From Rod Dreher:

I’ve come to realize that my love for cooking comes out of needing to feel comforted by the pleasures of food, and to comfort others with them.

This line really resonated with me because I that’s exactly how I feel about cooking. I suspect it’s not a terribly insightful statment though because 90% of the chefs in the world would probably say the same thing. There’s just something that feels really good about someone eating your food and obviously enjoying it. Here’s to many more smiling faces in 2010!

One of the candidates for Submission of the Year. The triangle choke is my favorite move in MMA. An upside down triangle choke is the coolest thing I’ve seen in awhile.

Ames over at Submitted to a Candid World finally put that law degree to work and put together a very straight-forward and easy to understand summary of some of the legal language surrounding gay marriage.

The comment I left with Ames reads as follows:

Essentially we all agree that marriage itself is a social construct. We further agree that monogamy is also a social construct. So then we have monogamous marriage. If I understand the nature of protected classes, it is allowable to create arbitrary barriers to a social institution so long as they are applied equally across all classes. For example, the drinking age is 21 which is an arbitrary barrier. That is an okay form of discrimination so long as it is applied equally across all protected classes (catholics can’t drink under 21, men can’t drink under 21, blacks can’t drink under 21, etc). What is NOT okay is denying access to a part of or an entire protected class without applying this same restriction across the board. So for instance if we made the drinking age 21 but lowered it for Catholics and blacks, that would be unfair.

Gays aren’t asking to change the social constructs themselves, just to eliminate a barrier that is unconstitutionally applied to an entire class of people. For polygamy to work we would have to create a new social construct i.e. plural marriages. Then access could be granted to whatever parties society chooses, so long as all equivalent protected classes get access. If society decides to create legal plural marriages, that’s okay as long as the criteria for access is applied equally across all protected classes.

While I still have a LOT of reservations about gay marriage on moral and religious grounds and I remain concerned about the longterm effects it will have on society, my immediate anxiety over the slippery slope to other redefinitions is somewhat lessened. This is an important step forward for me personally in my political evolution. It’s good to have these moments when you must admit to a change of opinion on a subject. It breeds humility and humility is an important trait for all of us.

From Ezra Klein (bold emphasis mine):

Parochialism and power don’t seem to be protecting Ben Nelson’s that much, as a new poll out of Nebraska shows him at 30 percent in a hypothetical match-up against the sitting Republican governor, Dave Heineman.

A solid 64 percent of Nebraskans disapprove of health-care reform, and the situation was worsened by Nelson’s polarizing last-minute deal to protect Nebraska from Medicaid costs: Only 17 percent of Nebraskans approve of the free money Nebraska got. Whether this will convince vulnerable Democrats against demanding bribes to support controversial legislation or whether it’ll convince vulnerable Democrats not to support the legislation altogether remains to be seen.

Nelson isn’t up for re-election until 2012, but as I’ve said elsewhere, Democrats in conservative districts are going to be in big trouble in 2010. As the 17% number shows, it’s not so much that they are mad about the bill itself (although many are) but that they are mad about the process and the way this was a partisan vote. Liberals may not believe it to be fair, but the majority will wear the albatross for that anger.

These are a little late but my brother took these photos of the area around Louisville this fall and I thought they were worth sharing. It’s a pretty stark contrast to the snow-covered land we’ve seen the last few days.

Louisville skyline from Iroquois Hill

Rolling farmland

Pickett’s Dam on Brashears Creek

Farmland

The Trestles

Farmland

From Scott Adams at Dilbert Blog

Imagine the Taliban regaining power in Afghanistan. The problem with being in power is that it makes you relatively easy to locate, and drones can destroy anything they can find. There is no practical way for the Taliban to hold power if our drone capabilities reach a certain level. I doubt we are at that level, but could we get there?

I can’t imagine a terrorist training camp lasting long if the sky is full of drones. And the heroin fields would only last as long as we wanted them to. We could also force people coming into or out of the country to use border crossings we control. Everyone else gets attacked by drones. That takes a lot of drones, and that’s expensive, but probably not as expensive as old-fashioned occupation.

One great benefit of using drones to target Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders is that turnover creates leadership incompetence. After the tenth time drones kill the number three operations guy, only an idiot is willing to take that promotion. The smart terrorists ask for transfers to the Quality Control Division to wait things out. So while it might be true that there will always be replacements, quantity doesn’t compensate for smart leadership.

Perhaps the exit strategy for U.S. conventional forces from Afghanistan is more linked to drone improvements than to anything else. We just don’t know it yet.

Sounds like a hell of a plan to me.

I’m a big fan of AMC. They tend to show a lot of movies I like and often enough that I can watch them repeatedly and really digest them. One of the movies they have been showing lately is Jeremiah Johnson starring Robert Redford.For those who haven’t seen it, especially my male readers, make the time and check it out.

What’s great about this movie is that it is a fairly accurate portrayal of an adventurous period in American history. The ‘mountain men’ were extremely important to the settlement of the American West as they blazed trails for later settlers. They also represent one of the last periods of exploration for Americans.

I like the movie because it demonstrates both the allure of the wild and independence, but also shows that ultimately we all need companionship. Jeremiah goes into the mountains seeking solitude and stumbles into a family of his own. His pain and anger when they are taken away reflects how important to him they had become.  It seems that for even the most independent of souls, the love of others is hard to do without.

The life Jeremiah leads in the mountains, hunting and experiencing the outdoors, is one many men today envy. I think that pull towards the wild is built into the DNA of American men. Some of us hear that voice louder than others. We find ourselves at home in the woods and filled with an unsettled feeling after too long in the house. The best we can hope for then is a wife who understands, the time to get out there and a beautiful place to do it. If you have those three things and the counter-balance of a loving family at home, you are a rich man in the opinion of this writer.

Last week Murphy and I were goose hunting in sleet and snow and the zipper on my outer shell jacket broke. This was the second time this has happened so I decided to call the company I got it from. I called Duck Commander and they directed me to Drake Waterfowl, the company that actually makes the jackets. After talking to them they were willing to replace the jacket for free but because of the holiday i wouldn’t see the jacket until sometime after January 4th.  The problem is that I’m planning on hunting a lot over the New Year’s holiday. So…..back to Duck Commander.

I spoke with a nice Southern gal named Becky at their customer service department. Now, this is where I should say that in one way or another I have been working in ‘customer service’ for most of my career. Because of that long experience I tend to have pretty good luck in working with other folks in customer service. My approach is always to be nice, explain myself clearly and to just rely on the good intentions of the company reps. Because of this I usually get problems taken care of when the need arises. So anyway, I explained myself to Becky and I might have also mentioned that I had a blog where I would say some nice things about her company. Becky finally relented and the new jacket arrived on Christmas Eve. I shipped my jacket back and our transaction is complete.

In the world of hunting we all love our gear. If you have the right equipment your hunting experience will be better and you can spend more time in the field. I take good care of my gear for that reason and I am still using items I bought almost 20 years ago. The jacket I had is a great piece of clothing and I depend on it a lot this time of year. Having a quick replacement and knowing Duck Commander cares about their customers will mean more of my business for them in the future. This is why customer service is so important and as a word of advice to you business owners out there, neglect your customers at your peril.

So kudos to Duck Commander and kudos to companies that do business the honorable way.

This morning I ramble a bit…enjoy.

ED Kain at The League of Ordinary Gentlemen had a pretty good post yesterday where he explains his reasons for supporting the Health Care Bill that passed this morning. While I don’t agree with all of his conclusions, it’s worth reading as a rationale explanation of a very emotional issue.

I remain a conservative who supports the broader goal of making sure every American who wants health insurance can get it at an affordable rate. To that end I am most convinced that the best step we can take towards that end is to detach healthcare from employment. This will have the effect of making healthcare immediately portable so the worker moving from one job to another (voluntarily or not) need not add, ‘losing health insurance ‘ to their list of worries. As part of this I fully support govt subsidies for those who find themselves temporarily unable to pay their premiums, though obviously some common sense rules need to be attached. Furthermore, this would serve to greatly reduce the worries of pre-existing medical conditions. Lastly, it accomplishes the more conservative goal of connecting consumers more directly to the costs of their medical decisions.

From a political perspective I think that Democrats are going to be hurt bad in areas already inclined to vote conservative that may have supported then-candidate Obama last November. I think the reaction of these voters is going to be based more on the process of passing this bill than the actual bill itself. Will this be enough to put the GOP back in the majority? Probably not. What it will do is come closer to leveling the playing field. If we end up with a senate that is 52-48 or something close to that, I think the President and the majority are going to have to choose their next battles very, very carefully if they don’t want to go through two years of complete inaction.

What we can also take from this is that I think the other pet issue of global warming is completely off the table for the Left. 2010 has to be the year they focus on jobs or they are going to be slaughtered at the polls. Climate change will be the proce of that effort. I look forward to seeing the State of the Union address in January and learning what the majority’s plans are. In the meantime, 2010 is going to be interesting politically in a number of ways, not the least of which will be curiosity over further challenges to Republican candidates by more conservative voices. The spring primaries will set the tone for the fall and should be a blast to watch.

From R.R. Reno First Thoughts:

Obviously, some American liberal intellectuals are quite clear-minded about the failures of liberalism. But as a whole, I’ve found that elite liberal culture is terribly provincial and not inclined toward self-criticism. Conservative intellectuals, on the other hand, tend to be well-informed about alternative views.

While I am prepared for the onslaught of outrage from my liberal readers for posting this quote, I have to say that my experience after 5 years of chat boards and blogging confirms this comment in a general and anecdotal way. As an example I will share this recent post at Submitted to a Candid World. While ACG occasionally has moments of self-reflection where he is able to abandon his role as loyal soldier for Obama, he ALWAYS includes caveats in his criticism. This sort of disingenuous half-criticism is what I have mostly come to expect from the Left. 

As a further challenge to their powers of self-reflection I also recently asked ACG to go out on a limb and declare liberalism as the cure for society’s ills. He was unwilling to do so, for whatever reason I cannot determine (speculation that lawyers cannot give straight answers abounds).  In this way we may see the closest thing to true liberal self-criticism, which is an unwillingness to embrace liberal ideology as superior to all else.

Reno further elaborates on his point by discussing another hallmark of liberalism, which is to exaggerate the dire circumstances of any given issue.

 I would like to think that a conservative does not invest politics with ultimate significance. This can lead to an unattractive complacency on the Right. By contrast, liberalism tends to ascribe moral urgency to questions of public policy—the war against poverty, and so forth. The result is often political messianism, a fevered commitment that cannot countenance criticism.

There is a sort of manic atmosphere that often surrounds liberal reform and of course any criticism that impedes that effort is callous and immoral. This also means that if liberalism is going to take up the sword then there is no time to doubt liberalism itself.  When you always believe you are on the side of righteousness, there’s little room for reflection.

From the Rural Blog

A bear overpopulation led to what [was] the first legal Kentucky bear hunt in 100 years [last] weekend. “As bears have become a sight-seeing attraction and sometimes a nuisance for state parks in Harlan, Letcher and Pike counties [on the state's mountainous southeastern border], local hunters have been eager to add black bears as a big game animal,” Dori Hjalmarson of the Lexington Herald-Leader reports.

“Kentucky is kind of a unique spot in this region of the United States because they historically had not had bears in great numbers. West Virginia, Tennessee, Virginia have had bears for decades,” Steven Dobey, bear program manager for the state Department of Fish and Wildlife, told Hjalmarson. “Their return has been, in the grand scheme, more recent.” Dobey estimates there are about 300 black bears in Letcher, Harlan and Pike counties, the only three open to bear hunting tomorrow.

There is a hard-to-explain compartmentalization that almost all hunters I know have in their personal morality. Some hunters will shoot anything that is legal while others are more selective. I am certainly in the latter camp. Part of my selectivity is that there are animals I simply won’t kill. Call it hypocritical but I know I could never take a bear. I find them to be amazing animals and for some reason the thought of pulling the trigger for sport is out of the question. Of course, if there was a real need, say bears killing livestock on a friend’s farm, I would do my part. Thankfully that will never be a problem in Kentucky with a small black bear population only.

I think what lesson needs to be taken from this bear season is not that hunters have a new animal they can kill, but that another species has returned to our state.  This follows success in restoring elk, turkey, aquatic species and even many native plants. Kentucky is slowly returning to the place it once was when settlers first came over the mountains. We should be thankful every day for that.

I am not going to get into a big lecture here about the unfortunate partisanship that surrounded the Democrats’ health care bill this year. I’ve studied enough history to know that partisanship is something Americans are particularly good at and I think the Founding Fathers may have unintentionally designed a system that guaranteed it. I will also speculate that at many times in our history American partisanship has actually been a good thing that kept us from racing over the edge of a cliff in our zeal for progress.

What little I am going to say about the healthcare debate is that I believe much of it could have been avoided if Congress was willing to forego huge bills meant to impress and instead tackle each issue on its own merits. For example, federal funding of abortion could have been its own bill and went down in spectacular flames accordingly. The public option could have been a separate bill and we could have debated socialized medicine on its own merits rather than as part of a larger package of ‘reforms’. By breaking out each specific policy proposal Congress would be forced to debate these ideas on their individual strengths and weaknesses rather than accept parts that stink in order to get other parts they liked.

When a single bill has so many various provisions there is no choice but to consider it not on the quality of each specific detail but as a huge offering by a specific political party. That breeds partisanship. It becomes ‘The Democrat Health Care Bill” and of course Republicans are going to oppose. Breaking out smaller issues also creates a situation where the debate is going to be more focused and less prone to hyperbole and spin. That is important if we are going to get the public more involved in these discussions. A father of three can understand the debate over a specific provision much easier than he can digest a 2,000 page bill that few will ever read from cover to cover. The democratic process should demand that level of access and those who are so adamantly opposed to hyper-partisanship should demand a process less likely to produce it.