Bowden Busts Loose

Can The Democrats Blow It So Soon?

2006-11-13T13:58:00.000-05:00

I'm extremely happy that the Democrats now control the House and Senate. I'm ecstatic Bush fired Rumsfeld, and even happier that he idiotically waited until the election was over before doing so. Firing Rummy earlier would have toned down the anger toward the Administration, and saved many seats in both houses of Congress. For the country's sake, Bush should have fired Rumsfeld years ago; for his party's sake, at least two weeks earlier than he did. Guess Karl Rove isn't an evil genius after all (still evil of course).

Now with that said, this is from today's NYT:

Democratic leaders in the Senate vowed on Sunday to use their new Congressional majority to press for troop reductions in Iraq within a matter of months, stepping up pressure on the administration just as President Bush is to be interviewed by a bipartisan panel examining future strategy for the war.

Big mistake by the Dems already! Damn! The Democrats should let Bush drive Iraq policy. Here is my reasoning: there is NO good solution, no solution period. Whether we send more troops in or pull them out, nothing will work. More and more Iraqis will die, perhaps reaching Rwanda levels of genocide. The Dems don't need their fingerprints on any withdrawal plan, because nothing will work, and the inevitable catastrophe will be blamed on the Dems for "cutting and running."

McCain is already positioning against the plan to pull troops out. Very smart of him to do so. God, I hope the Dems don't blow it so soon...

The Rogue State Called Israel

2006-07-17T10:50:00.000-05:00

I believe the state of Israel has a right to exist. That is the last positive thing I'm going to say about Israel for the rest of this column. Israel is murdering Lebananese civilians as I write this. Hundreds are dead and thousands are homeless because of Israel's ill-conceived effort to show strength and "resolve."

The last round of bloodshed was started when the Shiite militia (or terrorist group if you prefer) Hezbollah attacked Israeli troops, killing eight and capturing two others. Hezbollah is based in Lebanon, and the Lebanonese Army is too weak to disarm this powerful non-state military force from its borders. All of that is indisputable. What I find interesting is that Israel chooses to attack Lebanonese civilian targets in an effort to ... what exactly? Lebanon is too weak to defeat Hezbollah, and they certainly can't defeat Israel. The Lebanonese population is being ruthlessly attacked by a foreign invader with total air superiority, and the United States talks about Israel's right to self defense. What about Lebanon's? Of course the United States is the last country to lecture Israel on unprovoked invasions.

This is a complicated situation, and I'm not saying there are easy answers to the problem of Hezbollah extremism (and the democratically elected Hamas extremists in the Palestinian state). One thing I am sure of: bombing the shit out of defenseless civilians is not the way to improve the situation. Indiscriminant slaughter of unarmed non-military personnel sends the message that Israel does not value Arab lives, and more broadly that it will not be restrained by international standards of human decency.

I can't believe the stupidity of the Israeli leadership right now. I cannot conceive of a course of action more likely to create new terrorists and more hatred of Israel in the Arab world. Ten years from now when Tel Aviv is a radioactive slagheap, we will recall the old adage that you reap what you sow.

George Will Is A Tool

2006-05-25T14:53:00.000-05:00

George Will, the allegedly intellectual conservative, is a pompous ass. No news to anyone who has heard him speak for five minutes, but it needs to be repeated. Will is a smug bastard who tries way too hard to be an erudite commentator. In a pathetic imitation of witty right-leaning pundits William Safire and William Buckley, Will uses odd word choices and awkward phrases in an attempt to sound sophisticated. His words do not enlighten or convince, however, they only obfuscate. Sophisticated thinkers don't work so hard to sound smart. Will's prose is belabored and intentionally, in my opinion, confusing. If a reader can't understand his sentences, it must be because the reader is too stupid to comprehend Will's genius, right? Surely not because the writing is bad.

Here is an example from his 5/25/06 column in The Washington Post: What makes Americans generally welcoming of immigrants, and what makes immigrants generally assimilable, is that this is a creedal nation, one dedicated to certain propositions, not one whose origins and identity are bound up with ethnicity. Note the phrasing: "assimilable" instead of "easily assimilated," "a creedal nation" instead of a "nation based on creed." You have to read the sentence three times to even get the point in the first place. Now is that the fault of the reader or the writer?

The content of that crappy sentence is that the United States welcomes immigrants because our nation is based on certain ideals, not on ethnic identity. This is an obvious point, and it contradicts the thesis of his column, that the English language should be the only allowed language on ballots. If the nation is not bound by ethnic identity as he claims, why should he want the ballot be in only one language? You can have a multi-cultural, multilingual functional democracy. See India, Canada, Switzerland, and Belgium. Canada also welcomes immigrants without being a "creedal nation" as Will so eloquently puts it.

Besides being a pedantic bore, George Will also displays a puerile nitpicking style. For someone who cares so much about the meaning of words, he sure get a lot of mileage out of a misleading definition of "racism." Will wonders why Senator Harry Reid called an English-only bill "racist." Will's dimwitted argument is that Reid can't mean "racist" since Spanish-speakers aren't a race. What a piddling comment. "Racist," in the common definition of everyone I know BUT George Will, applies to ethnic groups too. Obviously, a person who says "I hate Mexicans" would be called a racist. You could also call that person "ethnocentric" but "ethnocentric bastard" isn't as catchy, is it? Weren't Nazis racist? The Jews aren't a race; they're a religious and ethnic identity. According to George Will the Nazis can't be called racists. What, are you stupid?

Whether or not English-only laws are "racist" is another conversation, and not one that Will addresses in his column. Will makes a petty distinction about Reid's word choice, without discussing the validity of Reid's statement. Obviously Will wants to prove how much smarter he is than Reid. Making a rational intelligible argument is of secondary importance.

The Spanish National Anthem: No me gustan gringos.

2006-05-04T12:06:00.000-05:00

Recently a British record producer put together a group of famous-ish musicians that release the American national anthem in Spanish. I'm sure this British record producer is passionate about immigrant rights, and was not doing this as a craven publicity stunt. What, do I sound sarcastic? Regardless of his motivations, the Spanish National Anthem sparked a ridiculous controversy. Stupid-White-Guy-In-Chief George W. Bush even chimed in saying that the National Anthem should be in English only.

A few points:

1. "The Star-Spangled Banner" is a crappy song, and there are several better choices for a national anthem of the United States. "America The Beautiful," "This Land Is Your Land," and Whodini's "The Freaks Come Out At Night" would all make a better choice. Our current national anthem is notoriously hard to sing (with a tune based on an old British drinking song to boot).

2. The concept of a "national anthem" is pretty ridiculous to begin with. Do we really need a song? Like the flag, or the bald eagle, or any monument in Washington D.C., the anthem is a symbol, nothing more. The ideas behind the United States (and all other Western democracies) are what count, not a catchy little ditty or a multi-colored piece of cloth. This is the reason that anti-flag-burning crusaders are such a joke to me. Some hippie jerk burning a piece of cloth on the steps of the U.S. Capitol doesn't weaken my country or hurt me personally in any way whatsoever. Illegally tapping my phones sure does though.

3. So I dislike "The Star-Spangled Banner" and the concept of national anthems in general. It probably doesn't surprise you that I don't give a flying fuck if the national anthem is sung in Spanish. Or in Klingon. I cannot comprehend why translating the song into Spanish, in and of itself, is an insult to America. Songs are translated into other languages all the time. Because this one song was declared the national anthem by Congress doesn't mean it is suddenly holy scripture. People like Bush and their ilk are eerily like Muslims who claim the Koran can only be understood in Arabic.

We all know what this is really about. For all I know, the national anthem has already been translated into Spanish, French, Russian, or a hundred other languages. Translating lyrics ain't the issue. What people are pissed off about is the perceived Latinization of the United States. Anti-immigrant activists think this is another example of the steady creep of Latin culture into our supposedly white Anglo culture. Which is preposterous. Please allow me to be the millionth person to make the point that we are a nation of immigrants. EVERYONE in North America descended from immigrants (likewise everyone on Earth descended from immigrants unless you happen to be from eastern Kenya and your family has been there for three million years straight).

American culture is an amalgam of English, Scottish, French, German, Irish, Italian, Spanish, Native Indian, African, Roman, Greek, and Hebrew influences. The dominant Judeo-Christian belief system in the United States certainly wasn't started in America or Western Europe, it was imported, from the Middle East of all places! We already are a multi-ethnic society, and you can't turn the clock back on that. If a Spanish-speaking American (or potential American citizen) wants to sing the national anthem in Spanish and demonstrate his or her patriotism, how on Earth could that be a bad thing? If Latin Americans are good enough to cook our meals, watch our kids, and fight our wars, they can sing the anthem in any language they want.

Don't Blame The Press For Iraq

2006-03-27T16:14:00.000-05:00

For all the Republicans' talk about "personal responsibility," they sure don't like to accept responsibility for the Iraq War fiasco. Conservatives have begun to blame the press for being too negative in its coverage of Iraq, as if the media itself was creating the insurgency and strife in Iraq. For example, today it was reported that 30 decapitated bodies were found in the Iraqi village of Tarfiya. Yes, that is a negative thing to mention. Pretty darn unpleasant. If 30 decapitated corpses were found in my hometown, I wager that would be the top story, not the opening of a water treatment plant or an ice cream store.

Does that mean The Washington Post should not be reporting Iraqi mayhem because it weakens America's resolve? Some conservatives seem to think so. They say that the media isn't acknowledging all the positive signs of progress in Iraq. Actually that isn't true. Any regular television news viewer can see positive stories about Iraqi citizens that like America and are striving for a democratic state. However, the daily parade of violent acts drowns out any positive spin one wants to put on the situation. What would these conservative critics want the U.S. media to do? NOT to report the daily car bombings, kidnappings, and assassinations? I'm sure George W. would love that, but the truth of the situation is too grim to be ignored.

The vast majority of Americans think the war was a mistake because of the grinding incessant violence. Don't blame the messenger, blame the president and his administration for invading Iraq in the first place. The United States has made Iraq a worse place to live today than it was under Saddam Hussein (quite an accomplishment).

When the United States was losing literally hundreds of soldiers a week in Vietnam, the press had upbeat stories then too, showing little South Vietnamese kids being innoculated for polio, and American Army engineers building dams for appreciative villagers. Sure, some positive things were done in Vietnam, but not enough to justify the 58,000 American fatalities. Walter Cronkite wasn't to blame for the biggest mistake in American military history, Lyndon Johnson was. Just like in Vietnam, the president has guided us into another quagmire, with the complicity of a spineless Congress. Don't blame the media for this mess. Now if we can only get them to spend less time on missing white women...

Austria's Big Mistake

2006-02-20T20:42:00.000-05:00

David Irving, British historian, publicity whore, and all-around asshole, was convicted in Austria of denying the Holocaust and sentenced to three years in prison. Irving is a professional historian, who somewhere along the way threw away his respectable career to promote the fantasy that the Holocaust was a myth. Irving is pro-Hitler, and his denial of one of the greatest atrocities in human history is despicable.

He is an example of what I call the Big Fish In A Small Pond Syndrome, where a respected academic takes an outlandish position to make a name for himself. Most people would never have known of David Irving if he had been a mainstream World War II historian. He reminds me a lot of Michael Behe, the opportunistic biologist who claims to deny evolution (actually Behe admits evolution is probably right, but where's the notoriety in that?). Irving and Behe crave attention - they want to cast themselves as the renegade scholars, fighting the "establishment."

Of course, these d-bags aren't Copernicus and Galileo. They will eventually get the obscurity they deserve IF we ignore them and their attention-grabbing lies. The Austrian court, in a well-meaning but misguided decision, has done the opposite in the case of Herr Irving. The Austrian jury that convicted him has turned him into a martyr of the most odious kind. Neo-Nazis and anti-Semites around the world now have something to rally around - the unjust persecution of a man who dares to deny the Holocaust.

By the way, I mean it when I say Irving's sentence is "unjust." I so strongly believe in freedom of speech that I absolutely believe David Irving has the right to say whatever he wants to about the Holocaust. His deceitful bile sickens me, and I shudder to think some people are stupid enough to believe his bullshit, but we have to allow unpopular opinions to be heard. If I agreed with the Austrian jury, I would be no better than the Islamic radicals that want to burn down their own cities over some cartoons, or the Bush Administration's sanction-happy FCC that terrorized American media in recent years, or Irving himself, who sued a critic for libel for saying he was a Holocaust denier (he lost).

Understandably, Austria is extremely sensitive about the Holocaust and Nazi issues, but there's a terrible irony there. Austria is jailing someone for their beliefs, and Austria's native son Adolf Hitler, a noted opponent of free speech himself, would be proud.

Talking Dirty With Mohammed

2006-02-08T13:55:00.000-05:00

Anybody that knows me knows of my deep commitment to freedom of speech and my massive disrespect and/or hatred of organized religion. So, "disgust" is a word that hardly does justice to my feelings on the protests over offensive cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in a Danish newspaper. People have been killed and property has been destroyed by Muslim extremists who are outraged at the insulting depictions of the holiest man in Islam, the Prophet Mohammed.

Wow, where to begin? Muslims violently protesting these CARTOONS are embarrassing themselves and their religion, giving fodder to those divisive non-Muslim Westerners who already have a pretty low opinion of Islam and its believers. Even an objective observer would have to conclude that a large group of Muslims are stuck in a medieval mindset, where insults are avenged with vigilante justice. There is no tolerance for non-Muslim criticism of Islam, and as the bloodfeud between Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq shows, there is no tolerance for debate WITHIN Islam.

Part of this controversy is based on the idiotic Muslim belief (a belief that many Muslims do NOT share) that living creatures cannot be depicted in art, since these would be mere imitations of Allah's creations. This has led to some beautiful formalist art in such places as the Alhambra in Spain. It has also led to ridiculous moments such as when Muslim children are discouraged from drawing animals in kindergarten because it would be idolatrous. I'm not sure how cameras and film can exist in Muslim countries since these too create images of living beings, but religious beliefs are rarely consistent or intelligent.

What to do? Sure, the cartoons in the Danish newspaper are offensive. Muslims have the right to be offended and to peacefully protest the publication of these caricatures. However, it is much more than peaceful protest - Muslim extremists are trying to terrify Westerners into curtailing their criticisms of the Islamic religion. There should be more criticism, not less. The role of women in the Muslim world is beyond reprehensible, and it cannot be talked about too much. I reject that Muslim countries have the "right" to dictate what a woman can or cannot wear, or where she can go to school, or what professions she can hold. I loathe those multicultural idiots who shrug off the horrible sexism in the Muslim world as an internal societal quirk. Some things cannot be tolerated in any human society - the barbaric treatment of Muslim women is one of the most blatant modern examples.

One last point - it is a cliche but also a truth that the autocratic governments of the Arab World encourage Muslim extremism as a way of sublimating anger at the state. Egypt and Saudi Arabia, for example, have no problem with bloody protests against Israel, or bloody protests about cartoons in Danish newspapers, because these topics distract the angry mobs from their main problem, their own brutal dictatorial governments. It is useful to the tyrants of the Middle East to misdirect their peoples' anger toward external "problems."

Sadly, Realpolitik prevents the United States from speaking out against the archaic monarchies and juntas of the Muslim World, because for all our bullshit about spreading democracy, the last thing the United States (and the rest of the Western world) needs is actual democracy in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan. Radical Islamic groups would surely win open fair elections in those countries, and as we Americans learned in 2004, the majority of the body politic is made up of dumbasses.

Bush's Wartime Powers

2006-01-26T14:08:00.000-05:00

George W. Bush does not apologize about his policies. He rarely admits mistakes; he'd prefer to tell the Big Lie until people believe it's the Truth. Bush didn't apologize for starting a war over WMDs that didn't exist, or torturing prisoners, or detaining people without charges, or holding people in secret government jails. He admitted 30,000 Iraqi civilians have died since the Iraq War began, but he didn't even come close to apologizing for their deaths. So, it is not shocking that the Bush Administration has defended the need to wiretap American citizens without a court order.

Here are a few points to remember about Bush's domestic surveillance.

1. It is in direct violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) passed in 1978, which requires all surveillance on U.S. citizens to be approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Since this court almost never turns down surveillance requests, isn't it disturbing that the Bush Administration could not even be bothered to comply with this law?

2. Congress did not authorize spying on American citizens. The Department of Justice's propaganda leaflet claims that Congress granted Bush unlimited spying powers when it passed the war resolution of September 14, 2001. Here is the passage the DOJ uses to justify Bush Administration criminality: "[the President can] use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations and persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." Does that sound like a green light for domestic spying? The Congressmen that signed it didn't think so.

3. Bush claims wartime powers, in a war that will never end. The War on Terror? I think that will end right after the War on Poverty, the War on Cancer, and the War on Tooth Decay. Bush is not the first president to curtail basic liberties during war. In particular, two far greater men than Bush have restricted civil rights in immoral and possibly illegal ways - Lincoln and FDR. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, censored newspapers, and locked up extremist dissidents. FDR had German spies tried and executed in a military tribunal and interred Japanese-Americans in an ugly display of ethnic profiling.

These were terrible things, but far more understandable than Bush's actions. Lincoln was dealing with a violent insurrection, the bloodiest war in our nation's history. The country was literally tearing itself apart. Roosevelt was at war with two miliaristic societies that declared war on us as part of a naked attempt at global domination. In 1941, Japan ruled Asia, Germany controlled most of Europe and seemed to be on the brink of conquering the largest nation on Earth. The very survival of the United States was at stake in both 1861 and 1941. Short of a nuclear holocaust, I can't imagine a president facing a bigger crisis than those facing Lincoln and Roosevelt. However, these were both finite situations with a foreseeable conclusion. There is no definable end to the War on Terror; there is barely a definable enemy.

9/11 was an atrocity, but is America REALLY in mortal danger right now? If not, Bush's powers are unjustified and dictatorial. If the nation's existence is in jeopardy, it is from environment collapse and economic decline, two things Bush has helped to bring about. The supposed protector of the United States and its values is going to be the ruin of us all. I love to be right, but I will not be smiling when the historians of tomorrow rightly judge Dubya as the worst president in American history. One good thing, if I'm not in a secret federal prison, I'll at least get to enjoy my new beach-front property in Columbia, South Carolina.

Medical Breakthroughs And The Assholes Who Hate Them

2005-12-14T12:42:00.000-05:00

Isabelle Dinoire tried to commit suicide with an overdose of sleeping pills on May 27 of this year. Her family dog tried to wake her by licking her face, and when that didn't work, the dog horrifically started chewing her face off. Dinoire was in such a deep drug-induced sleep that she didn't wake up, even after the dog tore off her nose and mouth. One of Dinoire's daughters found her and called an ambulance. This is not a scene from a Thomas Harris novel, this really happened, and it is the backstory to the recent face transplant Dinoire received.

Transplanting a cadaver's face onto a patient with severe facial injuries is a good thing. There is no moral difference between doing that and transplanting a liver or kidney. This is a breakthough in medicine that should be cheered. Think of all the people, socially ostracized because of horrible facial deformities, that will benefit from this sort of treatment. I don't hear the cheers from the media though. The only sound is the whining and bitching of some American doctors and self-appointed media ethicists, who are wagging their fingers at the French doctors that performed the surgery.

Let's take the issues raised by the critics one by one:

The patient tried to commit suicide and is too psychologically fragile to deal with this operation.

The fact that her injuries resulted from a suicide attempt is irrelevant. Would a burn victim be turned down because he or she fell asleep with a lit cigarette? The fact is Dinoire is a willing participant in a procedure that is pushing at the very frontiers of medicine. To say that Dinoire will have psychological issues to deal with is both incredibly obvious and absurd. Certainly, the face is more important psychologically than a new kidney - looking into the mirror and seeing a different face has to be disturbing. I would argue that looking into the mirror and seeing the corpse-like face of a person with no nose or mouth is a tad bit more fucking disturbing.

The French doctors moved too fast. The transplant was a publicity stunt, and was rushed so the team would be the first to perform this surgery.

To me this is the only issue with any credibility. If the doctors rushed to be the first to try the surgery without perfecting the techniques necessary, then sure that would be an ethical issue. However, the surgery was successful - all the arteries and veins were connected right, the tissue wasn't rejected, and the patient is now recovering. Obviously the doctors knew what they were doing. Also, since this is a brand-new procedure, someone has to do it first. Human face transplant procedures will only be perfected when surgeons start doing them.

Are the surgeons involved looking for personal glory? Sure. I imagine most surgeons are egotistical, and I'm sure they are partially motivated by the fame that will result from being the first to do this operation. Is there anything done anywhere for anybody that isn't at least partially self-motivated? If this turns out to be a success, like it appears to be in the early stages of Dinoire's recovery, then these doctors should be famous, and lauded.

It is unethical to transplant a human face because the face is so strongly associated with who one is.

I don't understand this argument but I hope I expressed it fairly. Some people think that face transplants step over some invisible line that Man Was Not Meant To Cross. Some people think, incorrectly, that the person receiving the transplant will look just like the donor. This is unlikely, given the underlying bone and muscle structural differences between donor and receiver.

However, even if this is true, is that the worst thing in the world? If we take the face from a dead person and give it to someone with a terrible facial injury, what exactly is the downside to that? So that person strongly resembles the dead person now...lots of people look like lots of other people. How often is the recipient of the face going to bump into the donor's parents?

Criticism of this transplant is motivated by several distasteful reasons: jealousy (by those doctors who were beaten to the punch), self-serving publicity (you get a lot more press by being against something than for it, just ask Jeremy Rifkin), and lack of imagination.

By this last category I mean those that lack the insight to push against the boundaries of convention and accept possibilities that, while admittedly strange at first glance, can help people in a profoundly meaningful way. People that are opposed to face transplants just because they are "weird" will also be against human cloning, which has plenty of altruistic applications people don't like to talk about. Cloning of human cells can result in such horrific abominations as cloned organs and tissues that won't be rejected by recipients and yes, babies for infertile people. Would it really be the worst thing in the world if an infertile or homosexual couple raised a child that was a clone?

That makes me wonder, do anti-cloning nutjobs run screaming when they see identical twins? Guess what, CLONES! People like to talk about what's "natural." Well, the natural world is full of murder, rape, cannibalism, and infanticide (just watch a nature show for 10 minutes and you'll figure that out). We humans have minds that will let us transcend nature, and that is NOT a bad thing.

Gulags American-Style

2005-11-04T11:31:00.000-05:00

Nation X allows prisoners to be tortured and mistreated in violation of the Geneva Conventions. Nation X refuses to cooperate with the International Red Cross in acknowledging who it has imprisoned and where these nameless prisoners are kept. Nation X kidnaps people and places them in dungeon-like secret prisons, the very existence of which is denied by officials of Nation X. Prisoners are held without being charged with anything, and are to be held indefinitely, with no legal representation and no contact with the outside world.

Nation X is not Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Red China, Iran, or Hussein-era Iraq. The nation in question is the United States of America, a supposed defender of democracy and human rights. We have the absurd situation where the Vice President of the United States wants to remove language from a congressional bill that would ban torture. Let's be clear, Dick Cheney and his allies in the administration are pro-torture. The CIA is running what can be accurately described as gulags, secret holding centers for enemies of the state. The prisons and their inmates do not officially exist.

These practices violate the laws of the United States and standards of human decency. Germany, France, and Italy (nations with rich histories of torture and human rights abuses) can now justifiably lecture the United States on proper ethical and moral standards for international conduct. Western Europe and Canada clearly respect human rights more than the United States does. We are less democratic, less free, than those countries. How can our nation have reached this point? Why aren't more people outraged over the CIA-run prisons recently publicized in The Washington Post? Why is Abu Ghraib ignored? Are we that racist in this country as to assume that any Muslim or Arab is an Al-Qaida member?

Keep in mind, the vast majority of those Iraqis humiliated in the famous Abu Ghraib photos have now been released. They were innocent people rounded up and locked up without being tried for any crimes. How can anyone believe that the CIA, which bungled the WMD intelligence so badly, knows for sure that all of its prisoners are guilty of terrorism? One person was grabbed off a street in Italy, flown to a secret military base, tortured and mistreated for months, and then released when he was found to be not guilty of anything. This is the kind of thing military juntas in South America used to do. We have our own "Disappeared" now, prisoners with no legal status that our government won't even acknowledge exist.

Even if I were solely concerned with the best interests of the United States, and did not care a whit about any non-American Muslim on Earth, the present policy of secret prisons and torture would not be a realistic solution to our terrorism problem. For one thing, torture doesn't work. Rarely if ever would torture enable us to extract timely information from a prisoner. This is the whole "ticking time bomb" excuse for torture that Alan Dershowitz and others push. Cruel interrogation tactics have been widely discredited.

Secondly, the ill-will generated by "getting tough" with terrorists is far worse than the intelligence gathered. The United States is alienating its European allies. We need the cooperation of their intelligence agencies in our fight against an international menace. More importantly, why would Muslims support America when we so such contempt for their people? We are giving ammunition to the Islamic extremists who want to make this a holy war. The leaders of the United States can descend to the level of murderers like Bin Laden, or rise to the ideals of freedom and democracy our nation was founded on.

The King Is Not Dead (Still Stupid But Not Dead)

2005-10-30T17:38:00.000-05:00

The indictment of Scooter Libby is delightful. The humiliation of the President due to the Harriet Miers fiasco is also wonderful. The amount of schadenfreude I feel is reaching all time highs. I think George W. Bush is a strong contender for Worst President Ever, and his embarrassments last week are so sweet I'm gaining weight.

However, fellow liberals, Democrats, and fans of intelligent government, let's not get too excited. Barring a Watergate-style miracle, we are stuck with the Jackass-in-Chief for another three years. I'm sorry, but I just don't see the indictment of Libby to be the start of a snowball of indictments that will bring Bush down. Even if Libby gets sent to jail (and Rove too), Bush will still be president. Lame duck, maybe, but still appointing right-wing judges, still spending us further into fiscal hell, still supporting insane corporate-friendly ideas like drilling in the Arctic Refuge and financing new nuclear plants, and still allowing our soldiers in Iraq to be murdered in an unwinnable situation.

Don't forget, Bush and his handlers are genius-level dissemblers. Bush has slipped out of jams before. The constant bloodletting of Iraq has only recently turned the majority of Americans against him. There is a stubborn base, I estimate a quarter of adult Americans, who simply loathe the idea of gay people marrying more than they care about the competence of their president. Until Bush is videotaped snorting coke off a hooker's ass, his Christian Right supporters will back him right or wrong (or wronger). The best we can hope for is that this voter bloc will be demoralized by Bush's incompetence to the point that they won't show up for the 2006 and 2008 elections.

The Democrats still have to present a cogent, reasonable alternative to Republican rule. Having "intellectual" conservatives fighting with Christian conservatives is great, but you still have to have a plan better than "the other guys suck." The joke about Kerry running as "Not Bush" was too close to being true. The Democrats have to push simple issues that have common sense appeal: funding health care for all children without coverage, maintaining the estate tax, expanding science and computer scholarships, and pulling FEMA out of the ridiculous Department of Homeland Security and making it an independent agency again (with a non-partisan boss who is actually qualified). The list goes on, but the point is the Democrats need to be known as a party of ideas again. If not, the Dems deserve to go the way of the Whigs, the Progressives, and the dinosaurs.

Truth Comes Out About N.O. "Violence"

2005-09-29T08:39:00.000-05:00

The reports of widespread murders and rapes in New Orleans during the Katrina aftermath turn out to be largely fictitious. Not to say I told you so, but I told you so. From the start, I thought that the armed gangs of looters seemed improbable, and the mass rape of women and children in the Superdome was completely unbelievable. I also thought it strange that people would shoot at relief helicopters and as The New York Times said in its September 29 issue:

For military officials, who flew rescue missions around the city, the reports that people were shooting at helicopters turned out to be mistaken. "We investigated one incident and it turned out to have been shooting on the ground, not at the helicopter," said Maj. Mike Young of the Air Force.

That particular piece of misinformation really riles me. Many people around the country said something to the effect of "Stupid n-----s. We're trying to save them and they just shoot at us. Screw them if they don't want help." Part of that blame-the-victim mentality that conservatives fall back on so easily.

People were scared and repeated rumors they heard. Rumors grew more outlandish and circulated widely. Looting of a Wal-Mart and other stores is well documented, but that morphed into imaginary armed gangs of angry black youth rampaging the streets. I expected to see chalk drawings of black tribesmen with spears and loincloths, carrying screaming white girls thrown their shoulders. At the bottom of the screen there would be a tiny scrawl saying "Dramatization, events might not actually have occurred" like the tabloid TV show "Rock Bottom" on The Simpsons.

I blame these rumors on four groups:

1. Irresponsible local officials. N.O. police superintendent Edwin Compass, who just resigned, claimed that tourists were being robbed and raped on the streets. Mayor Ray Nagin, who SHOULD resign, made similar comments. These two African-American city officials should be ashamed of themselves for repeating unverified rumors that slander the mostly black victims of Katrina. I think they were panicked and desperate, trying to get more police and military assistance, so they went with the scariest possible reports, true or not. This does not justify their actions, because it enabled the press to quote them ad infinitum with these exaggerations and outright lies.

The rumors of chaos had the added benefit of making government failures seem more understandable. The local government tried to help, but these gangs out of Escape From New York took over the city and the government was powerless. Uh-huh. The state and federal governments were only happy to accept the rumors for the exact same reason.

2. The Press. Unfortunately all media now, not just Fox News, likes sensationalistic stories, and will repeat them constantly until something more outlandish comes along. What happened to independent verification before airing/printing a story? Like I said above, N.O. officials gave the press some fantastic quotes, but how about looking into them and seeing if they are true? If the streets were so unsafe, how come I saw reporters in New Orleans on live TV throughout the worst of the trouble? The press was there, they could see the lack of "violence" themselves, and should have known better.

3. Scared residents. Hysterical flood victims were often interviewed (only the most out-of-their-minds with panic would do), and they would tell crazy stories of stuff they heard and thought they saw. These people are understandably shaken and terrified, so it is hard to blame them for letting their imaginations run wild. Of course, the TV crews were there to videotape the craziest crazy talk and disseminate it to the world.

4. Scared stupid white people. I mainly refer to tourists, but also reporters, who would see black man walking down the street and think "looter." Two or more black men together was a "gang." I won't say these out-of-towners were racists exactly - they might not dislike black people - but they damn sure categorize them. I doubt many residents of the Ninth Ward were dressed in suits (or Polos and slacks) when they were getting out of the flooded areas. Many white rubes see a young black man with a baseball cap turned to the side and think the worst. I saw tourists huddled on the balconies of their hotels looking down on pedestrians (literally and figuratively), saying to a reporter "See look at that guy! I think I saw him earlier. What is he doing?" Uhh, walking? Looking for help? Trying to find his family?

The way the tourists were acting, you'd think it was the Night of the Living Dead, and they were barricading themselves inside to keep the zombies out (actually that comes full circle, since George Romero's undead movies satirize rich people who live in exclusive enclaves while shutting out the poor).

Katrina was helpful in one respect - it jarred me out of my liberal complacency. I am not SO idiotic as to think we have an egalitarian meritocracy, but I didn't realize how bad things still were. Race relations have a LONG way to go. We are not an assimilated American society at all, but three separate societies (white, black, Latino), intertwined but segregated.

9/11 vs. Hiroshima

2005-09-20T09:35:00.000-05:00

A friend of mine posed an interesting question - what similarities are there between 9/11 and Hiroshima? I think there are obvious similarities between 9/11 and Pearl Harbor (surprise attack, shock to the nation, a "where were you when you heard..." feeling that few other events possess). As far as 9/11 and Hiroshima/Nagasaki, there are some things in common: both 9/11 and H/N targeted civilian populations. Both attacks were seeking political objectives: the removal of American forces from the Middle East and the capitulation of Japan, respectively.

One big difference: America didn't consider itself as war with al-Qaida on September 10, 2001 but the Japanese certainly were at war with us. More importantly, the magnitude of the events are on completely different scales. Anyway you cut it, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were far worse events. Tens of thousands of people were incinerated instantaneously, with many thousands more to die of horrific burns and radiation sickness. I think the bombing of Hiroshima is the single most important act in human history, because it shows the limitless violence man is willing to use on other human beings, and it demonstrated that the human race now has the capacity to destroy itself.

All that said, 9/11 is less morally justifiable than the atomic bombings. The reasons for al-Qaida to kill 3,000 Americans are certainly sane, but dubious. American money props up autocratic regimes in Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, and all the Gulf States, so we are indirectly responsible for the oppression of Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East. We back the barely legitimate state of Israel and allow it to oppress the Arab population under its control. Finally, American troops occupied the Holy Land of Islam by being in Saudi Arabia (at the time 9/11 occurred). If you are a Muslim radical, those are all really good reasons to hate the U.S.

However, we also have done good things toward Muslims: American troops defended Muslims in Kuwait and restored its independence, we (belatedly) helped Bosnian Muslims against racist Serb oppression, we pressured Israel to give the Sinai Peninsula back to Egypt, and we helped the mujadeen in Afghanistan fight the Soviet Union. These acts were in our best interest, but we did do these (basically) good things nevertheless. Supporting Israel and other perceived anti-Muslim, anti-Arab acts are done for political reasons, not out of some Crusade-like hatred of Islam.

Assassinating Mubarak or killing all the wacko Jewish settlers in the West Bank would have been much more justifiable acts of violence in my opinion. Obviously, I don't think big enough. Osama directed his hatred at the U.S., so killing 3,000 Americans and destroying symbols of American capitalism makes sense in an evil sort of way. Some have argued that 9/11, as appalling as it was, worked. We have moved our forces from Saudi Arabia (one of Osama's biggest hangups), and our occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq are casting us in the role of villainous superpower perfectly. The invasion of Iraq in particular was a huge gift to Osama's recruiting efforts.

Killing civilians is vile. Many of 9/11's victims had to make the choice of burning to death or plummeting 100 stories. The cruelty of using civilian planes to kill civilians is an especially diabolical twist. For reasons I have listed above, the WTC attack cannot be called "unprovoked" but I don't think the average American thought we were in a global war either. In that sense 9/11 and the atomic bombings of Japan are very different.

Despite my deep regret that my country is the only one to use atomic weapons in combat, and my feeling that we did not HAVE to incinerate Hiroshima and Nagasaki to make Japan surrender, I think it is very smug of Americans today to second-guess Truman's choice to use the Bomb. Frankly, we care a lot more about civilian deaths in war today than we used to. Both Allies and Axis attacked civilian populations regularly and intentionally.

World War II was a total war, mobilizing every participant's full human resources. Civilians played a huge part in the war machine of a country - mass industrial capacity required massive numbers of workers. Both sides though destroying factories and the people that worked in them would hurt the enemy war effort. Killing 3,000 office workers didn't change the United States' military capacity one iota. Bombing factories in World War II turned out not to be nearly as effective as was thought at the time, but that is 20/20 hindsight. Military leaders THOUGHT destroying cities helped weaken the other side, and so they kept doing it.

Then there is the revenge factor, which is a base human instinct but no less real. Japan attacked us. They tortured American prisoners of war in unbelievably ghastly ways. Because of the fog of cultural insensitivity and plain old racism, we did not understand Japan's motives or the viciousness of their warrior ethic. And let's be clear, the Japanese Empire was a cruel, expansionistic, xenophobically racist regime. It was a military junta masquerading as a monarchy. It murdered millions of Chinese and other East Asians. Everywhere they conquered, they were first greeted as liberators and then despised as they persecuted the native populations. Ho Chi Minh was on our in WWII, fighting Japanese occupiers.

President Truman was under enormous pressure to end the war as quickly as possible. Germany was already defeated and Japan was on the ropes, but every day Japan did not capitulate, it meant more American deaths. It can be convincingly argued that America SAVED Japanese civilian lives by the atomic bombings. The alternative was to conventionally bomb every city, village, and hamlet in Japan, while continuing to starve the Japanese people in a blockade, until we were ready for a massive amphibious invasion. Plus, some of Japan might have been occupied by the Soviet Union, leading some Japanese to enjoy Stalinist-style Communism like their neighbors in North Korea.

Also, would the Japanese have cooperated with the American occupation forces like they did if we hadn't scared the shit out of them with the A-bomb? This isn't a demeaning question - there was virtually no resistance to American occupation (compare that to some other places we know!). Japan transformed itself from a brutal authoritarian state to a parliamentary democracy peacefully and very quickly. Japan was an American ally in the Korean War just five years later. Maybe if the Japanese were conquered in a brutal conventional invasion, there would have been pockets of resistance that would have delayed Japan's transformation into an extremely rich democracy.

But I digress. The bottom line is Truman wanted to end the war ASAP and as the American president he had the responsibility to prevent American deaths first and foremost. An amphibious invasion was projected to cost hundreds of thousands of American lives (I am almost sure this is exaggerated, but again, hindsight). The atomic bombings were a way to hit Japan in such a devastating way that surrender would be quick, with the happy side-effect of warning the Soviet Union to back off. Some people think using the deaths of two cities as a warning to the USSR is appalling. That was NOT the main reason Hiroshima and Nagasaki were attacked, but it is hardly a bad idea to intimidate a potential enemy, one that was poised to swoop into Western Europe and all of East Asia, and that was ruled by one of the most evil men that ever lived. So even as the first salvo in the Cold War, Hiroshima and Nagasaki's destruction is somewhat justifiable.

I wish the U.S. didn't do it. I wish we didn't firebomb Tokyo either. And guess what? I wish we didn't imprison Japanese-Americans, I wish we treated the Indians decently, I wish we never had slaves, and I wish we always allowed women to vote, and so on and so on. If I were to make a list of all the shitty things America has done, Hiroshima would be down on the list (I originally wrote "pretty far down the list" but not really - third behind 1. slavery and 2. murdering/displacing Native Americans).

I hope history makes clear the full complexity of the decision Harry S. Truman had to make. History will show Osama Bin Laden to be a murderous asshole.

Worst Episode Ever?

2005-09-11T17:29:00.000-05:00

I thought I would post something today because it marks not only the fourth anniversary of 9/11 but the fourth anniversary of one of the worst things that ever happened to me. In late August 2001, I started a trip by myself to the Galapagos Islands and Ecuador. On September 6, 2001, I was riding a bus from Quito to Baños when this Ecuadoran dude sat down next to me and started talking. I had a clunky Spanish conversation with him for about an hour, and he offered me a fruit drink (in one of those little plastic bottles that look like miniature milk jugs). Then I got sleepy...

Next morning, seventeen hours later, I was on a bench in Baños...somewhere. I was so groggy I can't recount exactly what happened or where I was, but somehow I got to a police station, where the cops asked me where I was from. I talked to them (in Spanish or English - I have no idea which) and they put me on a bus back to my hotel in Quito. My money belt was missing with its contents ($200 cash, my passport, and two credit cards). Also stolen - my sunglasses, regular prescription glasses, backup contacts, camera, and my Ecuadoran guide books. Most importantly, I was unharmed (except for the drug hangover which lasted for days). Also good, all my Galapagos photos were in a suitcase I left back in Quito, along with some extra clothes.

When I arrived back at my Quito hotel (in a free taxi ride? I don't know), I told my story to the hotel staff that recommended Baños in the first place. They were horrified. I called my parents, who were also horrified. My dad contacted my travel agency and wired me some more greenbacks (Ecuador used US dollars as its currency). My half-Ecuadoran, half-Russian tour coordinator gave me the money and arranged for me to stay at another hotel (my current Quito hotel was booked for Sunday night). I cancelled my plans to go to the Amazon and slept most of the weekend.

My dad raised Cain with the US Embassy in Quito, and I was able to get a "travel letter" from an American bureaucrat who came in on a Sunday to meet me. This letter, with a passport photo stamped and attached to it, allowed me to leave Ecuador on Monday, September 10. After anxious flights to Miami, then Charlotte, then finally to my hometown of Columbia SC, I wanted to kiss the tarmac. I was tense because I didn't have enough money for a taxi, so I almost wept with relief when I saw my then-girlfriend in the window of the terminal.

I was already making up "funny" jokes about what happened to me when I was knocked out. At the Miami airport, I made myself laugh thinking about a Ecuadoran gay porn movie - "Jose and The Sleepy American" - that would be wildly popular. Basically I was trying to think up some funny lines to beat my friends to them.

Here is the weird part - I arrived in Columbia around 8 pm EST, September 10. If I HADN'T been drugged and robbed, I would have been due to come back to America on Wednesday September 12, 2001. As we know, the events of September 11 forced all air traffic to be grounded, so I would have been stuck in Ecuador for who knows how long. I'm sure 9/11 would have been even more bewildering and scary if I had to get all my news in a foreign country in a language I can barely understand.

As it turned out, my father called me Tuesday morning to tell me a plane had hit the World Trade Center. I watched live when the second plane hit. My mom immediately called and we agreed that it had to be terrorism. I was glued to the television at that point, and saw both towers collapse live. To this day, I still find it hard to comprehend that the World Trade Center doesn't exist anymore. It is like the Eiffel Tower or the Taj Mahal just disappeared. Not seeing them on the New York skyline is still jarring.

It was a weird six days. Drugged and robbed one week, witnessing a national catastrophe the next. I'd like to say that since these events, I appreciate life more and don't take small things as seriously as I used to. That is true in the broadstrokes I guess, but it certainly wasn't a neatly delineated epiphany like a fictional character would have.

Do life-changing epiphanies EVER happen? I'm not sure. Getting robbed in Ecuador was definitely NOT the worst thing that ever happened to me, as I learned in June of this year when my stepfather died. Most likely, I will have to deal with the deaths of other loved ones in the future, and in comparison, my Ecuador adventure will be a fond memory.

As for the national tragedy that happened four years ago today, I don't think 9/11 can be called the worst single event in American history. For a recent example, Hurricane Katrina might have killed more people, and undeniably cost more money, displaced more people, and damaged a much larger area than 9/11. Of course, 9/11 was a much bigger shock, and indirectly led to the Iraq War, which has killed tens of thousands of people. However, Katrina will resonate historically too. Not only because of the bungled relief efforts - it also shows how quickly a First World society can dissolve into anarchy and misery.

For the nation, there will be worse days to come, but I will elaborate on that later.

Spineless Media Assholes

2005-09-03T10:29:00.000-05:00

NBC aired a concert special for Gulf Coast disaster relief. That's great. What isn't great is that the West Coast feed of the concert edited out rapper Kanye West's comments criticizing George W. Bush. West said, "George Bush doesn't care about black people" and that America is set up "to help the poor, the black people, the less well-off as slow as possible." Here is the entire story from the condescending Frazier Moore of the AP.

Kanye West's statement went out live on the East Coast (fortunately) but NBC's spineless, quivering TV executives were able to excise these sentences before they reached the tender ears of West Coast Americans. Now, NBC had every right to edit its broadcast any way it wanted to, but why did it do so in this case? Kanye West did not use profanity and he certainly expressed an opinion that millions of other Americans share (including myself). He certainly isn't a gangsta rapper - one of his most popular songs is about his love of Jesus.

AND his comments were relevant to the disaster relief concert. Do Bush-lovers honestly think the U.S. government responded as quickly as possible to the plight of the mostly poor, mostly black New Orleans residents trapped by the flooding? If Hilton Head Island (a rich enclave off the coast of my home state of South Carolina) was cut off by a hurricane, the United States Air Force would airlift the entire fucking island to Hawaii. I'm exaggerating, but not by much.

Kanye West spoke his mind during a concert. His comments were not inappropriate or profane. The NBC execs probably didn't even disagree with it (or at least didn't understand it). NBC was motivated by cowardice, the same cowardice that makes them terrified to air condom ads and anti-war political messages. Television's self-censorship is depressing. If television is afraid to air statements critical of the government, how exactly does our media differ from Russia's, China's, or Iran's?

Two reasons for this - 9/11 and Janet Jackson. After 9/11, radio stations were afraid to play songs that weren't "patriotic." Criticism of Bush and his administration were muted. Public service announcements emphasizing patriotism were the norm. Police and firemen were praised to the point of absurdity. I thought the United States was going to start a First Church of Christ The Emergency Responder, and have all cops and firemen canonized.

The overreaction to the Janet Jackson nipple exposure, led by then FCC chairman Michael Powell, started a pathetic round of media appeasement. Fines for all sorts of "indecency" started to be imposed or threatened by the FCC, so live broadcasts are now routinely aired with a delay, and nudity (but not violence) has been allegedly reduced. Bono was almost fined for using the word "fucking" on broadcast TV (I read that thousands of children were made deaf just by hearing that horrible, horrible word).

At the time, I hoped this media overreaction was going to be social conservatism's Battle of the Bulge, the last desperate counterattack by fanatics, deluding themselves that they could turn the tide. In my mind, the Moral Offensive, like the Bulge, would have some surprising early successes, only to be crushed in inevitable failure. Now, I'm not so sure. If liberals keep allowing their voices to be drowned out, conservatism could triumph, and in an Orwellian twist, the victorious right-wingers will pretend everyone agreed with them in the first place. Control of information lets you control the reality of the past, present, and future. Write NBC and tell them they are a bunch of cowards.

Blame The Victim

2005-09-02T10:08:00.000-05:00

Pop quiz - The bungled relief efforts in New Orleans and the rest of the Gulf Coast are to be blamed on:

A) the federal government, which has fleets of ships, helicopters, trucks, and thousands of troops and care givers at its disposal, with billions of dollars available to buy every conceivable item needed for the hurricane victims

B) armed Negro thugs roving through the streets, driving back all emergency responders

Anyone with any wits would pick A, but the government and its apologists sure would like to talk about B. Let's be clear, shooting at paramedics and firemen is bad, but is that why 20,000 people were crammed into the Superdome with no aid or transportation? Did the armed Negro thugs prevent the government from mustering relief supplies days before Hurricane Katrina? I was watching the news, and I'm pretty sure every media outlet mentioned Katrina - oh, I'd say about a few hundred thousand times - before it even hit the Gulf Coast.

This was not an unforeseen emergency. I have been hearing for years how New Orleans was the most endangered city in the country because of its geography. Why weren't levees maintained, why weren't supplies stockpiled, and why the fuck didn't the poor and the infirm get evacuated from the city with Army trucks and helicopters? This IS the federal government's fault. New Orleans is a desperately poor city (which is also partially the feds' fault but anyway). Louisiana is a poor state. This is where the federal government and the combined resources of the "most powerful nation in the world" get applied to those in need.

"Zero tolerance for looters" is what our Chimpanzee-In-Chief has been saying. Does that include desperate people looting pharmacies for water and medicine? We ignore a whole underclass of American society, and in typical fashion, we want to jail them or kill them if they don't like it and get uppity.

Americans like to boast about our power and supremacy, but we've been responding to this disaster like we're a Third World country. Can the poverty and race of the victims have anything to do with that? Surely not! Surely Beverly Hills, Orange County, and Hilton Head would've suffered just as badly if they were cut off from the rest of the nation. Yeah, and a couple of black kids with handguns caused this mess.

Of Monkeys And Men

2005-08-15T22:32:00.000-05:00

Evolution is one of the most important concepts in understanding the human species and its place in the universe. I am simply amazed that we are still debating evolution, a process that has never been credibly challenged scientifically since Darwin literally wrote the book on it in 1859. Imagine a child, an overweight, not particularly attractive child, crying, snot bubbling out of his piggy little nose, sticking his fingers in his ears and screaming, trying to drown out his older sister who is telling him there is no Santa Claus. That stupid fat little baby is the United States of America.

I'm not going to into why Intelligent Design is magical realism posing as science, or why evolution is the only consistent way to explain the development of mankind on Earth. I would like to focus on two points that have enraged me about the evolution vs. magic debate. One is how the latest "I.D." movement is just a well financed PR campaign by an All-Star Squad of Rich Republican Assholes (sorry if I'm being redundant). The other is the infuriating assertion than the teaching of Intelligent Design in the public schools needs to be protected by the First Amendment. But first the rich assholes...

The Discovery Institute, the main proponent of teaching Intelligent Design, is a Republican front, funded by such right-wing low lifes as Richard Mellon Scaife, who endeavored at great expense to prove the startling accusation that Bill Clinton cheats on his wife. The Discovery Institute (does anyone hear "Ministry of Truth" when they read that?) spends millions of dollars to fund "research" into I.D. and to lobby states and school districts to teach "the controversy" about evolution. Let's be clear - there is no fucking controversy about evolution. Or to put it another way, there is JUST as much controversy about two other factual assertions, that cigarettes cause cancer, and that the Holocaust occurred.

I use those two examples because tobacco companies and Holocaust-deniers, like evolution-deniers, can find scientists that back up their ridiculous assertions. With enough money thrown around, I bet I can get some unscrupulous PhD's to say almost anything. If flat out bribery doesn't work, there is always some willing egotist who craves the fame that comes with being a "maverick" who bucks the establishment. It is easier to make waves and generate sales by being in the wacko minority opinion. That is why any crazy theory can get published: "The Nazis didn't kill any Jews," "Lincoln was gay," or "ass-raping aliens are kidnapping people" - best-selling books have been written on all three of these subjects. Who wants to be the two millionth biologist to say "Darwin was right" when you can be one of the lucky 50 stooges that says, "I.D. is a valid viewpoint. Check please." Hell I'm tempted to get a PhD in Intelligent Design from Bob Jones University and get a gig on Fox News too. I want one of those new bad ass Mustangs. They're sweeeet!

This leads me to my second point of irritation about this whole disgusting I.D. mess. This irritant is the belief that the First Amendment protects the teaching of I.D. in schools. When I ponder this concept, I feel my head is going to spin around like the Exorcist chick. If you see a little news scrawl that says "South Carolina man spews green vomit and dies," you will know it was because someone used "First Amendment" and "Intelligent Design" in the same sentence once too often.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is one of the greatest things ever written, in my opinion. So much suffering in our nation and around the world would disappear if everyone could just let everyone say and believe what they want. I don't want to make I.D. proponents disappear, or make them shut up, or lead them into re-education camps where their genitals will be shocked with car batteries for days on end. No, no, no. I might fantasize about it, but I don't truly wish it. Everyone has the right to be a dumb ass, and that goes for a neo-Nazi or an I.D. extremist just as much as for my angry, bile-spewing self.

But here is the thing...the First Amendment has limits. We've all heard Oliver Wendell Holmes's too-often-quoted quote about yelling fire in a crowded theater, but there are other examples of how the First Amendment is limited, such as libel and child pornography. But that is on another planet from this debate. When talking about a school curriculum, I don't even think the First Amendment applies.

Actually, using the First Amendment as an argument is a crass, devious ploy to turn one of liberalism's greatest weapons against itself. But like much of Orwellian Republican sophistry, you can cut to the truth of the matter - arguing that Intelligent Design should be taught in science class is like arguing that 2+2=5 is a valid mathematical concept. If something is just fucking wrong, factually wrong, it needn't be discussed in a school. Bringing up I.D. in class would just be white noise, clutter to distract the students from the truth these conservatives so detest. The Onion newspaper had a brilliant parody of this whole ridiculous concept, when it reported that Christians wanted "Intelligent Falling" to be taught as an alternative to gravity.

Let's be clear - science and human reason are under assault by the Bush Administration and the Christian wing of the Republican Party. Casting doubt plays right into the hands of those that would ban stem cell research, or deny global warming. In Republican doublethink, the good scientists, the ones that advocate peer review, that propose and test falsifiable hypotheses, THEY are the narrow minded people, THEY are the bigots. It is the same mentality that allows zealots to say "Christianity is under attack" when just under 80% of Americans are Christian. Trust me, if you guys are under attack, we atheists are doing a really shitty job. Next time you feel oppressed as a Christian, take out one of those little green slips of paper that say "In God We Trust," and shove it.

Iran And The Bomb

2005-08-13T21:18:00.000-05:00

Iran announced it was resuming uranium conversion this week. The International Atomic Energy Agency has given a September 3 deadline for Iran to stop doing this or face possible Security Council sanctions. The United States is also keeping military options open, with or without UN authority. Yet despite President Bush's warning that "all options are on the table" for dealing with Iran, the reverse is actually true. Iran will become a nuclear power and there is virtually nothing that the United States and the European Union can do about it.

Why is this? For one, Iran is playing its cards well. It can claim that its uranium processing is for peaceful nuclear power plants. All signatories of the Non-Proliferation Treaty have the right to develop atomic energy for their energy needs. This requires enriching uranium. Unless Iran announces publicly that it is doing so for nuclear warheads, it is hard for the West to make a clear case. Iran will do nothing of the kind, of course, and will be happy to keep the West talking.

Also the very unfairness of the Non-Proliferation Treaty can be used by Iranian leaders to manipulate Third World opinion in their favor. The NPT says that only five states can have nuclear weapons (U.S., Russia, China, Britain, and France). Any country locked out of the Nuclear Club can reasonably ask: "If nuclear weapons are truly to be used as a defensive deterrent, shouldn't any state that CAN make them have them? Why should these five nations be granted a monopoly?" India, Pakistan, and Israel have already made their choice, opting out of the NPT, and wield nuclear arsenals. All three are in Iran's neighborhood, of course.

Then there is the religion angle. Without incontrovertible evidence, an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities by the United States would be a PR bonanza for Islamic extremists: "The United States has attacked three Muslim nations in five years! Can anyone doubt America is at war with Islam?" The entire Middle East would explode with anti-American hatred and violence.

The military option is just not credible. Iran has many nuclear facilities spread out over its territory (it is four times bigger than Iraq). It has a strong military that has not been starved for equipment like Iraq's was. Although the US would quickly achieve air superiority, that would not be enough to ensure Iran's nuclear weapons program was destroyed. How many "boots on the ground" can America commit? Over 138,000 troops are tied up in Iraq, plus commitments in Afghanistan and South Korea. The United States troop strength is at its breaking point. Would Bush be willing to start another Middle East conflict while popular support for the Iraq War is at new lows? Good luck selling that plan.

Iran can also fight back with asymmetrical warfare. Iran is the main benefactor of Hezbollah, the grimly effective terrorist organization responsible for the Beirut Marine barracks bombings, two US Embassy bombings, and the kidnappings that led to the Iran-Contra fiasco. If Hezbollah bomb-makers aren't already aiding the Iraqi insurgency, they would be after the US attack on Iran!

Even economic sanctions against Iran are doubtful. Security Council sanctions would not survive a Chinese veto. Last year, China signed a $70 billion oil agreement, and a $20 billion natural gas agreement, with you-know-who.

All of this makes me think Iran will develop nuclear weapons. This inevitability does not have to be viewed as a global crisis. Iran is slowly evolving, in fits and starts, from a theocracy to a democratic Islamic state. Not an open society, especially for women, but not the jihadist bogeyman Americans have hated since 1979 either. Many will try to demonize the Iranian regime as "crazy" and unpredictably dangerous but like the Soviet Union before it and North Korea right now, even "evil" nation-states seek their own survival. An Iranian state would follow the rules of Mutually Assured Destruction just like everyone else.

Welcome To Bowden Busts Loose

2005-08-11T16:09:00.000-05:00

My original BlowdenBlog site is about popular entertainment. This blog, Bowden Busts Loose, is intended to be a more serious opinion column like you'd find in a newspaper, with more profanity.