The Relation Between Radicals, Moderates, and Conservatives

 NYT columnist David Brooks explains, in this OpEd,  that the "radicals" don't bring change; it's the moderates that do.

What is it that makes a person "conservative"? I think it's personality, it's the go-to, default, setting for the individual. Brooks has been a conservative, and as he says in his piece, over the years he moved right on certain issues that are more emotional (family, country, etc), and moved left on issues that can be rationally analyzed, like social programs, justice, etc.   For the same reason I don't like religion, I don't like conservatives..... and, I came to this by thinking and learning. The more I did the more ..radical I became in opposing conservatism and religion. They're both go hand in hand, most of the time, and they both want to hold progress back. By progress I mean positive change, not destructive radicalism.

Brooks says, " The people who come in their wake and actually make change are conservative radicals. They believe in many of the radicals’ goals, but know how to work within the democratic framework to achieve them."  He calls "radicals" those who aren't really radicals but are more vocal advocating for a sensible, more just society--which is already in place elsewhere. That's not ..radicalism, unless you compare it to a big mass in the US that is very conservative.  In this sense it's the ..perceived moderates (like Biden) or the "conservative radicals" as Brooks labels them, that facilitate change, because of the big mass who's afraid of "socialism".  But, yes, the envelope has to be pushed by the radicals in order for the moderates to have a chance of implementing reform.

Voting by itself is not enough. Activism and movements are necessary to stir up the status quo and usher new choices. These assaults on the status quo may be seen inconvenient or even threatening to many Americans, but they're important in accelerating change.

(Un)happy Columbus Day

“They ... brought us parrots and balls of cotton and spears and many other things, which they exchanged for the glass beads and hawks' bells. They willingly traded everything they owned....They were well-built, with good bodies and handsome features....They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance. They have no iron. Their spears are made of cane....They would make fine servants....With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want. … They are so naïve and so free with their possessions that no one who has not witnessed it would believe it. When you ask for something they have, they never say no. To the contrary, they offer to share with anyone … As soon as I arrived in the Indies, on the first Island I found, I took some natives by force in order that they might learn and might give me information of whatever there is in these parts.”
               ~~Christopher Columbus, Captain’s Log, October 12, 1492

Darwin's Day Means a Celebration of Science

Charles Darwin was born 203 years ago, on February 12th, and 50 years later he published the ground-breaking theory of evolution. [Here's a great BBC documentary on Darwin's Tree of Life with David Attenborough]

When I was little I couldn't understand the concept of billions of years. I looked at those over 30 and thought they were too old! It was the time I believed in Santa Claus and in superheroes with fantastical supernatural powers. Then I slowly began to learn all sorts of wonderful stuff about history, science, and critical thinking. Eventually I was exposed to the theory of evolution. Eventually this led  me to ask one of my teachers when the soul entered the human body in this long chain of changing forms--from the very primitive to modern humans--a question I've asked anyone who tries to reconcile evolution with creationism; I haven't gotten a satisfactory answer.

The teachings of religion used to be the source to explain everything. Science has replaced this, at least, for those who have answered the question, which knowledge is more reliable? There are gaps or unknowns, but a scientific method is the best tool we have to discover and understand the world around us. It's a matter of self-confidence to accept notions like, I don't know, and, it remains to be seen, rather than opting for a "sure thing" that's based on irrational conjecture at best.

It's amazing that it took so long for humans to come up with a rather obvious theory of adaptation, survival, and changing forms in response to environmental conditions. Since the domestication of animals and plants, our ancestors could see evolution taking place in their lifetimes, yet, they stuck with the religious notions that everything was designed in its present form! 

These remnants of thought-inhibitors are still erecting obstacles to progress today. How else can you explain the current debate about contraception? The bishops say contraception is bad, because they figured out that what the maker of the universe wants, so they're part of the debate and given political considerations! Oyvey.

I tip my proverbial hat to Charles Darwin for having the courage (to go against his family and the prevailing social views) and the intellectual fortitude to formulate such an important scientific theory--by observation, testing, factual investigation, reasoning--and advance important knowledge for humanity.


Science depends on people who understand its importance and on people who value it so they're willing to support such an endeavor. I'm saddened though that we have not succeeded in teaching the most important thing science is to every person in the US, and indeed the world: skepticism, rational thinking, and inquiry.