huge Success

2005-04-20T08:57:00.000-04:00

I made sourdough pancakes from my sourdough starter and boy am I impressed! I can say with no doubt that they are the best pancakes I've ever made. They had the perfect texture (light and fluffy) with just the right amount of sweetness and tang. Add to that some real butter and some grade A maple syrup and you have achieved the pinnacle of pancakes. I, my partner, and even my 5-year-old son all ate three of them.

Here was the recipe:

2 c starter
2 T sugar
4 T oo
1 egg
--- mix all that up
--- heat the pan
1 T warm water
1 t baking soda
1/2 t salt
--- mix all that up in a separate bowl
--- just before you cook, add the soda mixture to the starter mixture and fold. The base (baking soda) will react with the lactic acid produced by, in my case, L. Sanfrancisco and make it foam up *a lot*.
--- immediately cook the pancakes

Yum yum yum yum yum! The sourdough starter has already paid off in a big way. I feel like I'm on my way to lots of yummilicious baking. Next I'm going to make sourdough bread. Or maybe sourdough Balut.

Cuisine: Balut

2005-04-19T11:54:00.000-04:00

For those of you who don't watch "Fear Factor" (I don't) and don't know anything about the Phillippines, "Balut" is a part of the national cuisine. It is a fertilized duck egg that is 17 days old. You boil it and eat the contents. A duck embryo (beak, feathers, feet) is contianed within along with a veiny (!) yolk sac. I would eat cockroaches ALL DAY LONG to not ever have to eat this.

Cuisine: Sourdough Starter Started

2005-04-15T14:32:00.000-04:00

I received my sourdough starter from sourdo.com in the mail yesterday. For those of you not in the know, this is the dried remains of millions of little yeast and bacteria that are used to make sourdough bread. The bacteria in question are Lactobacillus Sanfrancisco, so you can probably guess that my goal is to create San Francisco sourdough bread.

I mixed the dried powder with AP flour and clean water last night, and I added water and flour this morning. According to Steve, who is at home today, the started showed a lot of bubbly activity and a layer of hooch was forming on the top. It seems to be doing its thing, though it doesn't yet seem active enough to be deemed healthy enough to cook with.

Politics: Kim Bannon is suing for inherently-flawed "HIV tests"

2005-04-13T13:56:00.000-04:00

Reading about Kim Bannon has re-ignited the fire under my butt about HIV and AIDS. I am, of course, an AIDS heretic. I do not believe the dogma that eminates from the priests of the HIV=AIDS death religion. I had felt somewhat discouraged when I thought all of the recent news about HIV and AIDS skepticism was, well, not so recent. A little internet reading changed all of that.

First, Kim Bannon:

http://www.kimbannon.com

Brave Kim is suing for having been given an "HIV positive" status. Bravo, Kim!

Then there is the journalist Liam Scheff who broke the story about orphaned and kidnapped children being used as human guinea pigs for toxic AIDS drugs. This story is ongoing and is horrible. Do not read it if you can't bear to see pictures of tortured children. If it's true, then I won't be surprised. If it's false, then I'll be greatly relieved.

http://www.altheal.org/toxicity/house.htm

The most important aspect of the HIV=AIDS church is that the church be maintained. Human health and human life are secondary considerations.

Philosophy: The Disengenuous Forgiveness of Brian Nichols

2005-04-07T09:53:00.000-04:00

Ann Coulter's recent column on Brian Nichols and Ashley Smith was interesting. It was interesting because it proves one of the most overlooked dangerous aspects of Christianity that exists: disingenuous forgiveness.

To get the ball rolling, I can't help but comment on the tone that Coulter takes about the role of women in society. I personally loathe just about every bit of vomitous tripe that comes casually spilling from the hideous mouths of most self-styled, testicle-chopping "feminists." But listen to what Coulter writes:

"The escape and capture of Brian Nichols shows women playing roles they should not (escorting dangerous criminals) and women playing roles they do best (making men better people)."

One of the things that women do best, according to Coulter, is "making men better people." That's right, women, of all the great things you can do, make sure you remember that up there among the most important is prostrating yourself to the men of the world! When Coulter writes idiotic things like this, she freely hands mortar shells to the feminists she hates so much.

Well, on to Christianity. Most of the country is now aware of what Brian Nichols did, and some are now becoming aware of what Ashley Smith did. If you aren't, then read Coulter's column. Brian Nichols, having killed a few people, having every police officer withing a 200-mile radius on a death-hunt for him, and having his name, image, and exhaustive list of atrocities continuously displayed on every local and national news media knew that his options were running out. He was going to get caught, and the pressure was high.

Ashley Smith, Nichols's prisoner, calculated a way to launch herself into immortal Christian fame. She would minister to the most famous "bad guy" in present Christendom.

So she read from him from the newest protestant tract, The Purpose-Driven Life, and from the Bible. She made him a deal. It was long and drawn out, but here it is in its simple form:

"You will become a star and people will love and forgive you. If, and only if, you convert to Christianity."It's a pretty good deal for Nichols. Sure, he still has to go to prison, and he may still lose his life. But he was going to get that anyway! What she was offering was a boat-load of attention and love from a public that was keenly aware of who he was. And, for Christians, it's very clear why it is in their best interest for Nichols to accept the deal. If he becomes Christian, then Christians receive two valuable things out of the deal.

1. They get to use his conversion as evidence of the "transforming power of Christ." Coulter even goes as far to call it a "miracle," which is, to Christians, "proof" that miracles (and, by extension, their god) exist.

2. They get to show the world how morally superior they are for forgiving a human such as Nichols.

So there is massive self-interest for Christians in the Nichols conversion. Dare I call it "selfishness"?

But what does scripture say about forgiveness? Let's go to the words of Jesus himself to find out:

"For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins." Mat 6:14-15Jesus says this immediately after he teaches the Lord's prayer to the disciples, just in case the words of Christ aren't powerful enough in this instance. In any case, there is no room for confusion. Christians are supposed to forgive "men" because if they don't then their sins will not be forgiven. So much for "the blood covers all." Apparently there is an important stipulation: Jesus's blood will wash away all of your sins ... IF AND ONLY IF you forgive men their sins.

Note how we have heard so many people on the radio say rather bluntly that they will NOT forgive Jane Fonda for her communist-pleasing, and-and-comfort-to-the-enemy-giving antics during the Vietnam war. Did the Christians of the world righteously bring up Matthew 6:14-15? No, they were silent at best, in punitive agreement at worst.

So take the Christians' forgiveness of Brian Nichols with a Jupiter-sized grain of salt. They forgive him because they get something out of it -- two important somethings, specifically -- and not because they are being true to their scripture. They are, in fact, following one of the unwritten rules of their religion: the end always justifies the means when it comes to gaining converts to Christianity.

Myself, I do not forgive Brian Nichols. He chose to live like an animal, he deserves to die like one. For that matter, I don't forgive Jane Fonda, either. Let's round it out by my saying that I also don't forgive Ann Coulter for her stupidity and her mendacity.

Politics: The "right" to have children?

2005-03-01T10:51:00.000-05:00

I would support a new law that would compel a woman to have her tubes tied by the state if she has a second child that she cannot afford to raise. Let me put it even more bluntly: the poor should not breed.

Why is it not child abuse that a woman has a child that she cannot afford to feed and clothe? Naturally I will exclude women who become pregnant through rape, but, otherwise, there is no excuse in our world of contraception and abortion for a woman to become pregnant with a child that she cannot afford to raise. By having a child that she can't raise, she is depriving that child of food and clothing that the child needs to survive. It is neglect. Neglect is abuse. Child abuse is a predatory. Predators should be punished and prevented from harming any more children, either by finding them or by creating them.

I suspect that many women would feel shocked by a suggestion that women be sterilized to prevent further child abuse. The only reason that they may feel outrage is due to some feeling that women have a "right" to have "one of their own." Quite frankly, this sentiment is stupid and should go screw itself in the ear several million times. I am a gay adoptive parent. If it is somehow "cruel" for a woman to be sterilized, then it is "cruel" for a woman to be condemned to my own fate on not being able to have "one of my own." Am I supposed to have sympathy for that point of view?

Enough about women. On to men.

I would support a law that men would be compelled undergo sterilization after fathering one child that he can't afford to raise. Am I supposed to support a man's right to father children that he can't pay to support? Should I as a gay adoptive parent feel sympathy for another man's ability to have "one of his own"? Quite franky, screw that in the eye socket about a billion times. I have no problem dooming some welfare-brat-spawning machine to my "horrible fate".

Culture: The Food Trough

2005-02-27T11:38:00.000-05:00

I love being a Southerner but that does not mean that there are some things about my culture that I would love to see changed. I'd like to skip over the obvious "white v. black," and extreme sexual prudishness blights on the culture of my birth and rather focus on the icon which is highly indicative of our being culinary morons: The Food Trough.

It goes by several names, Ryan's, Golden Corral, others. It's a restaurant which has a menu, but no one uses it. It has servers, but no one really needs them. The main reason people go is to eat from a large trough that runs down the middle of the restaurant. You pay a fat, I mean flat, fee to eat as much slop from the trough as you can pack into your "what a good value!"-screaming gut. Anything you don't eat you can just put in the trash with no consequence or additional fee. And these restaurants draw hicks much like turds draw flies.

I suppose I'm only bitter because we tried opening up a restaurant in a location which was 80% hicks. Guess where they would rather eat -- the "good value" and highly-predictable Food Trough, or the strange, risky, "ethnic" restaurant?

Cuisine: My granola recipe

2005-02-26T12:23:00.000-05:00

It took me about 5 iterations, but I've finally settled on a granola recipe that beats just about anything that I can buy in a grocery store. It's essentially Alton Brown's recipe with a few modifications.

Chunky Granola
makes about 4 cups
----------------

3 cups rolled oats
1 cup slivered blanched almonds
1/3 cup canola oil
1/4 cup + 2 Tbsp brown sugar
1/4 cup + 2 Tbsp maple syrup
1 egg, scrambled
2 Tbsp. vanilla extract

Preheat oven to 250 degrees.

1. Combine oats, coconut, and almonds in a large mixing bowl. Mix well.

2. In a small saucepan, heat oil, brown sugar, and syrup, stirring constantly, until sugar is no longer lumpy.

3. Remove oil/sugar/syrup mixture from heat and pour it into the oat mixture. Stir well to combine.

4. Add beaten egg and vanillia extract to oat mixture. Stir well to combine and make sure that the egg coats everything about evently.

5. Line a cookie sheet with parchment and spread oat mixture onto parchment. Use a rubber spatula to smooth the mixture into a uniform slab.

6. Bake for 1 hour and 15 minutes. No matter what you've read in other, inferior recipes, do not agitate the mixture.

7. Use a spatula to remove the slab in large chunks and place into an airtight container.

8. If you're gross and like dried fruit in your granola, you can add it separately.

Politics: Insanely-huge profits in the black market of illegal drugs

2005-02-25T13:12:00.000-05:00

I recently made a friend. He's a young man (23, I think) who lives in my area and was recently released from prison on a drug-trafficking charge. "Drug-trafficking" is a pretty meaningless crime, since, in my state, it can be applied to possessing an ounce of marijuana (even if it's intended for personal use), or what this young man did.

This young man is a child of privelege in a small town. His grandfather is a prominent small-town public figure. He became involved in selling drugs in a small role which quickly ballooned into a large role. On one occasion he was pistol-whipped and dumped bleeding in a parking lot by drug-selling rivals. He always carried a loaded handgun for fear of being attacked or killed. It was a terrifying lifestyle. Why would someone do something like that?

Easy. His drug-selling black-market job netted him $30,000 per month. Read it again: $30,000 per month! With this kind of income he would go buy five pairs of shoes and if any one of them received a smudge or a scratch, then he would just throw the shoes away. He admitted to never having done his laundry ever -- he just threw away dirty clothes and replaced them with new ones. He lived in an apartment which rented for several thousand dollars per month. He was also a heavy user of the expensive and high-quality drugs that he had access to on a daily basis.

Consider this: if he was willing to risk being pistol-whipped and killed for the insanely-huge profits that selling drugs offered (and still offeres to anyone who wants to get involved), then what can the government possibly do to deter people from choosing that lifestyle?

If you support the War on Drugs, then you also necessarily support insanely-huge profits for selling drugs.

Politics: To Bill O'Reilly about Bush and Pot

2005-02-23T20:16:00.000-05:00

I sent e-mail to Bill O'Reilly's show after I saw him throw a fit about the new book that's being promoted with the secret recordings of George Bush. O'Reilly was very, very upset. He used words such as, "I don't want anyone to buy this book" and expressed immense disdain for its author. Granted, the author is a sleezeball for betraying George W. Bush's trust, but I think there is more to O'Reilly's anger than that which can be blamed on witnessing another's breach of trust.

Here is the test of the e-mail that I sent to Bill:

"I understand your outrage over the Bush smear book. Your irrational support for Prohibition is embarrassing in light of the fact that getting high on pot is obviously not harmful or immoral enough to preclude one from becoming President of the United States."

I don't think that can be said enough. George Bush (along with other presidents) condemns thousands to be raped in prison for doing the very same thing that he did.

O'Reilly didn't read the e-mail on his show. Granted, I'm just one of thousands.

Philosophy: The most offensive phrase in the English language

2005-02-23T10:45:00.000-05:00

The most offensive phrase in the English language is:

"I don't believe you."

Let's try it out:

"HIV causes AIDS." I don't believe you.

"The Bible is the word of God." I don't believe you.

"Socialism is progress." I don't believe you.

"Humans are causing global warming." I don't believe you.

"Islam is a religion of peace." I don't believe you.

It's not easy being a skeptic. Religious people have a hard time treating heretics with kindness or even politeness.

Politics: The Mythical "A Good Life"

2005-02-23T09:56:00.000-05:00

A few months ago I was sharing lunch with a respected and very intelligent friend of mine, Robert. As an aside, I had tried hard and failed to categorize Robert's philosophy on more than one occasion, and I think I had been eager to label him some flavor of Leftist though he always resisted being categorized. The most he would ever admit to was having a problem with authority.) Anyhow, during lunch, I was, as per usual, arguing under my accepted premises of individual rights (including property rights) and freedom. After enduring my arguments for several minutes Robert offered up some advice in a condescending-yet-friendly tone of voice that it may do me good if I went to Portland, Oregan sometime to hear their points of view.

Aware that Robert's advice was designed principally to aquaint me with the arguments of the Leftists who infest Portland, I told him that I had no interest in his suggestion because as soon as they made a single argument that relied on the notions of "need," "greed," or "exploitation" then I would simply turn off my brain and stop communicating. I disagree with those concepts fundamentally, so why should I waste my and their valuable time entertaining an argument that is based on those concepts? I reminded him that one can't get a true conclusion from a false premise.

We left the restaurant and Robert challenged my lack of desire to entertain any arguments based on need. I answered to him that need always implied a desired action. For example, "I need a pen in order to write a letter." What I objected to was the open-ended need that Lefists so frequenly invoke to justify plunder. He retorted that people do, in fact, have certain needs or they will die, and, to this, I agreed. If our brains go three minutes without oxygen, we will die. Therefore, we need a constant supply of oxygen in order to stay alive.

As we pulled out of the parking lot, I thought of an example which would not only help explain my point of view, but crystallize why Leftist philosophy seems superstitious to me. Working from our previous agreement that humans have certain needs for basic survival, I asked him, "Robert, do homeless people get what they need?" Robert answered affirmatively, obviously seeing that homeless people would all be dead if they didn't get what they needed. He then added, "But they don't get what they need to have a good life."

"And that's where the subject becomes completely subjective," I told him. I offered, "I want to have a six-million dollar house to have a good life. I need it."

What is this "a good life" that justifies plunder? Does everyone deserve "a good life"? Obviously not! If I decide that my hobby is to kill children and then rape their mothers, then I don't deserve "a good life." I think most Leftists would agree with me on that. (I personally believe that if such horrible actions were truly my behavior, then I would deserve to suffer and die the way my victims suffered and died, but that's a different discussion.) So let's go up the ladder of bad behavior and decide where the cutoff is between "a good life" and "prison." What if I'm not a murderer, but merely a rapist? Okay, what if I'm not a rapist, but I make a living mugging people at gunpoint (but don't actually shoot or kill anyone)? Okay, suppose I have seven breaking-and-entering charges against me. What if it's only six? Or one? What if I'm just lazy and can't keep a job because I would rather smoke pot and play video games all day long? At what point does "prison" turn into "a good life"?

My guess is that if you ask 1,000 different Leftists where the cutoff is then you're going to get 1,000 different answers.

Now let's discuss what perks are to be included in "a good life." Do I get a house? Or just an apartment? Does it have to be in a "safe" part of town? Am I entitled to children? Does that entitlement depend on "how good" of a parent I am? Do I get a free education? Through college? Even if I change majors nineteen times and it takes me twenty years to graduate? How about food? Do I get to eat lobster and rack of lamb once a week or five times per week? Or will it be decided that eating some things (fill in the food items that violate your particular food morality) will be considered "unhealthy" and thus not part of "a good life"? What about clothing? Do I get designer clothes? Am I entitled to impress my friends so that I may have a high self-esteem?

I could go on and on. My guess is that you ask 1,000,000 different Leftists what all is included in "a good life" then you're going to get 1,000,000 different answers.

The "a good life" is one of the superstitious beliefs in Leftism. It goes hand-in-hand with "the common good." The "a good life" is frequently invoked but rarely named, and it is most frequently argued with an example of a person who is not deemed to be living in "a good life." It's easy to show an example of what "a good life" is NOT, but it's impossible to show what "a good life" IS.