Food for thought
Not sure how this tracks my view. Whether or not I fully agree with it, it's something I can live with. And if I found a problem with it, we could actually have an engaging conversation, unlike the case with those shrill people who carry on about keeping the U.S. government out of their uteri.

Without further ado, a lengthy quote from one Brink Lindsey (he's actually posting about cloning but this leads to a good digression):
On the one hand, I don't think a "blob of cells" embryo is a person -- if it doesn't even have a brain, it's not a person in my book. On the other hand, conception is an event with moral significance; it can't be equated with the generation of new skin cells. Something important has happened: A human life has begun.

And so, on abortion, I do not believe that early-pregnancy abortions should be criminalized -- no person has been harmed in a legally cognizable way. (At some point, well before full term, I do think that abortion merges into infanticide.) However, in my view even early-pregnancy abortions are unfortunate events -- they are the consequence of irreponsibility, and they should burden the consciences of the men and women who get themselves into the jam where abortion seems to be the least bad of the available options.

Interesting article but with no real point
A free-lance writer sends Reason a piece on the get-tough stance of Dr. Laura and Dr. Phil, yet doesn't bother to add anything in the way of analysis and critique. I'm disappointed. I wanted insight rather than just a summary of a bunch of stuff I already knew. Still, on trendspotting alone it's a good article idea.

As a former (college) newspaper editor I just hate to see when a good article idea fails to translate into a good final article.

I suppose it's never too late to convert.
Asking someone to change religions seems tacky to me, unless you're trying to get the love of your life to play on the same team as you. But still, the more bad things happen within the Roman Catholic church, the more relieved I become that by sheer chance I was born and raised a Lutheran. (Or any Protestant faith would have filled the bill.)

It's also a remarkable coincidence that I happen to believe most of what Martin Luther came to believe. It seems like too convenient a coincidence, where even though I say I came to the same conclusions through reason, the source of possible bias is still obvious.

In any case, three things Martin Luther was big on that I like a lot even though the Catholics seem to frown on all of them:
1. Lay interpretation of the Bible - In other words, think for yourself rather than blindly accepting what the priests tell you. One of the great things Luther did on this front was working to get the Bible translated into the native languages of everyday people who might actually read it. Odd to contrast to, for example, Islam, where the Koran is not only supposed to be the literal divine word of God but also impossible to translate meaningfully from Arabic.

2. Salvation through faith alone. Right now, Andrew Sullivan is up in arms about what will and won't get papal absolution. The whole idea seems silly to me. With all due respect to the Pontiff, I just can't see the value of being "forgiven" by any mortal man, when only God actually has that power. The idea that our good works have anything to do with whether we're Saved troubles me greatly, since by any reasonable standard just about every human being would fall well short of perfection.

3. Marriage as a vocation. That is, the idea that human love is something to be celebrated as complementary to the mission of a person of God, and not some sort of evil to be avoided. Going back to Sullivan lately, he's said a lot lately about the power of both love and sex. They seem to be so integral a part of human identity that putting anything in terms of resistance versus giving in seems to miss the point. Rather, two people can love each other (or love everyone, for certain values of "love") and by doing so... the words aren't coming out right but you get the general idea.

It hurts that I can't quickly find links to support what I'm saying. Maybe I'm just thinking too hard about old confirmation classes.

Businessmen versus Trial Lawyers
I despise trial lawyers. They're one of the few groups of people about whom I'll say that deadly seriously, without even qualification. This is why I'm not a lawyer. I went to law school, paradoxically, because I was disgusted with what lawyers had already done to life as I know it (includes everything from the baseball strike to all the good things people can't do anymore because they're worried about liability issues) and wondered if there was a way to improve things. So far as I can tell, there just isn't, at least not within the field of law.

But coming soon (2004), it looks like there's going to be a presidential election that centers on this whole issue. The trial lawyers owe their livelihood to their ability to persuade other people (jurors mainly, to a lesser extent politicians or voters) to despise and resent anyone who happens to have deep pockets. So as much bile as I spew here about the trial lawyers, you'll see that much and then some about the alleged "greedy businessmen."

Now I wish I hadn't deleted the anti-slave reparations rant, since it had a lot of bedrock-principle points about the difference between making something and taking it, between adding value to the whole system and just coercing other people into giving stuff to you.

In any case, watch this space closely in the coming months, especially if the Democratic primaries turn out how I think they will.

Screed Averted
I had a massive rant here about slavery reparations but thanks to blogger technical problems I don't think it ever saw the light of day. Just now I deleted it.

Basic point is the difference between positive-sum work (people going out, producing things, making a living, and so on ) and zero-sum work (taxes, trial lawyers, etc.).

This is all a big money grub (power grub?) where a group of thugs (not the descendants of slaves themselves but rather the demagogues they inexplicably support) wants to take a crapload of money from other people and use it to increase their own power.

The exact same thing happened with the tobacco company lawsuits. Certain people became filthy rich without really lifting a finger, just because they had the right political connections. The trial lawyers then take the same money that they coerced out of people and use it to buy still more politicians who will let them get their paws on still more suits like that. Granted, some of the money goes instead towards running a baseball team into the ground.

So what to do about slavery reparations? Admit that the slave traders and slave owners did an inhuman thing, then move on. Give the descendants of slaves a little help, but not (zero-sum) money. Rather (positive-sum) decent educations, better neighborhoods, and so on. And pass a law keeping this shit out of the courts, where it doesn't belong.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 4:29 PM
To: 'pundit@instapundit.com'
Subject: interracial data point

Hi,

I'm white; in high school I dated a black classmate. My parents said they had no problem with it but worried about what we'd do when society didn't approve. She had relatives who were up front that they didn't trust a white guy, though apparently when they met me they thought I was okay.

Contrary to some of your hate-mail, being exotic had nothing to do with it. Quite the opposite, we just had a lot of the same activities, plus she's a diehard baseball fan. Can't beat that.

The only racial issue I can remember is on prom night, when some rednecks in a car threw bottles at us as we waited on the sidewalk outside a downtown (Tulsa) restaurant. If that night wasn't the angriest I've been in my life, it's at least very close. Apart from that, nothing. Classmates supposedly stared at us holding hands. We might have had a good conversation or two during the L.A. riots, but so did everyone.

We broke up right before college. I haven't seen her since but whenever I saw my old (magnet) high school again I noticed all these racial issues that would've gone over my head at the time. College teaches people to see so many things in a racial light, yet I think I'd just as soon have stayed "ignorant" enough to still be color-blind.

I'd be surprised if I dated a black woman in the future, not because I avoid it but rather because of how my physical tastes have developed. The women who've caught my eye lately are so fair-skinned.

One of my best friends is very tall. He's told me that one criterion for his perfect match is height. It makes sense to me that a tall guy would tend towards preferring tall women. Along those lines, I'm a little big for my height; the range of women I find attractive runs maybe 15 pounds heavier than the range other guys find attractive.

Bottom line: Whether or not it's appropriate, I think people tend towards mates who are similar to them on anything from height or shape to race or religion to hobbies or pets. Maybe childbearing preferences. We're so subconsciously biases towards the familiar that I think some people are too quick to judge someone who thinks highly of someone or something unfamiliar.

I wonder at what point preferences become bright lines. My friend probably wouldn't refuse to date a short woman, if one otherwise compatible with him came along. I certainly wouldn't refuse to date a thin woman, though I might find her less attractive than my friends find her. I don't *think* I'd refuse to date a black woman. If this were a dorm room bull session, you could ask whether or why I'd refuse to date a man. I can't think of anything intelligent to say about that, at least not until I see Kissing Jessica Stein.

AND YET... maybe a lot of people feel as strongly hardwired to date people of a given race as they would to date people of a given sex. Even so, I think you were right to call out William Raspberry on his implicit assumption.

Matt
http://outersunset.blogspot.com

Don't read this if you're easily queasy. My head is still spinning. I might have to throw up. That's actually not an exaggeration. Getting work done today will be fun.

Politics, Society, & TMI
Compare Andrew Sullivan on the celibacy of his young adulthood (entry title The Morality of Non-Celibacy) to asparagirl on the "best activity of her weekend."

(Actually come to think of it she's probably just talking about pot. But it sounded like a reference to sweet lovin' the first time I read it.)

There should be something profound to say here but it's not occurring to me.

Norah!!
Best op-ed column I've read in weeks, about competing visions of masculinity and why the Western version is far superior to the Islamic fundamentalist one.

Some women complain that "the best ones [guys] are always gay." I'm one of the few guys I know to say this about women, but Norah Vincent is definitely a datapoint.

"Saudi women nude:"
This is hilarious. Technology is a marvelous thing, especially when it involves Google.

(If you were too lazy to follow the link, the deal is that a guy with a weblog got a hit from a Saudi Arabian domain where someone had done a Google search for Saudi women nude.)

See also the commentary on that post, wherein people mention the web hits and urban legends that surround Arab men's desire for Jewish women.

Deep in the recesses of my memory is a story, the details of which have conveniently eroded in the mists of time, about a Jewish woman I knew and a man she knew of Middle Eastern (non-Jewish) descent. They had a date. From how it was recounted to me I don't think he treated her very well. Then again, I never think men treat women very well.

Counterexample that proves the rule: One of my closest friends is a woman with whom I've had regular phone conversations for several years now. There's a long streak in which, whenever I hear about some silly fight she and her husband had, no matter what I actually say to her, my actual unstated reaction has been to side with him. Of all the possible explanations for this, the two that make the most sense are either that I hold my closest friends to higher standards than other people, or that this particular guy is an extraordinary gentleman. Maybe both.