My True Feelings

Well, in a comment that supergoober left, he asked me this question, and I do feel obliged to answer it. But before I get to that, I looked at the settings, and got rid of the ID and word verification restrictions - just didn't realize that I had them on (or even what they were), but all is well, now. Also, you may notice that partway through the blog, paragraphs are separated by bullets. For some reason, as I typed, and hit enter after a paragraph, there was no additional space inserted. When I tried to put space in by editting this post after publishing, it wouldn't register the extra spaces I inserted, so I just added the bullets to break up the otherwise monolithic text. Sorry.

So, I figure that I will start with the goob's question:

My question for you is why DON'T you have a problem with:
folks who believe in Creationism as a scientific theory? who treat the Bible as
a scientific and historical document? who believe that homosexuality is an
abomination? and for that matter, to folks on the extreme Left and Right who,
via policy and law, effort to design a world based on their narrow views of what
a moral, just, and righteous society should look like?

Honestly, I do have a problem with those people, and with many others who cling to patently ignorant ideas. But if I let every little thing like that get to me I would have slit my wrists long ago (and trust me, I have enough desire to do that anyway, that I don't need to give myself additional reasons). In all seriousness, however, I think that you understand that I am intensely bothered by extreme religious beliefs - people who cling to an idea with unshakable faith can be very persuasive and very powerful. I am more frightened, however, of people who cling to religious beliefs but do not acknowledge them as such. Those are the people who are really dangerous and try to remake the world according to their narrow set of ideals.

But in actuality, we all have this tendency. All of us have an idea of the ideal society, and feel that our way is the best, and, I suppose, would impose that on others if we could. A vision for a moral, just, and righteous society is not bad, and I do not believe that most evangelicals in a position of power in America would remake the society in their image. It is not possible given the prohibition against establishment of a religion (which has bloated out far beyond the founders original ideals into a nebulous concept of "separation of church and state").

The greater danger comes from people whose faith is dogmatic but is in a more conventional, secular issue. I'll give you an example: Palin is pro-life. Period. End-of-story. She will not be able to pass a federal law banning abortions, even if she were president. Any executive order would be unenforceable, she couldn't write or sponsor legislation, if she had help in the Legislature, it would never pass, and even a conservative supreme court would strike it down. However, suppose Obama has an unshakable faith in the "windfall profits" tax. He has a number of different options because the issue can be framed in a way to promote class divisiveness, and there are many in the legislature who would help to pass this merely to shore up support from people who can be swayed by class envy. It would probably not ever reach a court challenge, and it would have far reaching implications in the fact that the government had set the precedent of deciding what is "too much" profit. This is a huge step towards an unsustainable socialized economy.

How about another example - one that actually occurred, and was very popular and is still causing deaths in the millions to this day. It has to do with a religious fervor coupled with Michael Moore style deceit, and a profound lack of care for the ramifications of an action. I am talking about the ban of DDT that Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring helped to push through. So thoroughly have her ideas pervaded our society, that even my mention of the chemical probably conjures up ideas of dead condors and poisoned children. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Carson was an excellent and passionate writer, and in the early sixties (1963, I think) she wrote a groundbreaking book. Its title was frightening and evocative. With the widespread use of DDT, birds were dying in record numbers, and one day soon we could face a Spring without the sounds of birdsong. It is poetic, tragic, and moving, but it is patently untrue. Fortunately for us, it came after we had eliminated mosquito borne malaria through its use. While I will agree that there was significant overuse of the pesticide that was creating DDT-resistant strains of crop pest, we could have easily curtailed the use of the pesticide for those applications. The decline of the condor and the eagle has roots in an earlier problem - the fact that many states had bounties on large predatory birds and mammals, or ignored the hunting of those animals even if there were no bounties. As a result, the populations had been decimated up to the early forties, and were protected under law around 1958 (check the date, I'm really not sure). The populations had started to rebound by the time she was touting the dangers of DDT, and, although they were not anywhere near there pre-bounty numbers, they were recovering. She used innuendo, blending of rhetoric with carcinogens and nuclear scares (very real in that era), and related pesticides with other drugs that were not even closely related. She tied DDT into chemical weapons research for WWI and WWII, which was totally untrue, and she made bold statements connecting DDT and thalidomide (the drug that was a morning sickness cure that caused horrible deformities in infants) as part of our rush to use something new without knowing the consequences. She conveniently ignored that the FDA had never approved thalidomide, and that the European and Canadian method of testing drugs on their population was largely to blame for this disaster. She cherry-picked data that supported her, and there were no scientists who read the book that did not have major criticisms of the "science" in it. However, it was very moving, and swayed people and politicians alike, and DDT was banned in the US. For a while we continued to produce it for other nations, but eventually people didn't like that either - if it is too dangerous for us, they reasoned, why should we ship it to other parts of the world to be dangerous to others?.

So DDT was completely banned, and here is the problem. There has never been a case where DDT has caused any physiological problems. Several scientists regularly consume tablespoons of the stuff at demonstrations to show how safe it is to mammals (receiving upwards of 2000 times the dose that most animals in the wild and workers in industries affected would be exposed to). Here is the real kicker, though. DDT is the most effective pesticide for controlling diseases like typhus and malaria - the two biggest insect-borne killers in history. Since the ban, Africa has been particularly hard hit, but so has the rest of the world. In total, more than 500 million people have died in areas where DDT spraying could have prevented the transmission of these diseases. This high mortality rate has crippled third world countries and kept them in constant states where there is no chance of economic viability, damning the surviving population to subsistence existences. Let me give you an example of the positive impact of DDT. South Africa began spraying in 1946, and by 1948, malaria had dropped to 10% of the cases reported in 1943. By 1950, most of Central America had wiped out malaria, dengue, and yellow fever because of DDT. Most places could count on complete eradication of these diseases in 20 to 30 years of use. It is not harmful to humans, however. In Georgia, in tests on DDT, men ingested 35 milligrams daily for 2 years and suffered no ill effects. None of this mattered, however.

Such was the power of this secular but profoundly faith-driven belief that more than 1/2 a billion people have died worldwide as a result. That's about 8% of the world's current population, so, supergoober, if you want to know what really frightens me, it isn't religious kooks who are out about the fact that all they have to back up their arguments is faith, its the secular kooks who have total faith and are willing to sacrifice millions on the altars of their belief system. Ironically, that bitch had cancer, with respiratory infections on the side, and died of a heart attack at age 56 in 1964 (and no, she was not exposed to DDT, that didn't cause her cancer). My fervent hope is that if hell does exist, she is there, treading on her little road of good intentions that are actually shards of glass flaying her feet, ankles, and calves, and that she is suffering the most horrible torments imaginable, and that some of the five hundred million plus deaths for which she is personally responsible are there to torment her as part of their eternal bliss. So know you now a little of why I am passionate about science and actually using your brain in concert with your heart. But I suppose I have digressed somewhat from my original point. (BTW, I think that the jackassery surrounding the fervor over global warming could go in this direction, too, but that is for a later date - sorry if I have offended by saying that, but rest assured that I will back up what I say with facts).

All that having been said, let me go back to something supergoober mentioned - creationism. It is not science. There is no way any idiot should ever confuse a creation myth that they believe in with scientific fact. Anyone who advocates its teaching in a public school is an ass, and should be flogged soundly for thinking anything so preposterous. If you want to teach that crap as "science" in your biblical school - fine by me, that's your right, but your still an idiot. But I also oppose the deification of Darwinian evolution by morons who have no clue about Darwin or about the faults in his theory, or that punctuated evolution is probably a more accurate interpretation of the way things have happened. Not to mention, they conveniently ignore his contributions to the early eugenics movements, racism, and his actual endorsement of "social Darwinism" in his book, The Descent of Man. This one book had a hand in promoting racial superiority theory, controlling reproductive rights of the poor and unfit, and advocating the abandonment of virtues like charity that promote survival of the "unfit". To look at Darwin without these is almost as bad as trying to claim creationism is science. Do not try to justify your belief in evolution with outmoded science from a hundred years ago - Darwin has almost as many mistakes as Lamarck, get with the program and deal with modern biology. Okay, this is probably just a pet peeve of mine, but Darwin is not the f***ing Messiah of science. The biologists who have toiled since and made actual improvements in their field of study are largely ignored by ignorant masses trying to lay claim to some pretense at knowledge by throwing his name around with the same religious fervor that creationists have. I just wish people would modernize their scientific references, I guess. So yes, creationists who try to push their views as science can go f*** themselves. If you want to believe in that as a creation myth, so what.

As to the moral, just, and righteous society, all major religions pretty much say the same thing about this, so I don't really need to retread this ground. In fact, most evangelicals fall in line with majority worldviews - I don't think that makes them right, but it makes it harder to maintain your (and my) views on many issues. And even the most ardent evangelical does not advocate the killing of homosexuals - they fall back on the "hate the sin, not the sinner" line to avoid that issue - but throughout much of the rest of the world homosexual conduct is punishable by death (stoning to death in much of the middle east for example). As strident as most evangelicals are, they do not quite get to the level of nuttiness in this country because of that little phrase, "hate the sin, not the sinner"; a mantra they use to make themselves feel better about their repressive tendencies. Where is this discussion going; I really don't know, but suffice it to say, I fear the Devil I know less than the Devil I don't.

Back to the Abstinence Issue

Supergoober, I figured that you would agree with me, and I do not want you to think that I am trying to advance/advocate Palin's position, just wanted to enumerate my own. In response to the statement that you made about education and the removal of the parent and/or values from the equation, I do not just blame the Left. Yes, it has been part of a secularizing agenda on their part, and removing morality in any sense from education has long been a pet peeve of the Left, while trying to replace traditional moral teaching with a moral sense that is excessively ambiguous at best, I do not remove the Right from their fault in this discussion.

And this takes us back to civility in political discussions. Back in the day, when politics was civil, and people met and had drinks and cigars after a long day debating in the senate, a great many back room deals took place. The two sides were not really far of from each other in perspective, and, in many ways, they were much more elitist then than the are now. Politics was for the moneyed left and right (still is in many ways), so most perspectives were elitist and authoritarian. It wasn't so much about advancing any cause as it was about advancing personal power and, since information was not as readily available, convincing people that you had their best interests at heart. There were racists and sexists equally inhabiting both sides of the aisle, and they were comfortable with one another. As the information age progressed, this became less and less possible, because people could easily find voting records, background info, etc. It became more likely for politicians to actually have repercussions for their voting records. All this led to the current divisions we have (there are obviously many, many other factors, but I don't have time to discuss those now).

Digression aside, here is the problem. The Left looked at schools as indoctrination centers for their perspectives, and worked on getting their agenda in place in curricula across the nation. The Right did not care to try and stop this. That is where I find that both sides are at fault. While I condemn the Left for the efforts (despite best intentions) I equally condemn the Right for not trying to stop the process. Instead, they adopted a "wait and see" approach, and are now using a catastrophe that they could have prevented to mobilize their base. Obviously, I do not necessarily blame the new Right for this perspective, they are trying to make up for the screw ups of the older guard of the party, but the Left still clings to its idealized secular humanist agenda that is patently silly.

I do think that you are a bit on the judgemental side, however. A person can provide a good environment, a good message, support, and that person's kids can still screw up. Indicting an entire system of beliefs based on one incident is ridiculous - should your parents or mine receive blame for all of our actions as youths? I remember a car surfing incident that I had at 16, my parents would have been horrified (at least my mom, anyway), they did nothing to encourage me to do this, I was an intelligent kid, but it seemed like it would be fun at the time. That is the dilemma of the teenage years - they are going through transitions to adulthood, making decisions on the spur of the moment, and dealing with the consequences. In many ways, I think that the message Palin sends by helping her daughter through a pregnancy is more important than the fact that her daughter got pregnant. But either way, it is a bit much to attribute her political views to direct results of her children's actions. We don't know how she is as a parent, she could be wonderful, she could be an abusive bitch. We will likely never know this, and to make assumptions based on the fact that you do not like her politics is the height of folly. To discount an entire movement based on the actions of one child is as foolish as trying to institute a policy of creationism in schools. You are reacting viscerally to your distaste for what she represents to you - she embodies everything you dislike about the religious right, and you make sure that she fits your idea of the perfect symbol for everything that is wrong in politics. I would warn you against that, because it is almost as silly as the religious right's belief that Bill Clinton is the Antichrist or the religious Left's belief that G.W. Bush is the incarnation of evil.

Not that I am accusing you of that, supergoober, but I would warn you that this is the path that you are travelling on, and if you do not wish to become that which you loathe, I would warn you to take a couple of deep breaths, find out what it is you don't like about Palin and disentangle it from your personal baggage about religion. It will help you in the long run.

About the teen pregnancy, abortion, etc controversy with education, if you look up the stats, teen pregnancy peaked in about 1991, and has been dropping ever since, except for a rise last year. The right would have you believe that the increase was due to the advance of condom programs and sex education, while the decline has to do with their efforts and excellent parenting. The left would have you believe that the repressive nature of the Reagan/Bush 1 era led to the increases, and the education and condom distribution efforts have worked. I used the numbers from the Guttmacher Institute (even though there have been questions of their methodology - they are closely associated with Planned Parenthood, and have some biases in these matters) because they are, while not completely reliable, at least internally consistent.

The reality of the situation is much more complex then either side believes, and I would contend that there are a huge number of societal issues invested in these trends. From conservative backlashes to socioeconomic situations, to the psychological nature of human beings. If you want my assessment, there are probably aspects of both sides that are correct. Condoms, education, abstinence, and good parenting have all contributed. But the nature of humanity is such that as people feel safe they engage in riskier behavior - I wouldn't be surprised if teen pregnancy and abortion rates start to rise again, and after several years of that begin to fall. It is the same thing that happened with AIDS - as consciousness rose, people took steps to prevent the transmission, and once the tide appeared to be stemmed, people engaged in risky behavior again. The microcosm of this was the homosexual community, but they provide a psychological insight into the human condition. When the perceived risk is high, we avoid stupid behaviors, when the risk appears low, we engage in stupidity again. Couple this fact with the consumption of disinhibitors among the teen population, and the natural tendency of teenagers to underestimate risk, I wouldn't be surprised if we see a cyclical trend establish itself.

Simple Solutions to Complex Problems

Just a brief blog, on a couple of topics that concern our social structure and educational systems. Supergoober has recently made much of an "abstinence only" curriculum, and has referenced expert knowledge being transmitted in classrooms. I do want to mention a few things in reference to this, and no this will not be an nCr, though many of you might believe that it is. Currently, sex education is not necessarily being taught by "experts" with "expert knowledge". If that were the case, I would approach this topic a little bit differently, but not much. Most education in the public schools of America is, at best, done in a morally neutral tone, and at worst in a tone favorable to amorality.



Quick side note: I am not advocating that schools immediately begin teaching homosexuality is evil, promiscuity is bad, and that one should be ashamed of their sexuality - these are religious strictures and are separate from morality. True morality is independent of religion, though most religions adhere to moral as well as religious strictures (incidentally, it is hard to come up with morality without some concept of higher being, but more on that in a later blog), and disentangling the two has become so difficult, especially with Church/State issues, that the proverbial baby has been chucked out with the bathwater (please forgive the cliche', but they are cliche' for a reason - they do a good job describing the situation at hand).



I would advocate a abstinence based sexual education for several reasons, all of which are grounded in good health, good math, and psychological well-being. Before getting into the reasons, which I will detail below, I know that there is a hue-and-cry going up as you read this; "But theprofessor, hormones are raging in kids and they are going to do this whether we put prohibitions on them or not, so we need them to be safe." This is perhaps the weakest argument ever, and nothing pisses me off more than this. Just because people will engage in a certain behavior is no reason not to try and help stem the tide of behavior that is risky or dangerous. There have always been rapists and murders, so why try and stop them. An extreme example, I know, but once you say that "people will do it anyway", you can apply that logic to anything, and you will get absurd notions. The whole reason for this argument is that people are reticent to try and impose strictures on children because of the liberal nature of are society (not in the political sense, but in the sense that we value personal freedom), and they look for any excuse not to censure behavior. But children are different - they are not fully developed physically, psychologically, or morally; to expect adult behavior from them in terms of sexuality.

So here are some reasons, and I will follow with just a few musings on health and boundaries established by adults for kids.

1. With abstinence, you have a zero percent chance of getting a disease or getting pregnant. Given the risk involved with most birth control methods (even condoms) transmission of diseases is imminently possible. Couple the unreliability of birth control with the likelihood of its misuse when substances are involved, this is a legitimate argument. The major diseases like AIDS, hepatitis, and others are prevented by condoms, but warts, herpes, crabs, etc. are not stopped by condom use. The pill, a middle to upper middle class favorite, prevents pregnancy well, but nothing else.
2. Ignoring abstinence as an option ignores the psychological and emotional well-being of the kids involved. It is easy to adopt a stance of, "Just inform them and let them choose," but this actually trivializes the impact of adolescent sexuality on the development of personality and the implications of early sexual expression on later relationships. It becomes easier for the objectification of women to be confounded with sex for boys the younger they engage in sexual behavior - developmentally, their hormones are running rampant, and if they are given license it becomes easier for them to just look at women as objects. Similarly, girls can develop into a psychological state where sex is a mean to an ends. Both of these cases inhibit healthy sexual expression later in life. I am not saying that this a guarantee, I am just talking tendencies.
3. Children need the adults in their life to place boundaries on them. It is the existence of these boundaries that shows the children that someone really does care about them. Parents are primarily responsible for this, but removing the teacher from this role has a deleterious affect on the relationship between student and teacher, and the myth of remaining "morally neutral" can lead to the exact disaster that we have in schools now. There is a reason that the only statistically significant deviation from public schools for private schools occurs in schools that have a well-established mission and moral purpose. Not everyone necessarily adheres to it or agrees with it, but everyone knows that the standards of the community are in place, and those values are enforced.

Okay, now to expand on this idea a little bit. I do not suggest that we simply abandon sex education in the schools. I do believe it is the parent's responsibility as the primary educators, but the job of the school is to support that role. There are reasons that underage sex is against the law. If you are under the age of 18, you cannot legally consent to anything. This is a nod to developmental psychology, and is the reason why statutory rape laws are still in place. Teenage relationships are often experiments in power struggles as well as the first tentative movements towards self-control, self-awareness, and awareness of the value in another person. The awakening of this awareness of another persons value, of caring about someone else's well-being even if you do not benefit from it, is a vital part of adult socialization (one need only point at the high divorce rate, and the high level of self-absorption of the so-called cosmopolitan city folk to notice a correlation here). In case you didn't guess, I do not at all ascribe to the "Hobbesian" vision of human nature.

If we simply give licence to any behavior, even if it is only by tacitly approving by not putting any boundaries, we lower young people's chances of a health development. The amount of pressure that guys are capable of exerting on girls is exponentially more vast when sexual behavior is commonplace and acceptable. It virtually nullifies the concept of date rape, because the girl is actually assumed to be able to consent, when she is not. Similarly, boys are told that it is totally okay if their penises control their lives. Look at the messages that are sent if you do not believe this: if there is no prohibition against adolescent sex, and it is just a choice, then it is hard to remain credible by telling boys it is not okay to pressure a girl for sex. Even though we can still ostensibly send that message, it lacks any impact. If sexual expression is just a choice, what's wrong with persuading someone else?

And of course, I could go on, but I will just reiterate that the psychological impact of early sexuality is dramatic (supergoober, I am sure you could back me up on this, and I hope you will). The ease with which one could engage in sexual behavior can have a significant emotional impact - it could actually create a barrier to forming a healthy relationship - people will favor casual random encounters and will have little to no idea of how to build the solid foundation a real, long-term relationship needs.

And, of course, the long term implication of adolescent sexuality is the decriminalization of pedophilia. I know that this seems extreme, but we are already seeing this in isolated cases; teachers sleeping with students. If we say that kids are able to consent to sex with one another, then why can they not consent with adults. Of course this is absurd while you adhere to the idea that kids can't consent, but if you abandon that idea, then you sidestep the power issues involved in a relationship and make it a legitimate legal question. This is what I find most frightening about the logical extension of adolescent sexuality - the long term degradation of the protections that we have in place for children.

The whole issue is not nearly as simple as either side would make it, and I could go on and on and on; and I am sure that I will after receiving some negative comments, but I would like to end with one other thought.

I know that there are many cultures worldwide where people are married early, and sex for young people is totally acceptable. Many of these cultures are subsistence level - you must marry by 12 or 14 because life-expectancies are so low and infant mortality is so high that people are forced to adult responsibilities very young - not an appropriate model. A culture like Japan, however, is homogeneous and has had that tradition for a very long time and has, as a society, developed social and psychological mechanisms to cope with that (and there is a reason most people in other nations say "What the F**K is up with the Japanese!?) To expect that we could adopt those mores without repercussions is naive at best.

Well, I'm gonna go now, see you soon. I guess it wasn't that brief, and I only addressed one topic, but what the hell!

I remember now

So, I remembered the funny thing I was going to mention, and its a lucky thing, too. I was half asleep this morning at 8 am (late for me, I know) and I sort of played through a mini story in my head that I thought would make a halfway decent joke. I should have written it down then, because in my sleep adled state, I often come up with halfway decent ideas, but if I don't write them down, I forget them - a common occurence with dreams, I understand. Anyway here goes - just a little joke, I'm using G.W. Bush, but use your favorite elected leader of any nation, and the joke will work just as well:

So President Bush wakes up the day after the election, and remembers the elation he felt the previous night when he realized he had won. He decides, as head of state, to have a little fun with his powers and kind of rub it in to those Europeans who always have that snooty attitude. So he starts by getting on the phone, and he tells the operator, "Get me the queen of England," and the operator dutifully obliges. The Queen comes on, and Bush says, "So I'm sure you've heard that I won, and I think, just to honor your traditions of monarchies over there, I'm going to change the official title of the USA to 'Kingdom'."

She responds in her very prim and proper voice, "Well, Mr. Bush, I'm afraid you can't do that, you see you were elected, so you are not a king."

"Hmm... I guess that is so, isn't it. Maybe I'll call it a, ah, whatchacallem, a 'Empire' - that has a nice ring to it, don't it?"

Again, in her most proper tone, "I'm afraid your not a emperor either, Mr. Bush, so perhaps you should reconsider the whole renaming thing."

"No, no, no, I love the idea, and I have to celebrate mah victory," and his brow furrows and he thinks for a while, and finally exclaims, excitedly, "I've got it - I can be an 'Principality'."

"I am afraid not," the Queen responds, exasperation sounding in her voice, "you aren't an prince, either. Perhaps you should just stick with 'country', I think it describes you best."


It works better out loud, I think that it lacks the impact in print, and in case you didn't get the joke because of poor delivery on my part, say, out loud "kingdom, king, empire, emperor, principality, prince, country, and ______, just fill in the blank... If you still don't get it, well, there's no cure for stupid ;)

L5R and Something Fun

Well, just want to recap the rather short game from last night (ran from about 6:30 pm to midnight), because I am really getting tired of the maudlin, pessimistic, and cynical views that my friends who, I dare say, may be excessively emotionally enmeshed in current politics, or who may just know that they know better than everyone else - and we all should know that I really am the elitist who actually knows better than everyone else ;) - I think its time to just have a bit o' fun.



So here's what happened last night: Mirumoto Shogo, Matsu Tengu, Kakita Iori, and Shinjiro (this is theacupuncturist, raveboy, theGM, and NTTSbrain aka theArtist aka stephen, respectively) left supergoob's character in the safety of Aruhito's barrow to recover from the unfortunate poisoning incident caused by his overzealous meditiation to purse the bell clapper and the post from which to hang the Bell of Denshiro, in an attempt to lift the curse on the valley. Following the advice of Matsu Tengu, they traveled down a oreviously unexplored path and found the decaying remains of a village, which Tengu recognized as the village represented in Aruhito's barrow. In the clearing, virtually nothing was left of the forest, but at the treeline there were three decrepit huts with a fourth hut in remarkably well preserved condition standing behind them on stilts. Shogo and Iori pressed forward, with Shogo taking the lead, and as he was passing the three decrepit huts, Iori noticed that the huts were inhabited - and the battle ensued.



They were then attacked by three mujina (a misnomer for the actual Japanese ghost/monster the Noppera-Bō), a faceless demon who terrifies all those who meet its "gaze". In actuality, it only terrorized Shinjiro, and with significant effort, the three were dispatched, but not before the PCs discovered their unusually frightening ability to mimic Rank Techniques of the people that it fights. That caused a tad of consternation, I can tell you. Anyway, here is an old-timey drawing of a Noppera-Bō:

A Noppera-bō, by Asai Ryōi in his Otogi Boko (image from wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noppera-b%C5%8D)

Anyway, they found an excellent Go set in the possession of the Noppera-Bō, and in the peaceful hut discovered the bell clapper as well.

From there they attempted to ring the bell again (on the island) and in trying to get to the island, were separated - Iori was dropped on the Island with the clapper, Shogo was heading back on the boat, and Tengu and Shinjiro awaited on the shore. A wall of water erupted around Shogo, where he was attacked by a Kansen; simultaneously, Iori was attacked by several Kumo on the island, and Tengu and Shinjiro were attacked by zombies who lumbered up out of the water and tried to get them. (Nushi the Bog Hag was quite busy setting that one up, I can tell you, but she had observed how you got to and from the island before, and set things up to try and prevent the ringing of the bell)

Iori successfully slew the kumo, Shogo fended of the kansen (or at least was not hit by it), and Shinjiro again failed his fear test and panicked at the sight of the 10 zombies. Tengu wrested him to the ground to attempt to reinstill some semblance of dignity in the ronin, and despite the best efforts of the GM with allowing rerolls, and trying to keep Shinjiro in the fight, he kept failing the rolls (I figured out that he actually had only about a 5.5% chance of failing all three rolls that I allowed - way to buck those odds, NTTsbrain, you should try Vegas; all in all it was a dismal night of rolling for him - sucks when you do everything right, and the dice just stab you in the back). Anyway, by the time Tengu actually knocks some sense into him, they are surrounded by zombies, Shinjiro finally manages to cast a Castle of Water, isolating 4 zombies in it with them, and they eventually polish of all of them (not before Tengu does a couple of full attacks, gets the crap smacked out of him because his TN is so low - 32 wounds from a hit with a 5k2 damage, plus acquiring 9 boxes of Taint - ouch - I actually rolled 3 tens on the 5k2, but only got to keep the two :( )

Finally, they are all at the island, and the bell still doesn't ring, so they go down the last path, find a bridge with several statues of shi-shi on it, solve the riddle, get the bell post, and are jumped by goblins on the way back to the island - Shinjiro gets his first taste of being hit by a maho spell (not too bad, but startling to start bleeding for no reason). Shogo wades through the goblins, with good support from the others, and they get to the island, ring the clear resounding note of the Bell of Denshiro, now in its complete state, and the web overshadowing the valley dissipates. They then rest in Aruhito's hut for the coming onslaught against Orite the kumo-kunshu.

Back in the clearing with the entrance to the hut, they figure out the tori arch problem, and descend into the lair of Orite - in the darkness of the first room, they encounter a few vipers, which Shogo dispatches with ease, then they peer through the darkness, looking for Orite.

And there they find her. A battle ensues where Orite is slain, there is much honor and glory for the four participants, as well as much experience, and the discovery of a bunch of spell scrolls for Shinjiro, a pile of semi-precious stones, and several fine weapons and armor suits of significant historical interest...

Ah, I can hear supergoober's wail of despair right now, so I will reveal that the last paragraph didn't happen. They stopped in the antechamber after Shogo slew the snakes because I was tired, and because I wanted to save the final battles for when a couple more people were there and I was a bit better prepped.

Anyway, I'm tired of writing, and I just heard Obama say something incredibly funny/stupid about the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac thing, and then heard an almost equally inane remark by McCain, and I am reassured in my belief that they are virtually the same candidate... but more on that later. It is a beautiful foggy day outside, much cooler than it has been, and I am going to go take a shower and then play some Tenchu: Fatal Shadows, just cause I feel like assassinating stuff (don't worry, this has nothing to do with the presidential candidates, I started yesterday because I was trying to get into the Japanese fantasy game mood, and I had forgotten how fun that game actually was)

And I guess I never got to whatever the something fun was, I don't even remember why I came up with that title, but WTF, I'll think of something funny to write later.

Response to Supergoober's pessimism

First of all, supergoober, re your last comment, I didn't know I had any word verification active, and will disable it once you tell me what it is and how to do that. Commenting on the green business is going to come at a later date; suffice it to say that I am four-square for the environment, but it has to be done sensibly. The only way that anyone anywhere gets to a point where they can care about their surroundings is when their immediate needs are met. This requires a sufficient amount of economic growth that can only be currently done with a combination of capitalism and fossil fuels (but more on that later). So far, every nation that has ever cleaned up has done so after they have reached a certain point in economic development. The psychology behind this should be obvious - Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. No need to explain that to you, supergoober, but I will expound on that later. Their is also an economic theory dealing with this, the name eludes me right now, but I will post on it later.

As to the conservative/religious nature of politics - that is inescapable. Any human being has some aspect of a spiritual life, even if it is atheism - and yes, atheism, is a type of faith - again that is for a later discussion, but it takes as much faith to believe in nothing as it does to believe in something. Plus most atheists either are so bland about it that they are actually agnostics but unwilling to admit it, or they believe in secular humanism with a kind of faith that would make most evangelical christians blush in embarrassment at the slavish devotion and lack of reason involved.

Anyway, everyone's politics and life are informed by their faith, and we should not and cannot expect the political life to be any different. Palin is the governor of a small state (population and economic -wise, not geographically) and so has all the problems of most small states - limited budget with a lot of federal strictures - even more so in that state because of the wilderness preserves, so she, like every small state governor, has made difficult decisions that have impacted her constituents. Those decisions have typically involved members of both parties; she even ousted a Republican incumbent to take the job in the first place. Even Bill Clinton did this - to make up for low tax income for the state of Arkansas when he was governor, he made the sales tax apply to food and other essentials. This is a direct tax increase on the poor and middle class, and it did increase state revenues dramatically. It was a shit move, but it was the best, quickest way to increase state revenue, while distributing the impact to the greatest number of people. (In a way, it was the ultimate fair tax - everyone eats, everyone pays... the more you eat the more you pay - fair taxation isn't always what we want - just taxation is actually the goal - that's why the current tax structure is the way it is)

The point is, everyone makes tough decisions in politics, these decisions are in part influenced by our faith and our belief system. This is true for Republicans, Democrats, Green Party, Libertarians, etc. To deny that is to deny our own humanity. To fall back on "science" as a justification is fine - any decision should be informed by faith, emotion, and intellect. To say that we should rely on only one aspect is to deny two-thirds of our humanity. The problem with the science justification, especially for people who deny the faith aspects of their lives, is that they will place their faith in science that fulfills whatever belief system they espouse. For example, people who are die hard in their faith that human beings are destroying the planet look for information that validates their belief. Because their faith and intellect are excessively intermingled, they forget the skepticism that is required in good science (incidentally, this is a common mistake among scientists - they start with a preconceived notion and then set up experiments that validate their beliefs - this is why the debate between particle physicists and wave physicists is so virulent - students adhere to their teachers beliefs with a slavish devotion approaching the apostolic while considering their opponents apostatic; since they lack the intellectual objectivity or capability of their teachers, they cannot truly come up with anything novel)

Anyway, long story short, supergoober, here is why you should be consoled. Palin is not going to be a main policy maker - her opinions resonate with a large part of America for good reason - they reject the intellectual elitism that characterizes many "big city" folk. You and I, at times, embody that elitism - we are both smart and can overgeneralize that others are stupid (maybe I'm projecting on you supergoober, but I often make this mistake). Many of the big city liberals are no smarter than the small town conservatives; their value systems are not too different, though both sides cling to the belief that their systems are antithetical, and like to judge each other (much of your last two blogs were exceedingly judgemental, BTW).

Given research on intelligence, the bell curve does apply and the distribution of smart and dumb people is even. I am no smarter by virtue of where I live or by what party's beliefs I adhere to - the sooner all of us realize this and stop making judgements based on where someone lives, or what their accents are, or what side of the aisle they are on politically, the better off we all will be.

Given your recent rants, as well as duff's responses, I would suggest that you actually refrain from judging based on party affiliation, or the snapshots that the media gives you on either side. Each person on each side is just a person, with all the flaws and foibles of all of humanity, no better or worse, and while we do hold our leaders to higher standards (as we should - despite some indications otherwise by theacupuncturist in some of our conversations) we must not judge a person based on a snapshot. It is fine to hate George W. Bush's policies and to think that they do not make sense with your belief system, but to believe that he is evil, or an idiot, or the antichrist verges on the religious, and detracts from the ability to make good political decisions. Once you have decided he is evil, or is stupid, even if he adopts a policy you like, you could never admit it. I can say the same about Obama. Believing him to be a fool, un-American, unpatriotic, etc. is the height of stupidity - you might disagree with his politics, his policies that he wants to instate (though these are a bit thin, if you ask me - he hasn't consistently enumerated what he wants to do as President, yet - he better do that soon if he hopes to win - the swing vote that is required for election will never go his way without some idea of what he hopes to do), but to try to assume his motives are evil or anti American is pure foolishness. I disagree with this type of thinking on both sides, and I think that because of your fervent hope for a reconciliatory candidate, as Obama promised to be, has led you to despondency, supergoober, for a couple of reasons.

1) He has not been at all conciliatory, as you had hoped. His rhetoric does not really match up well with the perspective in his memoirs that had enamored you.
2) McCain and Palin seem to be an actual dynamic team, much more so than Obama and Biden, and you had a vested emotional interest in Obama, based on a fantasy that you had constructed about him bringing civility back into politics.

With these two factors, especially your emotional involvement, it is no wonder that you are depressed and angry about this. Take a step back, look realistically at the situation, and realize that if either one is elected, they will not do much drastically different, politics will not really change, and you will have to go on living your day-to-day life, making your own personal choices that will, by and large, have a much greater impact on your life than anything in Washington can have on you.

I know that awareness of causes espoused by one side or another is what is really important to many people, and as theperfectline has said to me repeatedly (despite my aggrieved protestations to the opposite) awareness of the issue at hand is most important. This is another symptom of what I have said before about faith and intellectual elitism. To say that it is okay to provide disinformation to encourage belief in something, or getting people to do the wrong thing because it gets them to be thinking about the right thing (recycling paper - bad for the environment, but people are more aware of the environment so they should keep doing it... or equating abortion rates to the murders in Nazi Germany... or equating animal rights abuses to human rights abuses as PETA does in their adverts). There is a name for this - it is called propaganda. It is a classic end justifies the means strategy that you can only adopt when you have absolute faith that you are right, and you know that all the sheeple around you can't come to the same conclusions as you because they are just not as smart as you - it is therefore up to you to change as much data as necessary to convince the stupid people of the validity of your cause. This is practiced with more zeal on the left then on the right, probably because the right gets it out of their system in the evangelizing christianity - just a theory, but maybe because they have an appropriate outlet for faith, they don't need to proselytize for a political end, they already do it for a social end. They still make the mistake sometimes (not all of them, just like not all on the left make the mistake of mixing faith and politics) of trying to institute excessively theological policies in government - resulting in the same kind of zealotry as on the religious left. A bit rambling, I know, but the point ultimately is that faith, intellect and emotion need to be equally balanced parts of the equation of everyone's lives -not excessively compartmentalized, nor excessively intermingled, but really more of a syncretic whole. So just take care, be introspective, and check out how you are thinking and feeling as you proceed.

Not that I think I have all the answers, but this works for me, and I think it might be the way that we work, but I can't ever bring myself to be arrogant enough to think that I have all the answers, but what the hell, I gave it a shot.

Gotta go now, I have lots more to say on this and many other subjects, but I really need to prep the L5R game for today - you'll wanna show up guys, I think that you may be able to face down Orite today and help Takezo Fuhito recover before Winter Court.

My Pet Peeves

Well, after a long absence because of the first couple of weeks of teaching, I'm back. I was going to start of with something humorous, but supergoober has forced my hand and I will talk politics. Don't worry, this will not be just another neocon rant, I am actually going to list a number of my pet peeves about political discourse, including the judgemental attitude that supergoober had in his last blog - and, yes, it was angry and judgemental my friend, I am sure you realize that, but I believe that your assessment of politics and your die hard belief that centrism is the right way sort of misses the point.

There are points where compromise is the best, as a way to advance any ideology. The problem with this is that with incompatible arguments, compromises generally just piss off both sides. The classic example is the partial birth abortion bans that have been bandied about many legislatures for many years. The process is reprehensible to most pro-lifers and pro-choicers as it involves inducing labor on a 7 to 9 month old fetus, forcing a breach birth, and essentially stabbing the unborn child in the back of the head to scramble the brain and kill it. This has to be done while the head is still in the birth canal, because otherwise it would be considered infanticide. It is a rare procedure as there are not many doctors willing to do this (that any are in anything other than the most extreme circumstances makes me worry a bit) and as it is extremely dangerous and traumatic for the mother as well. The compromise that virtually all pro-life people are willing to make, even in politics, is when the life of the mother is jeopardized by the pregnancy. For the ardent pro-choice candidates, the political move is to try and replace life with health - lowering the standard to the point of absurdity - people have made the argument that pregnancy itself is a health risk (which is true) and so any term abortion can then be justified, effectively nullifying any compromise. To compromise to this point is anathema to the pro-life person and would not make sense to most Americans who fall somewhere between the two extremes were it ever explained this way. However, the pro-life people are cast as obstructionists who are unwilling to compromise in this situation.

Which leads me to my next pet peeve - compromise is always defined as conservatives moderating their beliefs and agreeing with liberals. It is frequently the Republicans who are accused of gridlock, and the Democrats are "sticking to their principles". In actuality, much of what supergoober wants is Republicans to abandon their principles - this is the definition of bipartisanship - Repubs moving over to the Dem position. If you look at it as actual motion to compromise, McCain has a great track record of reform and compromise, while Obama has never compromised on anything. I am not really in favor of either; many of McCain's compromises did not match my personal views, and I feel that he may have done some of those deals to get face time on the news and garner personal popularity.

As to supergoober's indictment of Palin's pleas to ignore Obama, I would agree with him if she said that (as I have said, I didn't hear the speech). I think that more people should listen to Obama critically (not in terms of criticism, but in terms of critically thinking). One would be hard pressed to find any actual policy stance on anything. He vacillates from one opinion to another, saying what needs to be said at any given time to appease whatever crowd he is in front of. He hesitates to be pinned down on anything for fear of alienating voters, and if he continues he will end up losing the election. Voters have classically voted for the person they think is honest and standing on their principles - that is leadership. People will vote for someone with actual vision, not banal platitudes. If Obama wants to get elected, all he has to do is elucidate his actual vision and not the bland rhetoric that is ultimately undefinable. It really is his election to lose, and if he continues in the current vein, then lose he will. The experience thing is not an issue, the authentic leadership is what may damn him in the eyes of the 10 percent of voters who actually decide the election.

The first bell for class has just rung, so I will continue this post later today.