I have no clear political convictions.

I’m not good at political debate, because I almost always see some good points in the opposing view. For that reason, I hate getting into political arguments. I’m too easily swayed. If I give up ground too easily, I’m afraid it makes me seem like a more attractive target for conversion. But if I hold firm, I feel like I’m just being stubborn and close-minded.

A butterfly flaps its wings in China and the consequences are unpredictable. How can anyone have firm convictions in such a world?

There is nothing firm in this world. There is not even a God. Thou shalt not kill — unless you’re waging war or administering the death penalty. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods — unless you’re trying to make money.

(Thou shalt not commit adultery — unless you’re a politician. Thou shalt not steal — unless you’re in the energy business. Thou shalt not bear false witness — unless you’re claiming to be a Swift Boat veteran.)

Having political convictions is like holding a scientific hypothesis. We like to infer rules based on what we see around us.

But at least in science experiments, there are controls and a variable; you can test your hypothesis. In the real world, there are no controls — only variables. There are so many variables that it’s impossible to conduct a truly scientific test of a political belief.

I have no clear political convictions. Sometimes I wish I did. But if I did, I’d be wrong. And I hate losing.

Bea Arthur got stopped at an airport for having a pocketknife in her handbag.

The “Golden Girls” star, now 81, was flagged by a Transportation Security Administration agent, who discovered the knife – a strict no-no following 9/11.

“She started yelling that it wasn’t hers and said ‘The terrorists put it there,’ ” a fellow passenger said. “She kept yelling about the ‘terrorists, the terrorists, the terrorists.’ ”

After the blade was confiscated, Arthur took a keyring from her bag and told the agent it belonged to the “terrorists,” before throwing it at them.

As she boarded the plane, she told the TSA employees, “We’re all doomed.”

God’ll get you for that, Dorothy.

[via MetaFilter]

Although I have previously been skeptical of the protesters, there’s a great letter in today’s New York Times that, along with the other letters on the topic, made me think.

Perhaps you are correct that the protesters have had their day in court and are not entitled to have an organized rally on the Great Lawn in Central Park. But the tone of your editorial has an eerie feeling about it.

The rights of assembly, free speech and the inherent right to protest were never meant to have a comfortable and polite feel about them. When New York City invited the Republican National Convention into the heart of Manhattan, it also invited in all of the attendant protests that the presence of government officials and politics attracts.

Why are the protesters to be dispersed into small groups? The convention will congregate in Madison Square Garden and receive free televised coverage. It is obvious that large crowds have greater impact than do smaller groups dispersed here and there.

City officials want peace, as do New Yorkers in general. But when it comes to the business of the country, we shouldn’t want to be too comfortable. The Constitution reflects the uncomfortable nature of democracy and the right to protest.