Edgewise

The Cult of the Simpletons

2006-10-25T11:24:00.000-07:00

"Like the rest of biological evolution, the human mind is a collage of adaptations (the propensity to do the right thing) to different situations. Our thought is a pack of fixed routines — simpletons. We need them. It is vital to find the right food at the right time, to mate well, to generate children, to avoid marauders, to respond to emergency quickly....

The mind evolved great breadth, but it is shallow, for it performs quick and dirty sketches of the world. This rough-and-ready perception of reality enabled our ancestors to survive better. The mind did not evolve to know the world or to know ourselves. Simply speaking, there has never been, nor will there ever be, enough time to be truly rational."

Taking this description -- simpletons -- as a metaphor, it may be possible to apply it to another human tendency, the construction of religious or philosophical ideas by purely metaphysical means. In other words, the development of ideological points of view in a void, separate from empirical input, sans scientific method. The idea that one can divine truth by logical thinking, without going through the rigorous exercise of starting with empirical observations and inductive thinking, before reaching a conclusion about the nature of reality. The absence of such an approach in attempts to develop knowledge about the real world -- particularly when it comes to political philosophy -- is the essence of ideology.

To many, the post-Soviet period is known as a non-ideological era, in which ideas based on fantasies of the past (Nazism and Fascism) or those based on fantasies of the future (Communism) no longer apply. As the world succombs increasingly to scientific knowledge and the scientific method, ideology -- especially political ideology -- becomes a thing of the past.

But does it?

David Brin's article, Neoconservatism, Islam and Ideology:The Real Culture War (from which the above citations are taken), casts doubts on this premise,using the American conservative movement as an example.

Traditional American conservatives must come to grips with what has happened to their movement. While old-style libertarians like William F. Buckley and Gingrich-era combatants such as Pat Buchanan and John McCain blink in astonishment, even dismay, the very definition of "conservative" has been shattered and the word taken over by a new brand of neoconservatism that has proved fundamentally different, though fantastically effective (so far) at seizing power in the world's greatest democracy.

What commonalities could I possibly see between Islamic fundamentalism and today's American neoconservative movement?

The author starts by pointing out how Straussian neocons have neatly sidestepped the values of The Englightenment, opting for Plato's "noble lies" instead of the Enlightenment value of accountability. More to the point, however, Mr. Brin argues that the character of neoconservative ideas bears an uncanny resemblance to those of religious fanatics.

What appears stunning to me is how few have pointed out the deep commonalities between American neoconservatism, Islamic fundamentalism, and every other prescriptive dogma that wracked and afflicted the Twentieth Century. The one common theme uniting all of these ideology-based systems is a burning contempt for the secular, pragmatic, accountable and tolerant legacy of the Enlightenment. Especially its promotion of skepticism toward the subjective, self important mind games that allow each of us to play tricks upon ourselves.

Anyone not on the fringes of neoconservative politics has been pointing this out from the first day that Bush took office. Brin, however, does not stop there.

There is a cultural war going on, all right. Not between East and West. Or between North and South. Or Islam vs. Christianity. Nor is it based on that ridiculous political metaphor and curse bequeathed to us by the French -- left versus right. Not even faith vs. humanism. All are distractions.

What Dr. Brin has in mind goes right to the political core of America -- and perhaps most of the free world. His thesis is both surprising and predictable.

The struggle is between panic and confidence. Between those -- both left and right --who preach that we must enslave our minds to simple doctrines, and those who know that free people can argue, learning from each other, using all of the tools at hand to raise a generation of human beings who are smarter and better than we are.

The full text of Dr. Brin's article can be found here.

Tags: neoconservatism; ideology; straussian; politics; Bush

Send in the Clowns

2006-07-01T04:03:00.000-07:00

The Dutch political circus has breathed new life into a nearly forgotten Mark Twain cliché: get your facts straight before you distort them.

When immigration minister Rita Verdonk announced last May that Aryan Hirshi Ali, the fiery, Sommalian-born anti-Islam member of Dutch Parliament, had lied to immigration authorities in order to obtain Dutch citizenship, it was not quite the shot heard ‘round the world. But, as it turned out, it was the latest in a series of circus acts performed by the current Dutch government.

Back in 2002 the first Balkenende cabinet had allied themselves with the rightwing LPF party (the party originally founded by Pim Fortuyn before his assassination). That government only lasted three months, basically due to in-fighting among LPF ministers. A coalition party, the VVD, pulled the plug on this cabinet and new elections were called. The result of these elections was the second Balkenende cabinet, this time with three coalition partners, Balkenende’s Christian Democrats, the center-right VVD and the center-left D66.

The legacy of the first Balkenende cabinet was the adoption of LPF’s immigration, anti-Islamic policies. This legacy and these policies formed the basis for the second Balkenende cabinet and Minister Verdonk’s role in the Hirshi Ali affair.

Controversy is nothing new for Rita Verdonk. A shoot-from-the-hip, supposedly “true-blue” politician, Verdonk’s hard-line immigration policies have led her to clash time and again with opposition parties in Parliament.

The timeline:

In March 2005, in response to claims by asylum seekers in a Dutch television program, the minister releases information about some of these persons to the public, something unheard of under Dutch privacy laws. The Dutch Labor Party and the Socialist Party submit a motion of no-confidence in Verdonk, but a government majority backs the immigration minister.

December 2005: Verdonk apologizes to Dutch Parliament about her handling of a group of Congolese refugees. Although they claimed that, if returned to the Congo, their lives would be in danger, the minister assured everyone concerned that no one in the Congo would know that they had applied for asylum in the Netherlands. As it turned out, however, their status was clearly shown on the traveling papers they needed to return to their country. Verdonk claims that this had been done without her knowledge. Under fire from her own coalition, she finally accepts responsibility for the blunder and formally apologizes. The motion to send her back to private life is defeated.

In April 2006, opposition parties in Dutch Parliament demand that Rita Verdonk resign because of another immigration blunder that came to light. Having decided to return a group of Syrian refugees to their country of origin (Syria), she failed to inform the Parliament of the fact that Syrian intelligence agents were present at the discussions. No one knows what happened to the refugees, but Verdonk fires two of her top civil servants in the immigration service and stays in her post.

Also in April 2006, Verdonk announces that she plans to deport Iranian asylum seekers and send them back to Iran. Since these refugees are both homosexuals and Christians, their chances of leading a normal life, or even surviving this one, in Iran are exceedingly slim. Not long before, the Iranian authorities had hung two homosexuals in a public square. This time a majority in Parliament draws the line. Unconvinced that these refugees could be returned to Iran without fearing for their lives, Parliament prevails and Rita Verdonk reverses her decision.

Still in April 2006, a busy month for Rita Verdonk, a fire in a cell complex at Schiphol Airport causes the death of 11 detainees. The investigating committee claims that Verdonk had released or promised to release six witnesses to the incident, presumably because she does not want them to testify. The person in charge of the investigating committee is Peter Van Vollenhoven, a member of the Dutch royal family. Behind closed doors, Mr. Van Vollenhoven changes his mind and refuses to file a complaint. Verdonk, a political Houdini of sorts, escapes once again.

Then there is the case of an 18-year-old schoolgirl who was in her last year of school at a Dutch high school and wanted to stay in the Netherlands long enough to graduate. Can’t do, Minister Verdonk concluds, because the girl had already been sent packing months before and had re-entered the country under false pretenses. Off with head! Not literally, of course, but Verdonk takes her side of the story to a Dutch newspaper. In doing so, she again releases private information from the schoolgirl’s dossier. A Dutch court rules that the girl should be returned to her country of origin. After surviving countless questions in Parliament, Verdonk -- sometimes called Iron Rita after Lady Thatcher -- is free to continue her series of blunders in Dutch politics.

The biggest blunder so far comes in May 2006 when, after hearing Aryan Hirshi Ali claim that she had lied to obtain her Dutch nationality, the minister announces that Ms. Ali is not a Dutch citizen and ergo has no right to be a Member of Parliament, following which Hirshi Ali resigns from her elected post. Needless to say, the Dutch Parliament once again entertains a motion of no-confidence in Rita Verdonk for her handling of the matter, particularly in a case that involves a Member of Parliament. The motion fails, a compromised is reached and Ms. Verdonk agrees to study the situation to see whether it would be legally possible for Hirshi Ali to keep her Dutch citizenship after all.

Six weeks after Verdonk says that Hirshi Ali lied about her name and date of birth and therefore was no longer a Dutch citizen, she informs the Parliament that Ali did not lie about her name and that she could keep her Dutch passport. According to Verdonk, Sommalian Law [sic] allowed their citizens to use other names handed down in family lines. In this case, “Ali” was such a name. So, problem solved. Somalian Law is substituted for Dutch Law and the name "Ali" is legal after all. Not sure what happened to the date of birth (Ali claimed that she was two years older than she was). But never mind. All she has to do now is to sign a simple statement of fact, along with a confession of guilt and a pledge of alliegance to Rita Verdonk, absolving the minister from any responsibility whatsoever, including -- presumably -- any mistakes or blunders she might make in future cabinets, her career in general or her private life in particular. Well, not quite.

Typically, during the long Parliamentary debate that follows, Ms. Verdonk repeatedly says words to the effect that she did not do anything wrong in this matter and she did not make any mistakes. Later that same evening, however, she begrudgingly admits that she “may” have made some mistakes, particularly by not doing the research in the first place when she announced that Ali was not entitled to Dutch citizenship.

When the Green Party introduces yet another motion of no-confidence in Verdonk, the government musters yet another majority to defeat it. At this point, Verdonk’s coalition partner, D66, announces that it has no confidence in the minister and that she would have to go if the coalition is to continue. Balkenende’s cabinet decides it would rather protect Verdonk than continue to work with D66 in the coalition.

Accordingly, the cabinet falls.

Update:

The clowns are back. The Balkenende Cabinet will continue for several months as a minority government, with limited decision-making powers. New elections will be held in November.

File under: Dutch, immigration, Verdonk, Balkenende, Hirshi Ali

Goodbye, Hirshi Ali

2006-05-16T11:57:00.000-07:00

So, Hirshi Ali is leaving the Netherlands to join a right-wing think tank in America. She has been ushered out of the Netherlands by a series of events that do little credit to that country (the one in which I currently live). First, she received death threats from radical Muslim groups, which took on a measure of seriousness following the murder of Theo van Gogh. Secondly, she recently lost a court battle to stay in her secure flat in The Hague, because her neighbors were afraid the building was not safe with Hirshi Ali living there. And finally -- the icing on the cake --, her fellow Liberal Democrat, Minister of Immigration Rita Verdonk, decided that Ms Ali no longer had a right to Dutch citizenship.

Hirshi Ali, it seems, lied on her citizenship application about her real surname and her date of birth. This was enough, according to Ms Verdonk, to strip Ms Hirshi Ali of her Dutch citizenship. One wonders whether it would have made any difference to her citizenship application if Hirshi Ali had stated her real surname and her real date of birth. After all, she did not conceal a criminal past or try to persuade Dutch immigration authorities that she was something she wasn't. She simply concealed her family name (apparently) for fear of reprisals and her age (to enhance her attractiveness to the opposite sex, presumably). What she did not do was commit any offence, one might assume, to warrant loss of her Dutch passport.

Be that as it may, Hirshi Ali has resigned her seat in Parliament and will emmigrate to the USA to work for the American Enterprise Institute. This, in itself, may be sufficient punishment. Presumably, given her undeniably right-wing views in many areas, particularly with regard to immigration and Islam, she will not have to suffer the fate of those whose views do not coincide with the current right-wing government of the USA: Uncle Sam Does Not Want You!

Her political activities in Holland have ranged from co-authoring the scenario of a film with Theo van Gogh about Islamic oppression of women to a constant barrage of epithets targeted not at individual fanatics but at Islamic culture in general. That this is borderline racism, even U.S. bloggers do not admit. Many see Hirshi Ali as a heroine, not as a rabble-rouser. The Belgium Flemish Block (or Flemish Interest, as they're currently known)has adopted her cause to promote their own quasi-racist politics.

Even moderate Andrew Sullivan has been quoting sources that lead back to the Flemish Block via the Brussels Journal. It is unfortunate that Hirshi Ali's cause has been tainted by such openly racist groups. Unfortunately, her own approach to this issue has been muddled by inferences that Islam -- not individual believers -- is to blame for the horrors that many women endure in some Islamic cultures, particularly in the Middle East.

By targeting Islam and not individuals within Islam, Hirshi Ali moves close to the racist line. Like many, she seems to believe that anyone who accepts Islam as a religious belief must also accept the darker side of that religion -- much like accusing Christians in America of approving of the pronouncements of Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell. After all, one might argue, aren't Chistian fanatics who attack and kill abortion doctors first and foremost "Christians" and only secondly "fanatical individuals"?

Suffice it so say that I disagree with Hirshi Ali's politics, her approach to the problem of certain medieval Islamic practices and her confrontational approach to an entire civilization -- one that does not generally practice the cruder aspects of Islam (just as most Christians no longer believe in slavery or the obligation to kill homosexuals).

I think she is wrong in many respects. But, in one respect at least, she is right. She should not be stripped of her citizenship and sent packing from the Netherlands on a technical detail. She has earned a reputation as a strident and passionate warrior for a cause in which she believes passionately.

To deny her right to live peaceably in the Netherlands and to promote her view of Islamic practices is to deny the very essence of civil rights. Ironically, the fault lies not with the Dutch, but with a right-wing minister who cannot see the forest for the trees.

File+Under Hirshi+Ali The+Netherlands; Freedom+of+Speech

Bolton: "I shrunk the coalition!"

2006-03-30T03:36:00.000-08:00

Thanks to one poster’s concerns about the UN’s new Human Rights Council, it seemed appropriate to address them here rather than in the comments section. This National Review article sums up the conservative case against the new Council as follows.

The successor [i.e. new UN Human Rights Council] is worthy of the original — just as bad, and utterly undeserving of respect from anyone concerned about human rights. It's time for those who feel such concern, led by the U.S., to work together outside the U.N. system.

One has to wonder where such support would come from. Except for the United States, Israel and two tiny island states, virtually every nation on earth voted to approve the new UN Human Rights Council. According to this report, “The creation of the new Council was also hailed by virtually all human rights organizations.”

The National Review article also objects to the fact that the Council “puts liberal democracies side by side with genocidal despotisms as though they were equally legitimate.”

While this certainly has been true in the past, the whole idea of restructuring and creating a totally new Council was to tackle this very problem. The new Council has certain procedures to discourage the election of nations with serious human rights abuse records. These include pre-election vetting of candidate Council members, limited terms and removal from the Council by a two-thirds vote of the General Assembly for member countries that commit abuses.

Since the idea behind the new Council is to bring such abuses to light and focus attention on the countries in which they occur, the likelihood of abuses being committed by Council members should be less than would be the case if there were no formal umbrella organization dedicated to monitoring human rights. In cases where Council members do commit abuses, it will be easier to put pressure on them from within the Council and to get them to live up to their human rights commitments or face sanctions or pressures from global opinion. Arguably, although it is a slow, step-by-step process, it is better than no process and its chances of success are undeniably greater than simply ignoring the problem.

In my view, the new Council offers a proactive, constructive approach to dealing with human rights abuses. The benefits of having a good human rights record should outweigh the cost of continuing such abuses. If the Council imposes sanctions and exposes offending nations to world opinion without resorting to force, it will be a positive step in the right direction. The approach is rational, designed to discourage offending nations to stop such practices, to impose sanctions where necessary and to encourage economic benefits for countries that comply with Council policy.

The NR article, however, only sees the stick, not the carrot. “Even a laughably weak eligibility criterion — that any country under U.N. sanction for human-rights violations be barred from membership — self-destructed during the negotiations.”

The article goes on to propose setting up a non-UN human rights body comprised solely of liberal democracies. One has to wonder why, when every liberal democracy in the world (except the USA) approved and voted for the new UN Human Rights Council. As many on the left argue today, there is something very unrealistic in conservative foreign policy – and this seems to be the perfect example.

Surprisingly, the article then rejects its own advice to abandon the international ship. “While it would be foolish to expect the council to do much good, we still have a stake in blocking it from taking actions and codifying new rights fundamentally opposed to our interests.”

Hmmmm.

The problem with this particular conservative analysis, it seems to me, is that it is premised on America taking unilateral action, as in the case of Iraq. Apart from the obvious lack of success of the current administration's unilateral approach to geo-politics, it seems that Mr. Bolton’s presence at the UN has also helped to shrink the U.S.’s coalition of the willing from 30-some nations in Iraq to three in the General Assembly -- Israel and two islands in the Pacific.

Three cheers for Mr. Bolton!

Considering its lack of international legitimacy for the invasion of Iraq, its own not inconsiderable list of human rights abuses, including Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo, Bagram, imprisonment without trial, ghost prisoners, kidnappings, renditions, not to mention the latest allegations of civilian massacres in Iraq and virtual lack of support even among liberal democracies – the Bush administration and its apologists appear to have little credibility or political capital left beyond America's border.

There's a message for America in all this. One wonders if and when it will finally sink in.

File_Under: Human_Rights_Council; Human Rights Abuses; Bolton; Neo-Conservatism; Bush

Don't Tell the Kids!

2006-03-17T15:43:00.000-08:00

There are many obscenities in the world you might not want your kids to know about just yet. War, genocide, starvation, human rights abuse, torture, forced prostitution and child pornography, not to mention terrorism and suicide bombers.

But here is something that everybody should know about. Stop the world, we want to get off!

United Nations - A running gag at the United Nations is that whenever the United States takes a defiant stand against an overwhelming majority of the 191 member states, there are only three countries that predictably vote with Washington most of the time - whether it is right or dead wrong.

As expected, this incongruous voting pattern was repeated Wednesday when the three loyal US allies - Israel and the two tiny Pacific Island nations of Palau and the Marshall Islands - were the only member states to stand in unison with the United States when it rejected a resolution calling for the creation of a new Human Rights Council.

The vote in the General Assembly was 170 in favor and four against (United States, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau), with three abstentions (Venezuela, Iran and Belarus).

And here is something that everybody already seems to know about. How to Lose Friends and Encourage Extremists

One of my proudest moments as an American working in Egypt always came at about this time of year, when the US State Department issued its annual report on the state of human rights around the world. I remember sitting in front of a computer in a Cairo living room a year before 9/11 while a group of young journalists, human rights activists, and academics downloaded the report from the Internet, eager to see what the world's most trusted authority on the rule of law had to say about their country and their region.

Their reaction was what made me grateful for having been born in the USA. Because they were bright, well-informed, and fiercely pro-democracy, they quibbled about how the report phrased a particular human rights abuse or why this or that infraction hadn't been given more or less emphasis.

But there was not the slightest doubt among them that this report spoke truth or that, of all the world's countries, only the United States of America had the performance record to speak with authority and credibility on this subject.

When this year's Human Rights report appeared last week, I e-mailed it to six of these old friends and asked them for their reactions "off the record."

They had a lot to say, but it all came down to this consensus: The United States had forfeited its right to report on abuses committed by others by committing its own, failing to correct them, and then holding no one in authority accountable. They said they would have expected this behavior in their own countries, but not in mine.
The keywords in their e-mails to me included Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo, Bagram, imprisonment without trial, ghost prisoners, kidnappings, renditions, unilateralism, bribing journalists, and Bush & Company and their whole Iraq adventure.

One of them wrote, "What kind of democracy is George Bush trying to spread anyway?"

This is something that Bush skeptics should know about. 500,000 reasons why the U.S. won’t invade Iran

And yes, there are signs of evolution.

The report puts greater stress on an approach administration officials call "effective diplomacy" - with the aim of encouraging "transformational democracy" - than it did in 2002.

"The administration we have today is not the administration that came into office," says Jon Wolfsthal, a defense analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "It's no longer a [neoconservative] government, it's a realistic government."

The report's emphasis on Iran's nuclear ambitions reflects the administration's view of the new reality: that Iran sponsors terrorism, threatens Israel, is meddling in Iraq's nascent democracy, and represents a generally destabilizing force in the region. "We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran," the report says, adding that diplomacy must succeed in order to avoid confrontation.

Bush appears to be extending an olive branch to countries that rejected the unilateralist approach of his first term. In addition, more than in the 2002 document, Bush speaks of global challenges beyond the military and security threats.

"Many of the problems we face - from the threat of pandemic disease, to proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, to terrorism, to human trafficking, to natural disasters - reach across borders," the introduction states. "Effective multinational efforts are essential to solve these problems."

By the way, where did all the Democrats go?

We have a President who likes to break things. He has broken the federal budget, running up $3 trillion in new debt. He has broken the Geneva Conventions, giving the green light to torture. He has repeatedly broken promises - and broken faith - with the American people. And now, worst of all, he has broken the law.

In brazen violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), he ordered the National Security Agency to conduct warrantless wiretaps of American citizens. And, despite getting caught red-handed, he refuses to stop.

Let's be clear: No American - and that must include the President - is above the law. And if we fail to hold Bush to account, then he will be confirmed in his conviction that he can pick and choose among the laws he wants to obey. This is profoundly dangerous to our democracy.

So it is time for Congress to stand up and say enough! That's why, this week, Senator Russ Feingold proposed a resolution to censure George W. Bush for breaking the FISA law. And that's why I fully support this resolution of censure.

And here's something you ought to explain to your kids. Brain dead or brain alive?

The law should be struck down because it imposes an unacceptable burden on women. But it should also serve as a warning that the threat to abortion rights has reached a new level.

South Dakota's abortion law is the most restrictive one adopted by any state since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. It does not contain exceptions for pregnancies that result from rape or from incest. Nor does it allow abortions that are necessary to preserve the health of the mother. The law is unlikely to go into force anytime soon. If it did, it would simply drive women - as in the pre-Roe days - to risk their lives to end their pregnancies with illegal back-alley abortions.

Gov. Mike Rounds, who signed the bill into law, said that the "true test of a civilization" was how it treated "the most vulnerable and helpless," including "unborn children." But his state has hardly been a leader in protecting vulnerable children who have left the womb. The nation's three worst counties for child poverty at the time of the last census were all in South Dakota, according to the Children's Defense Fund. Buffalo County, home to the Crow Creek Indian Reservation, was dead last.

The legal definition of human death is “brain dead” – i.e. when the encephalogram registers a flat signal. Until at least four months into the pregnancy, zygotes and fetuses do not have central nervous systems or brains. The Chiavo case shows just how far anti-scientific notions have pervaded some conservative lawmakers. The South Dakota abortion law confirms this anti-science stance.

Pixelated, No Less

US BROADCASTERS have been hit by record-breaking fines of almost $4 million (£2.5 million) by a federal TV standards watchdog which decrees that even casual use of the “s-word” or pixelated shots of a woman’s breasts “disturb the peace and quiet of the home”.

There are many obscenities in the world you might not want your kids to know about, but natural sex and profanity on TV or in movies is not one of them.

The Island of Blood Is.

You can tell your kids about man’s inhumanity to man. You can teach them the mechanics of reproduction and safe sex. You might even be able to persuade them that swearing is a sign of an impoverished vocabulary.

But, whatever you do, don’t tell them what humans do to baby seals.

"Tags: Kids, Human_Rights, Iran, Censure, Abortion, Sex, Baby_Seals

Poor Mr. Bush

2006-02-23T10:47:00.000-08:00

Just when most of the world was lambasting our poor president with disdain and contempt, accusing him of everything from bumbling incompetence to sublime ignorance, the poor guy suffers yet another defeat in his democratization program for the Middle East. Iraq. The threat of civil war looms in a failed country, one that our beloved leaders not so long ago told us was full of people who would welcome American troops with open arms and bouquets of flowers, the way Europeans welcomed their liberators. Unfortunately, it didn’t happen. The Pandora’s Box that many predicted would result from America’s invasion of that country based on false intelligence – if one is to give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt, which in itself is a stretch for many – seems to be opening.

In any case, it is happening and because it's happening it simply adds to the mess the world is in – from Al Qaeda terrorists operating at will in Iraq to abuses of prisoners at Guantanimo to torture at Abu Graib and seemingly dozens of other detention centers in Afghanistan and, apparently, in “new” Europe. Not to mention the poor people of Iraq.

Meanwhile, the jobless recovery of the American economy continues sluggishly and the dollar still hovers below the euro. The poverty gap widens in America and around the world and poor Mr. Bush has to admit that the government even got things wrong in the aftermath of Katrina. It’s not a very pleasant picture, this state of the union – and not one that Mr. Bush cared to talk about in “his” state of the union message.

Tilting at those Middle East windmills is not helping the situation very much, Sir. The enemy is still on the loose, wanted dead or alive. The clash of civilizations is drawing closer by the day. American credibility is sinking faster than the dollar.

Let's face it, Mr. President, the state of the union sucks!

No wonder many returning vets are looking to the Democrats to save them.

Now running for office: an army of Iraq war vets. All but one of these 50 or so House hopefuls are in the Democratic Party.

So here we are three years later and what has the Bush adventure in the Middle East contributed to the world – peace, stability, increased admiration for American intervention in the affairs of others, generosity in the face of disaster, words of wisdom to those who have lost the way or serious progress against those who wish America harm?

The true believer screams, “Just wait. Things are bound to improve.” The realist answers, “The world is a much more dangerous place than it was after 9/11.”

But the question remains, why? Can we simply put it down to ignorance of the world or incompetence? Most people recognize that Bush is probably the most unsuitable leader the Free World has ever had. He has failed at everything he has tried so far, including the presidency. Apart from his own fantasies about having a direct line to God, everything he touches turns to stone. The man is the archetypical loser and everyone knows it.

If anyone doubts it, just look at his latest proposal – to let entrepreneurs from the Middle East run American ports! He has to be kidding! Free trade, he calls it! How about freeing the people of the UAE, especially the women, while we’re at it? What does Bush have to say about that – and why, by the way, is he willing to defy even his own supporters to push this issue to its conclusion in spite of heavy opposition on both sides of the aisle?

Here’s some information that might shed some light on this issue. Could it be that there is something more important to Mr. Bush than the security of the United States, consistency of principle and a belief in freedom, democracy and justice (something that the UAE cannot lay claim to under any circumstances)?

How much does "free" trade have to do with this? How about a lot. The Bush administration is in the middle of a two-year push to ink a corporate-backed "free" trade accord with the UAE. At the end of 2004, in fact, it was Bush Trade Representative Robert Zoellick who proudly boasted of his trip to the UAE to begin negotiating the trade accord. Rejecting this port security deal might have set back that trade pact. Accepting the port security deal - regardless of the security consequences - likely greases the wheels for the pact. That's probably why instead of backing off the deal, President Bush - supposedly Mr. Tough on National Secuirty - took the extraordinary step of threatening to use the first veto of his entire presidency to protect the UAE's interests. Because he knows protecting those interetsts - regardless of the security implications for America - is integral to the "free" trade agenda all of his corporate supporters are demanding.

What a mess! It’s enough to make one feel sorry for him, to shed a tear of support for this much-maligned master of political intrigue. Clearly, he’s starting to feel the pain. Poor Mr. Bush.

Tags:
Bush, terrorism, UAE, U.S._Ports, Katrina, Middle_East

A Muslim President of Europe?

2006-02-11T08:15:00.000-08:00

As a follow up to my previous post on the Danish cartoons, it now seems clear that extremists on both sides of the cultural fence are mainly responsible for the furor caused by the unfortunate choice to publish these deliberately insulting images of the Prophet Mohammed.

Here is a more definitive treatment of this issue by one of my favorite armchair analysts at Strategytalk.

Enjoy.

Tags:
Free_Speech, Danish Cartoons, Muslims, Prophet Mohammed, Jyllands_Posten, Mohammed_Cartoon

Two Faces of Extremism

2006-02-05T05:28:00.000-08:00

The “cartoon wars” that are capturing headlines at the moment clearly reveal the two faces of extremism: one that rejects tolerance in the name of free speech and another that rejects free speech in the name of intolerance.

When the Danish newspaper, Jyllands Posten (a paper, incidentally, that also supported the regimes of Hitler and Mussolini in the 1930s) recently published satiric cartoons depicting the sacred figure of Islam, Mohammed, as an accessory to terrorism, holding him up to ridicule for the world to see, many Muslims around the world reacted violently, attacking Danish embassies, consulates and interests around the world. Other European and American media then picked up the story and published the images. The result: a minor clash of civilizations at ground zero.

Both acts represent the intellectual slag of the Enlightenment.

The period known as the Enlightenment triumphed in Europe after centuries of despotism, mysticism and religious intolerance. Starting with the reintroduction of Aristotelian ideas in 12th century Europe and the gradual triumph of the scientific method and the secular philosophy of humanism, Europe established a modus vivendi view of history that offered its inhabitants a viable alternative to constant wars and persecution of minorities. The Europe that emerged in the 18th century – spurred on by the democratic revolution in America – was the first step in the long march to today’s liberal societies, extolling the values of critical thinking, tolerance, respect for evidence and acceptance of natural sciences as the basis for improving social cohesion, physical health and economic well-being.

After 9/11, the actions of a fringe political activist group received global attention and, with the invasion of Iraq where their activities multiplied as a breeding ground for terrorists, achieved world notoriety. When George W. Bush won re-election in 2004, historian George Wills wrote a column in the New York Times entitled The Day the Enlightenment Went Out.

“The secular states of modern Europe do not understand the fundamentalism of the American electorate. It is not what they had experienced from this country in the past. In fact, we now resemble those nations less than we do our putative enemies.

“Where else do we find fundamentalist zeal, a rage at secularity, religious intolerance, fear of and hatred for modernity? Not in France or Britain or Germany or Italy or Spain. We find it in the Muslim world, in Al Qaeda, in Saddam Hussein's Sunni loyalists. Americans wonder that the rest of the world thinks us so dangerous, so single-minded, so impervious to international appeals. They fear jihad, no matter whose zeal is being expressed. “

Wills published his comments November 4, 2004. A little more than a year later, we are now seeing the spread of fundamentalist intolerance to the European community. Hiding behind the guise of free speech, some European newspapers have decided that an attack on one of the world’s leading religions is somehow an obligation, as well as a legal right. In doing so, it seems to me, they are assuming the intellectual weapons of those in the Muslim world who want to stamp out the Enlightenment, outlaw tolerance of opposing views, do away with secular science and destroy liberal democracy.

The issue of the right to be insulting is not the same one as the moral propriety of insulting someone’s deepest beliefs – particularly when the beliefs on the receiving end are shared by the terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda, whose avowed purpose is to destroy their secular enemies. Besides being totally offensive and gratuitous, such use of free speech will only serve to incite non-terrorist groups and individuals in the Muslim world, strengthening the hand of those whose professed aim is to tear down the wall that separates secular societies from theocracies.

Tags: Jyllands_Posten, Enlightenment, Extremism, Al Qaeda, Terrorism

Dead Frogs and Poetic Princes

2006-01-30T15:23:00.000-08:00

So here we were discussing suicide at this forum and the dead frog kept asserting that the founding fathers had no inkling of the 17th century debate about suicide. Since he's dead, I thought it might not be particurarly enlightening to explain to him why his position was without foundation. But, like Lazarus, he keeps returning from the dead with dead ideas, I thought it pertinent to set him straight.

So, here goes.

The claim is that the founding fathers were not aware of or exposed to ideas about suicide -- and that the modern idea about assisted suicide having any kind of moral justification had not been discussed in 17th or 18th century America.

We start with John Donne. Biantanatos [1644] a qualified apology for suicide, which is available (huhummm) from the Matrix Book Store.

Next, we move on to Thomas Morus.

The first recommendation of euthanasia came in the 16th century by Thomas Morus; he said "when there is no cure and a patient suffers too much, the patient should be convinced to die. The patient should realize that his illness is incurable, he is a burden to others and his suffering causes pity for people around him."

"Moreover, the famous French surgeon Ambroise Pare was one of the pioneers of the Renaissance in the 16th century. According to him "Every individual has the right to live; only God creates human beings and death is the wish of God." (Source)

Later, the English philosopher Francis Bacon (1561-1621) had some ideas about this theme and he defended euthanasia in the 17th century. The first legal source that reduced the punishment of a person who killed the patient with an incurable disease, was seen in Prussia in the XVIIIth century. This law was passed on 1st June 1794, and a person who killed a patient with an incurable terminal illness with a good intention, was punished as a guilty man. The physician, Paradys, emphasized the characteristics of euthanasia in the same century. Afterwards, academics such as, Reil, Marx and Ruhlfs described euthanasia as the birth of soul and explained that this subject must be investigated as an independent scientific branch, contrary to the ideas of some authors.

Then there is this observation:

"The concentration on "sense" during the 17th century, following from the work of Newton and others, led to the balanced, rational, decorous forms we have just been reading. The poetics of "sensibility" involve a move inward - writers are more introspective, thinking of their own thoughts and feelings as possible subject matter for their work. Contrast this with, say, Pope, who writes about others, and adds the further detachment of satire. The middle of the century saw writers become fascinated by the morbid, the macabre, and the Gothic: death, suicide, melancholia, and graves become popular motifs."

Not sufficient? Okay, we will then proceed to a link concerning early 17th century writers:

As early as the 17th century, writers identified a link between depression or melancholy and suicide. The Anatomy of Melancholy, written in 1621 by Richard Burton, identified melancholy as a medical and psychological phenomenon. The author argued that suicide "is the result of melancholy that desires self-destruction: 'In other diseases there is some hope likely, but these unhappy men are born to misery, past all hope of recovery, invariably sick, the longer they live the worse they are, and death alone must ease them."' T. L. Beauchamp, "Suicide in the Age of Reason," in Suicide and Euthanasia: Historical and Contemporary Themes, ed. B. A. Brody (Dordrecht: Kulwer Academic Publishers, 1999)

Proof conclusive? No doubt the dead frog will disagree. His roots, you see, are in the Dark Ages and his propensity is to look for dark reasons to dispel anything modern, anything reeking of scientific validation. Nevertheless, dead frog, the facts are simply overwhelming.

Benjamin Rush: Considerations on the Injustice and Impolicy of Punishing Murder by Death. An argument against capital punishment, which contends that the death penalty increases criminal behavior and amounts to state-assisted suicide. Rush also asserts that crime stems from a mental disease. First outlined in an essay in the July 1788 American Museum, Rush's beliefs had received harsh criticism and prompted him to add material and publish it in book form in 1792 and then again in a book of his essays in 1798, under the title "An Enquiry Into the Consistency of the Punishment of Murder by Death." Rush's writings had won support from Benjamin Franklin and Philadelphia attorney general William Bradford.

And the writings of Shakespeare, of course.

So what we have here is a good indication that suicide and euthenasia were indeed topics of discussion and had been widely discussed by the late 18th century.

Okay, dead frog, are you prepared to admit defeat? Hey, we're prepared to award you the "nice try, deadbeat, trophy" for wasted effort. Just stop trying that resurection thing. It doesn't become you.

File under: Suicide, Founding_Fathers, Dark_Ages, Euthenasia

Business as Usual

2006-01-25T15:54:00.001-08:00

It should come as no surprise that Google has opted for self-censorship with its new site Google.cn, which accommodates the Chinese dictatorship in order to gain access to the huge potential market the country presents.

The precedents are many. American companies did business with the Nazis. American oil companies, in particular, were quick to make deals with the Soviet Union. The Clinton administration encouraged American businesses to enter the Chinese market. Not so long ago, Microsoft blocked a Chinese blogger, who was ultimately arrested and sentenced to prison in China.

While there may be abstract parallels, Google’s unprincipled approach to doing business in China in no way diminishes the danger of government censorship in the USA, which the company has rightly chosen to challenge. The only choice Google has in China is do as the communist regime says or take their marbles and go home.

So, Goggle is following a familiar pattern, seeking to open new markets, complying with the laws of the country they want to operate in, putting their principles on the back shelf and rationalizing their action with the usual cliché: business as usual.

Tags:
Google, Microsoft, China, censorship

Let's Hear It for Molly!

2006-01-21T13:15:00.000-08:00

Every once in awhile someone stands up at the back of the room and says something startling. It’s not the ideas they espouse – these are usually self-evident. It’s the words they use, the fortitude they embody, the attitude they express and the fighting spirit they represent.

The person in this case is Molly Ives and the statement was Not. Backing. Hillary.

In a remarkable film some years ago, Michael Douglas as The American President was persuaded by the woman he loved to stand up for his political principles, even if it should cost him his job. The film’s climax comes with the president’s speech, in which he faces his critics and accusers, turning their criticism and accusations into political virtues, avowing and defending them as principles in which he believes.

With this article, Molly Ives has done something similar. She has pushed aside once and for all the equivocating, imitative stances taken by some Democratic leaders, including Hillary, and launched an offensive in the name of integrity. Stand up for what you believe, Democrats. Listen to what people are saying, Democrats. Don’t be afraid to say the things that need to be said. Face your political enemies in the marketplace of ideas. Hold up your opponents’ fraudulent ideas and corrupt policies for what they are: prevarication and pretence, fantasy and skullduggery.

Bush, Cheney and Co. will continue to play the patriotic bully card just as long as you let them. I've said it before: War brings out the patriotic bullies. In World War I, they went around kicking dachshunds on the grounds that dachshunds were "German dogs." They did not, however, go around kicking German shepherds. The MINUTE someone impugns your patriotism for opposing this war, turn on them like a snarling dog and explain what loving your country really means. That, or you could just piss on them elegantly, as Rep. John Murtha did. Or eviscerate them with wit (look up Mark Twain on the war in the Philippines). Or point out the latest in the endless "string of bad news."
Do not sit there cowering and pretending the only way to win is as Republican-lite. If the Washington-based party can't get up and fight, we'll find someone who can.

Here is Molly Ives at her best. Don’t second guess the American people, Democrats. Fight the insidious tactics of your opponents. Throw their deceptions in the rubbish bin of history where they belong. Stand up for your beliefs.

The ultimate measure of a person is not where s/he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where s/he stands at times of challenge and controversy.
-- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

File under: Molly Ives, politics, Democrats, integrity

The Evolutionary Eye

2006-01-19T08:25:00.000-08:00

In a surprising announcement at the Vatican, the Catholic Church has backed the theory of evolution against the pseudo science of Intelligent Design.

Not quite worth a Darwinian smile, this development at least merits a glint in the evolutionary eye.

Tags:
Intelligent_Design, Darwin, Vatican, Theory_of_Evolution

Whose Life Is It?

2006-01-18T17:31:00.000-08:00

The Supreme Court’s ruling on Oregon’s assisted-suicide law is a welcome step in recognition of an important principle. The ruling also demonstrates the post-ideological nature of the Court. Appointees for life are clearly less subject to party and political pressures than elected judges. Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, who wrote the majority opinion, is a good example.

The principle that triumphed in this decision was the individual’s right to life – including the right to end it when the time seems right.

Keywords:
Commentary,
Death_Penalty,
DNA,
Suicide

Shadows and Doubts

2006-01-18T12:55:00.000-08:00

I and the public know
What all schoolchildren learn,
Those to whom evil is done
Do evil in return. -- W.H. Auden, "September 1, 1939"

"Are you in favor of the death penalty for a person convicted of murder?"

Since the 1980s respondents have answered this question in America with a resounding “yes”.

But what if the question were phrased differently?

Would you be in favor of the death penalty if one innocent person were executed for every 10 guilty ones? How about 1 in 100? 1 in 1,000?

That question is posed in a recent Scientific American article entitled Science versus the Death Penalty.

Last December was a special month for U.S. executions. North Carolina gave a lethal injection to Kenneth Boyd, making him the 1,000th person to be executed since the 1976 Supreme Court decision to allow the reinstatement of the death penalty. Soon thereafter, on December 13, California put to death Crip gang founder Stanley "Tookie" Williams. The U.S. remains the only developed Western nation to permit executions despite serious flaws in the system. No need for any pacificist proclivity or liberal leaning to see that--just look at the science.

Based on a recent University of Michigan study, the article goes on to demonstrate that statistics show that perhaps as many as 1 in 12 innocent people have been executed in America since the Supreme Court decided to allow the reinstatement of the death penalty.

The potential fallibility of deciding capital cases has led some states to review their death-penalty codes and even call for a moratorium while they study the implications of mistakes made in the past.

When Illinois Governor George Ryan halted all executions in his state in 2003, calling the death penalty “arbitrary and capricious”, he not only commuted the sentences of all 157 inmates on the state’s death row, he set in motion a trend that seems to be spreading from coast to coast – a moratorium on the death penalty. His action stemmed from a series of Pulizer Prize newspaper reports by the Chicago Tribune, Restoring Justice.

Today, states such as New Jersey, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan and Minnesota have some kind of moratorium on the death penalty. Many states have already passed legislation to ban juvenile executions and others have introduced reforms concerning DNA testing and other protections to delimit the number of innocent people being caught up in the system.

Besides DNA exonerations in recent years, psychology studies also show that humans can create false memories. And there are other psychological factors that could falsify conclusions reached by prosecutors:

We know that witness testimony can be unreliable, even when it comes from upstanding citizens and not just from co-defendants or jailhouse snitches who have been promised sweet deals. We know that some personality types are more likely to yield to the pressures to confess--and that these people do so just to please their interrogators or to avoid harsh treatment.

Hollywood films have often dealt with death-penalty themes, as in the well-know television series and film, The Fugitive, where an innocent man is condemned to death for a crime he never committed. Other films that explore the fallibility of capital punishment include The Lindbergh Kidnapping Case and Crime of the Century. The pro-death-penalty film, Vigilante, suggests that not having the death penalty in society could lead to actions of revenge on the part of private citizens.

This site presents an array of films dealing with capital punishment. Arguments in favor of the DP can be found at the Pro Death Penalty Site. Other useful resources include DP Statistics, DP statistics & inter-national links, Alternatives to DP and a surprising opponent of the DP, Why this FBI agent is against DP.

Sometimes the emotional side of the issue overwhelms the empirical evidence on both sides of the equation. Rabid officials who believe religiously in an eye for an eye may even go out of their way to keep an ageing, apparently dying prisoner alive in order to go through the killing ritual. Revenge rears its ugly head.

Although America is the only democratic nation in the world that still maintains the death penalty, within the country it remains a controversial social issue, with dedicated opponents and proponents. The moral arguments for and against capital punishment may seem equally compelling, but the scientific facts point to one overriding reason for doing away with the death penalty: the likelihood of innocent people being executed.

Technorati tags:
Commentary, Death_Penalty, DNA , Revenge

How Intelligent is Intelligent Design?

2005-12-23T12:12:00.000-08:00

ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- The state's school superintendent has proposed striking the word evolution from Georgia's science curriculum and replacing it with the phrase "biological changes over time."

"Students are ill served by any effort in science classrooms to blur the distinction between science and other ways of knowing, including those concerned with the supernatural," according to the Association for the Advancement of Science, in a news release supporting the rejection by the National Academy of Science of the Kansas Board of Education's decision to a) rewrite the definition of science so that it is no longer limited to a search for natural explanations of phenomena and 2) teach Intelligent Design as a science in competition with evolution, which is presented as greatly more controversial in the scientific community than scientists themselves concede.

Dec. 20 – CNN headline
HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania (AP) -- "Intelligent design" cannot be mentioned in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district, a federal judge said Tuesday, ruling in one of the biggest courtroom clashes on evolution since the 1925 Scopes trial.

The now-famous Scopes Monkey Trial pitted lawyers William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow (the latter representing teacher John T. Scopes) in a court case that tested a law passed on March 13, 1925, which forbade the teaching, in any state-funded educational establishment in Tennessee, of "any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals." Having already won in the academic marketplace of ideas, the theory of evolution now won its first legal battle.

In one sense, American society has not changed all that much since 1925. A recent CBS News poll found nearly 65 percent of Americans are in favor of teaching creationism (a religious assumption on which ID is based) along with evolution in schools. Thirty-seven percent favor banning evolution entirely.

Clearly, Bush had substantial public support when he recently commented on teaching ID in the schools. "I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught," he said. When pressed, he managed to sidestep a direct answer rather cleverly. Asked whether he accepted the view that ID was an alternative to evolution, he replied, "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."

Many on the Religious Right and other ID proponents interpreted Bush's words as a blessing on teaching ID in science labs.

Bush's science adviser, John H. Marburger, was quick to add, "Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology. Intelligent design is not a scientific concept."
(Source):

As usual, the Onion manages to put things in proper perspective:

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory
August 17, 2005 | Issue 41•33

KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling. (Read rest of article here)

Many Americans seem to have lost their perspective on modern science during the postmodern period, when absolutes easily fell by the wayside, scientists were seen by some as sinister technicians who wore white lab coats, conspired to do evil things to animals and create military killing machines. Postmodernism took this view a step further, claiming that science was "merely a matter of opinion." (See Science Wars)

The late Carl Sagan described science in this way:

There are no forbidden questions in science, no matters too sensitive or delicate to be probed, no sacred truths.

Science entails questioning assumptions and keeping an open mind. While it may not achieve that ideal to perfection, so far mankind has developed no better alternative to discovering, testing and applying knowledge about the natural world. Despite failures and setbacks, there is every reason to believe that the scientific method (or methods) is the only reliable tool for acquiring such knowledge.

Besides being both an ideal and an institution, science is also comprised of individuals who may or may not live up to the ideal or do justice to the institution.

Science as an ideal and science as an institution depend on individual scientists to do the daily grind of researching, testing and interpretating new or existing data. Like anyone else, scientists can make mistakes and be as obstinate or close minded as anyone else. They can also cheat.

While science may be less objective and dispassionate when it comes to the individual scientists, the system itself has built-in checks. Everything that individual scientists do is subject to peer review and duplication of experiments. In general, the peer-review and verification systems serve as checks on errors resulting from inadequate data, methodology or testing procedures. In the end, the scientific method is self-correcting.

Why, then, the controversy over ID if, as Sagan claims, there are no “forbidden questions” in science?

In a recent article in the Christian Science Monitor, Alexander George poses the provocative question, What's wrong with intelligent design, and with its critics?

"Most critics of intelligent design seek to undermine it by arguing that the doctrine is not science. It's actually religion passing itself off as science. Hence, its teaching constitutes religious instruction. The Constitution disallows the state's establishment of religion. Therefore, intelligent design cannot be taught in the classroom."

Professor George covers all bases in his analysis of why schools should not teach intelligent design in public schools, but in my view he takes a bumpy philosophical road to reach a valid conclusion.

Besides denying the existence of the scientific method, he makes two additional, claims: "Science cannot be proved on the basis of observable data" and "Science cannot be disproved, or falsified, on the basis of observable data."

The scientific method (or methods) is so well established as a tool for acquiring, testing and replicating experiments that it hardly seems necessary to argue this point. Another professor does so skillfully in the detailed-commentary link given below.

He is right to say that science cannot be proved on the basis of observable data. That is why scientists devise sophisticated theories and models to test observable data. It is a long, steady, cumulative process of gathering, testing, replicating data and its application to the natural world. It is much like a road that leads in a certain direction. There are no guarantees that the road will not take a sharp turn to the left or the right -- or even come around full circle. But when one road fails to continue the journey towards discovery, a new one will open up.

When Professor George argues that “science cannot be disproved or falsified, on the basis of observable data, he is moving the philosophical goal posts a bit. No one makes such a claim. The criterion of falsification established by Karl Popper and widely adapted by the scientific community does not apply to science, but to scientific theory. Intelligent design, for example, assumes the existence of a “designer”. Since one cannot prove or disprove the existence of such a “designer”, there is no way to falsify this hypothesis. There are various ways to falsify the theory of evolution. Perhaps the best attempt so far has been Behe's discussion of irreducible complexity. (See comments)

Although his defense of the distinction between "good" and "bad" science seems to be on shaky ground, Professor George's First-Amendment argument is much better grounded. It is not difficult to see how these two arguments -- i.e. science vs. pseudo science and science vs. a religious doctrine -- deliver a crushing blow to those who would like to see ID taught alongside the theory of evolution.

For a detailed commentary on the nature of science, see What Pseudoscience tells us About Science

While many people seem to believe that teaching pseudo-science in the science lab is desirable, there seems little liklihood of such ideas creeping into the classroom through the back door any time soon, unless they are clearly labelled pseudo-science or religious speculation. With few exceptions, the judges who decide such things -- irrespective of their political persuasions -- are scholars and people of integrity. Their profession is steeped in the scientific method and tested jurisprudence. The men and women who occupy positions on the country's highest courts are themselves scientists, not mystics.

Having said all this, however, it is quite possible that intelligent design is not an impossible dream at all. The time may come in the not-too-distant future when ID of a different sort will be taught in the science lab.

Consider, for example, this statement by Richard Dawkins in an interview reported at Salon.com:

Dawkins: In general, evolution is a blind process. That's why I called my book "The Blind Watchmaker." Evolution never looks to the future. It never governs what happens now on the basis on what will happen in the future in the way that human design undoubtedly does. But now it is possible to breed a new kind of pig, or chicken, which has such and such qualities. We may even have to pass that pig through a stage where it is actually less good at whatever we want to produce -- making long bacon racks or something -- but we can persist because we know it'll be worth it in the long run. That never happened in natural evolution; there was never a "let's temporarily get worse in order to get better, let's go down into the valley in order to get over to the other side and up onto the opposite mountain." So yes, I think it well may be that we're living in a time when evolution is suddenly starting to become intelligently designed.

As another writer put it,

So, leaving God or gods out of this, let's say it: human beings are the Intelligent Designers. That might seem sacrilegious to some, but it's true to others, and real to the world.

Tags: Evolution, Intelligent_Design, Science, Education, Politics

Wishful Thinking and False Gods

2005-12-07T08:29:00.000-08:00

"Wishful thinking gives false gods to people who hunger for gods, but those who yearn for a world with no gods are no less likely to fall victim to their own wishful thinking."
- Volemak, Earthfall by Orson Scott Card

There is a story circulating that at a White House news conference, in an off-camera moment, President Bush quipped to his arch critic, reporter Helen Thomas, “If I were your husband, Helen, I’d put poison in your coffee.” Ms Thomas cocked an eye at Bush and replied, “If I were your wife, Mr. President, I’d drink it.”

This story is not true but it does represent an example of wishful thinking. Given the hopes and expectations of Bush supporters in 2000 and 2004 and considering the outcomes of the Bush presidency so far, it looks very much like these supporters were also guilty of wishful thinking.

Politically speaking, my relatively small circle of friends (in the USA and abroad) includes a smattering of skeptics, some passionate Liberals and even an assortment of committed Conservatives. While most people combine all these political qualities to a greater or lesser degree, depending on whether one is talking about social issues, government economies or foreign policy, the most striking feature of their common political diet is a generous helping of wishful thinking.

The skeptics seem to believe that, despite considerable evidence to the contrary, rational argument, persuasion and scientific facts are the oil that lubricates the social fabric of democratic society and, like oil, will sooner or later rise to the top and manifest themselves to all and sundry. Such views, it should be noted, have survived centuries of war, political inequality and social ostracism without having made any notable impact on the family of Man. Considering what we know about human nature from modern biology, biochemistry and neuroscience, perhaps skeptics should turn their skepticism to their own basic assumptions. Like other political thinkers, have skeptics reached the top of the mountain or are they condemned to the valley of wishful thinking?

Liberals, despite their professed passion for the Common Man and the underdog, have in many cases taken the political path of least resistance. Consider Kennedy’s Bay of Pigs fiasco or Lyndon Johnson’s ratcheting up of the Vietnam War; Jimmy Carter’s handling of the Iran hostage affair and Clinton’s cave in on gays in the military, to mention only a few examples. Somehow, Liberals in America seem to believe that passion is the sole engine that drives political choice and that passion itself is the be-all of political organization. Despite appeals to the heart and fiery denunciations of greedy capitalists and unconscionable Conservatives, perhaps the assumptions of political and social equality that Liberals seem to share is nothing more than a passion for wishful thinking?

Most Liberals would probably agree with ROBERT ANTON WILSON:

It only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea.

On the other hand, Conservatives prefer to quote WINSTON CHURCHILL:

Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.

When one looks for examples of wishful thinking, however, modern Conservatives seem to win hands down. Conservatives of all persuasions share three basic convictions: (1) government should be limited, (2) economies should be free and (3) US foreign policy should enhance and protect American interests around the world.

ANN RICHARDS put in this way:

1. You have to believe that the nation's current 8-year prosperity was due to the work of Ronald Reagan and George Bush, but yesterday's gasoline prices are all Clinton's fault.
2. You have to believe that those privileged from birth achieve success all on their own.
3. You have to be against all government programs, but expect Social Security checks on time.

Conservatives like to trace their modern political revival to the Reagan years. However, even then, wishful thinking seems to have colored the conservative perspective somewhat.

A funny thing happened to Ronald Reagan on the way to his place in history. At the three-quarter point, he made a sharp left turn, then another, and ended his journey going in the opposite direction from his start.

Historians will also stress the gap between Reagan's domestic goals and his accomplishments. Most obvious is the deficit; what he promised to eliminate he has allowed to swell beyond comprehension. On the social agenda, abortion remains legal, prayer in the schools illegal. Reagan's failure in the war against drugs and related crime activities is so great that drugs were the number one issue in the 1988 presidential campaign.
Heritage Foundation

Reagan is by far the biggest spender in American history. He is also the biggest taxer.
Murray Rothbard

Does George W. Bush meet the above conservative criteria? An increasing number of Conservatives do not think so.

Greetings Disenchanted Conservatives
It's no secret that I've been disenchanted with President Bush for some time now. Recently, it seems, a lot of conservatives have joined the club. Source

George Bush is a big-government conservative. You don't hear this very often because big-government liberals do most of the reporting on budget and economics stuff and, well, they like government spending. Conceding that a Republican president is spending money like Uday Hussein on a Paris shopping trip would seem like a compliment to these people.
Townhall.com

But at this stage in his presidency, Bush's dismal record on spending when measured against Reagan's nullifies that temptation. Better yet, in light of Bush's spending it looks like it would be more accurate to compare him to Jimmy Carter than to Ronald Reagan.
Cato

One of the GOP’s critical thinkers in recent years is Newt Gringrich. He was also one of the first to criticize his own party as a result of the Katrina disaster in New Orleans.

Gingrich's critique of the federal response is as devastating as that of any Democrat. "For the last week the federal government and its state and local counterparts have consistently been behind the curve," he wrote fellow Republicans this week. "The American people overwhelmingly know that the current situation is totally unacceptable," and for that reason, "it is a mistake to get trapped into defending the systems and processes which clearly failed." He observes in another memo, "While the destruction was unprecedented, it was entirely predictable."
The Party of Performance

Nor has Bush fared any better in freeing the economy. One of his first decisions as president was to impose tariffs on steel imports. This met with so much conservative opposition that he decided to set things right by cutting the taxes of those who needed it least. Certainly, under Bush, there has been no reduction in monopolistic practices, cartel and – especially – externalities such as pollution and environment destruction. Despite Federal efforts to play down or ignore insider trader, price fixing, price gouging, adverse selection, moral hazard and the principal agent problem, the Bush administration has done little to make the economy freer or fairer – such as getting rid of farm subsidies, for example.

As for foreign policy and the invasion of Iraq, the facts on the ground simply do not support the optimistic wishful thinking coming from the White House. The Bush administration is without doubt the most unpopular regime the U.S. has had since Lyndon Johnson turned from fighting a war on poverty to fighting a morally indefensible war in Vietnam. And, as far as the U.S. military presence in Iraq is concerned, the U.S. public seems to be breaking the political ice, growing in skepticism and systematically rejecting the kind of wishful thinking that led to the current domestic and foreign crises in the first place – and perhaps to the very success of the Bush presidency.

Limited government, economic freedom, a world less dangerous? Or just wishful thinking and false gods?

Tags: Skeptics, Liberals, Conservatives, Politics

The Dutch Dilemma: doing the math

2005-08-23T04:26:00.000-07:00

The splendid welfare net provided in the Netherlands is the envy of many a country around the world, even many in Europe. Besides normal unemployment insurance, there’s a basic welfare system with benefits equal to 70 percent of the minimum wage and special income-maintenance schemes for the disabled and for those with health problems that make them permanently unemployable. There are rent subsidies and a subsidized healthcare system for those below specific income levels. On top of all this, there is child-maintenance scheme that pays families with children up to a certain age a monthly cash supplement. This not only sounds good, it is. The Netherlands currently ranks fifth on the United Nation’s Human Development Index, ahead of Belgium 6), Iceland (7) and the United States (8). Compared to many countries, relative poverty has been virtually eradicated in Holland.

Unfortunately, all that proverbial welfare glitter is not necessarily gold. According to a report in a recent issue of the Dutch monthly, Elsevier, government agencies are increasingly discovering huge amounts of fraud within the system at every level. If the reports are accurate, the sums involved could run into hundreds of millions of Euro a year. Some government officials are estimating that lack of controls on the actual fraud being committed at all levels could double the current estimates (to say nothing of accumulated past amounts). For a small country like Holland (1024 sq. kilometers, 16 million residents and a GDP of 480 billion dollars), these are formidable losses that put additional pressures on the tax structure. Besides run-of-the-mill tax fraud, illicit activities apparently range from such things as registering for welfare benefits under different names in different Dutch cities, getting rent subsidies and then renting out the low-rent houses to students and illegal aliens for huge amounts each month – to fraudulent claims filed for social security and survivors’ pensions, reporting false pregnancies in order to get child-maintenance benefits or simply lying about the number of children in the family (which is not that difficult, since Dutch child-maintenance benefits are also paid to immigrant families whose (real or imaginary) children live in the parents’ country of origin, checking which often entails serious impediments such as language and bureaucracy or simply lack of cooperation on the part of some foreign governments. This is the Dutch dilemma. It looks very much like the system is in a melt down.

There is also a “catch 22” in trying to fix the system. Once such the welfare boat reaches the proportions it has in the Netherlands and starts to sink, it becomes extremely expensive to repair – and sometimes even find -- the leaks. Tracking down and holding those accountable for fraud sometimes costs more than the amounts involved in the first place. There is little accountability among government agencies, since the various unemployment and welfare schemes are separately managed. Once a data error gets into the system, intentionally or otherwise, mistakes get compounded and illegal welfare payments could go on for a lifetime, if not discovered.

The question arises as to whether wisdom dictates a return to the pre-Second-World-War callousness of “every man for himself” – the winner-society concept prevalent in the USA, for example – or whether there is a more creative solution to helping those who, for whatever reason, are not in a position to earn decent incomes (temporarily or permanently).

As if on cue, a Dutch economics professor, Arjan van Witteloostuijn, is offering just such a creative solution: give everyone in the Netherlands a “basic income” and do away with all other welfare benefits – and most benefit fraud – altogether.

As radical as such an idea may seem, it is not that strikingly different from the negative income tax idea that conservative economist, Milton Friedman, proposed in 1962 (as a refinement of an earlier proposal by Juliet Rhys-Williams). Besides doing away with welfare fraud and the huge public cost of administering various benefit programs, for many families without any capital base or savings, it could serve as an incentive to seek paid work or to start small businesses to supplement their incomes.

Perhaps this idea will catch on in the Netherlands, a country that has pioneered many social innovations, including decriminalizing drugs and legalizing prostitution. The Dutch are innovative, always open to new ideas. Now somebody has to do the math.

Frozen In Time

2005-07-14T08:11:00.000-07:00

Watching the people in Europe who paused for two minutes today out of respect for the victims of the latest terrorist attack in London, I recalled an episode of Twilight Zone in which a man discovers that he has the power to stop time. When he uses this power, everyone and everything stops, frozen in time.

It seems like a fitting metaphor for what happened in New York, Madrid, Bali and London. The suicide bombers behind the terrorist attacks in these cities seem to think that they can stop time and topple power structures by lashing out indiscriminately at innocent people, most of whom have little to do with the world as it is. These victims are mere pawns in the game of political chess that is unfolding in the early years of the 21st century. Unthinkingly, perhaps, many accept the world as it is, unconcerned with or unable to connect intellectually with the long march of human progress out of the Dark Ages.

The criminals behind these murderous acts are living in another world, a medieval world of magic, fantasy and superstition. They seem to believe that their actions will somehow affect the course of history. They are not concerned with scientific explanations about human nature, political discourse or rational discussion, which question the validity of their religious ideologies. Like the tale told by an idiot, their doctrines are full of sound and fury, fire and brimstone, signifying nothing but destruction. They see themselves as the modern avengers for a 1000 years of gradual decline of their worldview. They believe that self-sacrifice is a virtue and a potent political weapon. They are religious fanatics first, foremost and forever. Theirs is a world of make-believe in which wishful thinking, rote and religious doctrine deny the very existence and efficacy of the scientific method, secular education and the rule of law. They are fantasists and they are frozen in time.

If this is the case, then the solution to irrational terrorism would seem self-evident: the promotion of rational thinking -- in the classroom, on the shop floor, in the boardroom and, especially, in the corridors of power.

Unfortunately, the man who could exercise the greatest moral influence in the world decided, after 9/11, to fight the terrorists on their own terms. President Bush declared war on terror, not on terrorism. He quickly announced a crusade against religious fanatics, apparently unaware of the implications of his words. No state would be safe, he said, if they harbored terrorists. He talked about an axis of evil, naming three fairly innoculous dictatorial regimes, totally ignoring the country from which the 9/11 terrorists came -- Saudi Arabia. He promised Americans that he would find the people responsible for 9/11. He would "hunt 'em down" and "smoke 'em out." He sent American bombers across the skies of Afghanistan, put marines on the ground and bargained in smoke-filled rooms with tribal leaders who deal in opium and horse-trade political alliances, the way some people buy stocks. Bush drove the Taliban out of Afghanistan and Bin Laden into the mountains. He took away the terrorists' training camps -- and then created a new and better one, by invading Iraq.

Arguably, for every step the Bush Administration has taken forward in the fight against terrorism, it has taken two or three steps backward. The Patriot Act raises serious questions about civil rights and the government's need to scrutinize its own citizens without court authorization. Listen carefully and you can hear the whispers of theocracy in the air and echoes of discrimination in the American night. If the current powers-that-be have their say, America may end up in the not-too-distant future as a military fortress at home and abroad, a cold-warrior nation fighting the present and the future with the tools of the past. There has been considerable rhetoric about fighting terrorism but, so far, there have been few concrete successes. The most visible domestic effort has been the so-called terrorist warning system, an array of colored lights that go from green to amber to red, supposedly to alert the public to impending danger. Most of the "shock-and-awe" effort, however, seems to be designed to increase the fears of the general public, not the terrorists. The bottom line is that we seem to be doing everything possible to exorcise terrorism, not combat it.

The Bush Administration has unleashed the full power of the American military on the people of Iraq, not quite sure who are their friends and who are their enemies, unable to locate or defeat their adversaries, putting our soldiers in harm's way to fight an invisible enemy for the wrong reasons -- frightened, like the proverbial elephant of the proverbial mouse.

So far, unlike the strict law-enforcement efforts of countries like Spain, Germany and Britain, America has not made much progress in identifying, arresting and trying terrorists for their crimes. Almost every policy undertaken by this administration has backfired and proved counterproductive. America has captured and put a large group of combatants in Guantanamo Bay without charging them of any crime or giving them access to legal representation. In this so-called war, human rights' organizations now question the legality of some of America's actions, the one nation on earth that should be setting examples for the rest of the world, not rewriting the rule book on torture and civil rights.

In short, Bush has done very little to combat the terrorist threat. And, as we saw last week in London, that threat is very much alive and well.

Like a cancer, the danger posed by pre-Enlightenment mullahs living in caves needs to be eradicated at the core. And the core of this new variant of terrorism is an irrational belief in an other-worldly, fantasy view of human life, human history and human aspirations. The war on terrorism, like the war on drugs, won't be won by searching caves or coveting dictators. It will only be won by ideas. And ideas seem to be a commodity in short supply among the current political leaders of the democratic world, particularly the USA.

In an odd, almost surrealistic sense, the ideas, ideology and foreign policy of the Bush Administration inadvertently fan the flames of groups like Al-Qaeda and religious fanatics everywhere, like opening a window when the house is on fire. For all the pious mutterings on both sides of the coin, like the man in the Twilight Zone, the terrorists and the cold warriors of the Bush Administration all seem frozen in time.

Through the Looking Glass

2005-06-07T11:45:00.000-07:00

Following the referendum on the EU Constition in France, Dutch voters went to the polls on June 1, 2005, to express their views about political union in Europe. Like the French, 55 percent of whom voted non, the Dutch let their voices be heard in no uncertain terms. Nee was the verdict of a whopping 63 percent of eligible Dutch voters.

Something is clearly wrong in paradise. After all, the Netherlands was a pioneer of European integration, starting with its membership in the original Benelux agreement. French politicians have been at the forefront of designing the current and future European Union. The Constitution itself came largely from the watchful eye of a political giant in French politics, Giscard d’Estaing.

Interestingly, opposition to the Constitution did not follow party lines. The Socialist Party in France supported it; the Socialist Party in the Netherlands did not. Most mainstream political parties supported, as did most labor unions and business groups. Nevertheless, the referendums in France and the Netherlands revealed a huge gap between the views of elected politicians, special-interest groups and the attitudes of the voters.

When we look at some of the reasons that people were against the Constitution, we find that many of them were unfounded, even contradictory. In an article entitled Stop the Superstate Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan wrote:

The European Constitutional convention is making life safer for federalist fat cats… The Convention is meant to be all about ‘the people’. Its supporters like to compare it to the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, which drafted the US Constitution. The trouble is that, while it is theoretically democratic, the Convention is not representative. As well as commissioners and MEPs, it comprises three representatives from each EU member and applicant state. Two are appointed by the national parliaments, the third by the governments (the Italians, deliciously, are called Signor Dini, Signor Fini and Signor Spini).

A Dutch political scientist expressed his opposition in this way:

"I have basically two objections to the Constitution. One is related to the technicalities of the Constitution - 90 percent of the Constitution actually already exists and there you see on the one hand advantages when it comes to democracy but on the other there's a serious problem when it comes to foreign affairs."

"I think the referendum on the Constitution is also a referendum on the current state in which Europe now finds itself in. And I think there are also serious problems - especially with the neo-liberal integration policy which prefers the economic to the social. There is also a severe democratic deficit."

There were those who resented the fact that God and Christianity were not specifically mentioned: God kept out of Constitution

Others, like Jean-Marie Le Pen, head of the far-right National Front, faulted Chirac for threatening the French with "chaos" if they voted no, adding, "He isn't qualified, it seems to me, to remain as the head of the country.

Even a politically-correct American had something to say about it, in an e-mail to Radio Netherlands:

William Bushey , Wilmington, Delaware, USA:"I want to preface my comments with the proviso that I am not Dutch, I am not European and I certainly believe that Europeans definitely don't need outsiders how to vote. I am perfectly willing to live with whatever the outcome is because it is NOT my decision to make.

"Having said that, I would just like to say how one American likes living in a mega-nation. Briefly, it ain't that good. The advantages - a common market (which you have without union), excellent defence, and ease of travel must be balanced against the disadvantages of enforced homogenisation. In the USA, the red states are not the same as the blue states but we are bound together whether we like it or not. It is beyond my comprehension why someone in Europe would look at the USA and say 'Hey, let's be like them!' I say, Europe, rejoice in your diversity and keep it up."

Perhaps the most definitive nee came from former Dutch labor politician and television personality, Marcel van Dam. Writing in the Dutch-language newspaper, Volkskrant, he fumed about the government’s publicity campaign to get the public to vote ja, labelling it “manipulation”, particularly the 3 million euro of tax money spent to promote the government’s viewpoint.

Van Dam explained his reasons for voting “no” on the referendum. He sees European integration developing in the wrong direction, with too little democratic control and too much “pseudo” democratic control being handed over to private-sector companies to do the government’s work. The metaphor he uses to describe this trend towards public-private collaboration is that of a pacifier. Although the taste is improving, according to Van Dam, it still remains a pacifier that has little to do with democracy. He also worries that “more than half” of all the laws and legislation that affect the Netherlands originate in Brussels.

Although he says that he is really in favor of European unity, not only does he decry the lack of democracy that creates a wedge between politics and the people, he identifies politics in the Netherlands as being out of touch with the “little guy”. One example he offers is the imposition of the euro to replace the Dutch guilder. The people had nothing to say about what he considers to be an important decision. He also has his intuitive moments, for example, when he states flatly (apparently with a prescience that few politicians ever attain), “Europeans still consider the euro a foreign currency.”

The rest of his article – and most of his arguments against the EU Constitution – mainly refer to what he characterises as “grievances” of the Dutch people towards the gradual disintegration of the pension and healthcare schemes in the Netherlands.

This is of course all very interesting and, no doubt, reflective of the attitudes of many people in the Netherlands. What it is not is an argument against the Constitution. On the contrary, one could argue that the very problems that Van Dam identifies and the improvements he would like to see in Europe could only come about once the Constitution has been ratified. After all, without a constitutional framework that spells out the rights and obligations of European citizens and the democratic process for political union, it seems meaningless to talk about democratic reforms. Without a viable EU Constitution, member states are simply back to nation-state status, before they became member states, before they dreamed of economic and political union.

Like its distant model, the U.S. Constitution, the European constitutional treaty, as it’s also called, strives to create an objective set of principles and commitments to defend intellectual, political and economic freedom. It endeavors to provide a rational frame of reference to enable current and future member states to live together, work together and prosper together in a peaceful, socially-cohesive Europe.

Like the U.S. Constitution, the debate about its European counterpart is also a debate between “Federalist” and “Anti-Federalist” ideologies. It is about strong central government versus fragmented local governments, whose uncoordinated actions could compromise European foreign policy and interests, as it has by taking sides in the American invasion of Iraq. Like the U.S. Constitution – a subtle point that many of the “anti’s” seemed to have missed – ratification no longer requires the unanimous approval of all member states.

Article 76* of the proposed EU Constitution states:

Article 76: Entry into force of the Constitution

(1) This Constitution shall enter into force once it has been submitted for ratification by the European Council and if supported thereafter by three quarters of the Member States of the Union representing 75% of the population according to their own constitutional requirements.

(2) Any existing Member State of the Union deciding not to adopt this Constitution may seek associate membership.

(3) This Constitution shall enter into force at the start of the second month after the fullfillment of paragraph.

So far, nine member states have ratified the Constitution, representing 49 percent of the EU's population. The majority of EU member states have not yet voted. This could be bad news for the “nays”. What the people of France and (perhaps) the Netherlands (since referendums in that country are not constitutionally binding) may have to face in the future is not a new debate about a revised European Constitution, but a downgrading to “associate-member status”.

As the French newspaper, Le Figaro put it:

"There will be a before- and an after-May 29. The French [and by inference, the Dutch] take the risk that European history will proceed without them."

Among the admixture of reasons, emotional and rational, there was a large measure of euro skepticism, perhaps even europhobia, behind the rejection of the EU Constitution. Considering predictions that most other member states will ratify the new Constitution, the citizens of France and the Netherlands could wake up one day soon and, rather than seeing their political views reflected in a strong European Union, like Alice, they could find themselves on the wrong side of the European looking glass.

_______________
* At the time of writing, I referred to what I thought was an official version of the proposed EU Constitution, found at this site. However, when I compared the format to the Constitution as shown in the Official Journal of the European Union (at this site), the two versions did not match. It looks as though the first version is either a re-write of the original or an attempt to make the document easier to read. In either case, I could not find the equivalent of Article 76 in the original EU Constitution. Therefore, the information given in this commentary may not be accurate. Further checking is required.

Brain Dead

2005-04-15T13:14:00.000-07:00

But my intention being to write something of use to those who understand, it appears to me more proper to go to the real truth of the matter than to its imagination; and many have imagined republics and principalities which have never been seen or known to exist in reality; for how we ought to live, that he who abandons what is done for what ought to be done, will rather bring about his own ruin than his preservation. -- Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince

Machiavelli had been dead for more than 70 years when Giordano Bruno died. Unlike the Italian author of The Prince, however, few people know who Bruno was, what he accomplished and why he was put to death by the Inquisition. Bruno, a mathematician and natural philosopher (i.e. a natural scientist) openly opposed the Scholastic teachings of Aristotle, in favor of the cosmological theories of Copernicus – that the universe consisted of an infinite number of worlds and that the earth (including humanity) was not the centre of that universe. He published various texts and his ideas influenced later thinkers such as Leibniz and Spinoza. At the hands of the Church of Rome and the Inquisition, Bruno was burned at the stake in 1600 as a heretic.

Perhaps more to the point, what do Machiavelli's shrewd observation and Giordano Bruno's fate at the hands of the Church have to do with Bush America?

Well, let's take Terri Schiavo, for example.

The recent spectacle of "true believers", notwithstanding their apparent lack of scientific understanding, provided the world with a intellectual Inquisition all its own. Despite undisputable evidence to the contrary, Jeb Bush managed to find a quasi-neurologist in Florida who hinted that Shiavo might just be "conscious" – on some level that medical science cannot comprehend. Even Conservatives were quick to point out that such notions were simply "junk science". Several members of the Religious Right rose to the occasion – in true Inquisition form, albeit stopping short of calling for death penalties – to denounce the decision to let Terri Schiavo die a natural death. The pro-life fanatics were quick to compare the situation to Nazi Germany. Some shouted "murder". House Majority Leader Tom Delay called it "medical terrorism". Even the National Review joined in the fun, with Kathryn Jean Lopez blaming leftist feminists for not speaking out. Robert George, a member of Princeton's Council on Bioethics, also wrote in National Review that Chiavo's prior wishes, even if known, would be of no consequence, since she could not confirm her wish to die in her present state – which is a bit like saying that last wills and testaments make no sense whatsoever, since who knows what changes of heart may occur after one dies.

The absurdity of the whole situation is that it even needs to be discussed in public. One would have thought that such people and such ideas died a quite death during the Age of Reason. Unfortunately, it seems, fundamentalists – unlike old soldiers – do not simply fade away.

Indeed. Underlying all this nonsense and mystical rhetoric is the relatively recent revival of religious fundamentalism around the world, not just in the good old US of A. We are seeing Orthodox Jews talking about driving the Palestinians into the Red Sea, anti women's rights' movement in the UK violently protesting clinical abortions – not because they're paid for by taxpayers' money but because they consider "conception" the centre of the universe – and Hindu fundamentalists in India reintroducing the illegal practice of bridal dowries, which has led to increased murders of women, so that their widowed husbands can move on to the next bride and the next dowry, along the road to wealth. Perhaps the most frightening sideshow of this rebirth of spiritual Talibanism in America is "Rapture".

For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington. Theology asserts propositions that cannot be proven true; ideologues hold stoutly to a world view despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality. When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind. And there is the danger that voters and politicians alike are oblivious to the facts.

Chicken Little, you say? Read on.

For the really die-hard skeptics, see:
this
and this
and of course this

For those who think that the influence of the Religious Right in America is minimal, I can recommend this article

We are talking about Christianizing America. We are talking about simply spreading the gospel in a political context. (Republican Strategist Paul Weyrich, 1980)

"We need to find ways to win the war" Karl Rove, President Bush's political director told a gathering of the Family Research Council in March, 2002. Family Research Council is one of the most powerful lobbying organizations of the Religious Right today. Rove wasn't talking about the war on terrorism. He was talking about the war on secular society.

The rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party is perhaps the most important story in modern politics. The battle for "dominion" over society is being waged in all major institutions including government, the courts, schools, mainline Protestant churches and the media.

For a thorough examination of the Religious Right, check out this site: Theocracy Watch.

The bad news is:

The significance of this reversion to pre-Enlightenment times is that it is a global phenomenon. It is happening in every major religion on earth – not just in the Islam. While there are degrees of danger inherent in people and doctrinal systems that profess the "inerrancy" of their holy books, there should be no doubt what the ultimate aim of a majority of such "true believers" and systems is: the destruction of science and reason as the guiding lights of civilization.

The good news is:

If and when the Global Taliban succeed in declaring humanity brain dead, they will no doubt reinsert the feeding tubes.

Citizens of the World

2005-01-05T11:13:00.000-08:00

Europe Stood Still

At noon today Central European Time, the countries of Europe stopped in their tracks for three minutes to mourn the victims of the Tsunami in East Asia. It was a gesture of solidarity, something that the world needs more of and seems to have less of, as time goes by.

Age-old enemies put down their weapons and joined hands to help in a time of desperation. Rich nations rolled up their sleeves and dug deep into their treasuries to assist those in need. When asked why America was leading the effort to help the disaster victims, Colin Powell replied, "It's what Americans do!"

There are those who see America's role in a cynical light, but they are wrong. Americans are a caring people. When the need arises, you can count on most countries, including America, to respond with swiftness and generosity.

Unfortunately, disasters seem to be the only events that draw humans together in these times of national and cultural division. Terrorists are waging war against the world on the pretence that civilization is threatening their belief systems, while the truth would seem to be that their belief systems are threatening civilization. No one wants to crush other cultures or values, only to see them compete fairly and honestly in the battle of ideas.

The most interesting thesis behind the present crisis is that catastrophe may have unintended effects, such as uniting sworn enemies and pulling the ideological rug out from under fundamentalists the world over. This is a thesis that found expression in an article in today's International Herald Tribute entitled Tsunamis may be unifying event By Daniel Altman.

While there are those who take undue advantage of other people's tragedy and suffering, most people seem compelled by conscience and good will to come to the aid of those in times of need. It is a curious mixture of human qualities, some good and some terrible, that arises in the face of disaster. But, above all, it is the quality of human solidarity that sets the tone in such situations.

Sometimes it takes a human tragedy to understand Socrates' sentiment: "I am not an Athenian or a Greek, but a citizen of the world. "

When We Meet Around The Bend, My Friend

2004-12-11T11:51:00.000-08:00

In an effort to pick up the pieces of shattered diplomacy, the last remnant of credibility in the Bush administration, soon-to-retire Colin Powell, was in The Hague yesterday speaking to a group of university students. Powell is suave, a good public speaker, a man who comes across as thoughtful, respectful of others' views and convinced of his own. He gave a good performance and most of the audience listened politely and gave him the benefit of the doubt. The most critical questions centered on Iraq – and they presented the most problems for Powell to explain away. In the end, he resorted to the "Saddam was a bad person" defense, but no one asked him why America had not attacked China, North Korea or even Pakistan. Aren't these countries also run by "bad" leaders, dictators who impose their will on their populations without respect for human rights and democratic controls? Powell's response, like his presentation at the UN, was not that of a man of reason, but rather that of the good soldier respecting the chain of command.

Experienced diplomats understand that tilting at bad guys is not going to make the world safer, more stable, more prosperous or democratic. In fact, one could argue that the course taken by Bush has made the world less safe, less stable, less prosperous and less democratic.

Powell said that President Bush would like to make amends with Europe and work together with the nations of NATO. But he failed to say how this can be done when so many nations in Europe and elsewhere distrust America, not because it attacked Iraq but because it did so by refusing to adhere to international law. As far as I know, none of the students yesterday asked Colin Powell about Bush's remark that he would invade the Netherlands if need be, if Americans were put on trail at the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Too bad, it would have been interested to hear the good soldier's spin on that one.

Reason.com, a quasi-libertarian publication that is at times both supportive and critical of Bush, had something original to say on this subject recently:

President Bush claims to be confronting this problem by reaching out anew to the European leaders he ran against (even while selectively snubbing the weaseliest). But as long as he keeps stacking his Cabinet with people with contempt for international law, no amount of bon mots will paper over a gap that has become a chasm.

Perhaps surprisingly, evenbusiness interests are feeling the pain of anti-Americanism around the world:

With the reelection of George W. Bush, American voters have spoken. Now it is the turn of global consumers. That's the opinion of Simon Anholt, a nation-branding specialist who advises government officials in Croatia, New Zealand, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom, as well as global institutions such as the United Nations and the World Bank. And according to Anholt, the coming consumer backlash isn't going to be pretty.

"This is undoubtedly the worst thing that could have happened," Anholt says of the president's reelection. "Bush has presided over a period of unparalleled decline in the popularity of the United States. Global disapproval of U.S. foreign policy has become so intense that it is spilling over and contaminating the image of U.S. brands and culture."

"It is absolutely hitting profits," says Cari Eggspuehler, executive director of Business for Diplomatic Action, a New York-based organization made up of advertising executives, academics, and policy wonks. "[Anti-American sentiment] is affecting companies irrespective of region or industry. It is across the board."

Slowly but surely, long overdue criticism of the Bush administration is surfacing, now that it is too late. The damage seems to have done in Iraq – a war that was illegal, ill prepared, destabilizing, one that has already killed and maimed many thousands of people. We now know that Saddam presented no direct or immediate threat to the USA. There were no contacts or cooperation with terrorist groups and, if UN inspectors had been given a few months, they would have confirmed what American inspectors concluded: there were no WMDs in Iraq.

But the war and destruction continue in Iraq. Insurgents and perhaps foreign terrorists are slowly winning the hearts and minds of Iraqi's by default. For the first time in the nation's brief history, free elections loom on the horizon. But how free can they be if they are held under occupation of a foreign power? That is the dilemma facing Iraq's democratic future. As long as American troops occupy Iraq, the insurgents and terrorists will find safe haven among the public and continue their relentless "war of the flea" against American forces. And as long as certain segments of the Iraqi population resist American presence in their country, American military might will wreak havoc and destruction on that miserable nation.

The web blog Baghdad Burning recently wrote this about the situation in Falloojeh after the recent onslaught by U.S. troops:

Tired in Baghdad...
The situation in Falloojeh is worse than anyone can possibly describe. It has turned into one of those cities you see in your darkest nightmares- broken streets strewn with corpses, crumbling houses and fallen mosques... The worst part is that for the last couple of weeks we've been hearing about the use of chemical weapons inside Falloojeh by the Americans. Today we heard that the delegation from the Iraqi Ministry of Health isn't being allowed into the city, for some reason.

I don't know about the chemical weapons. It's not that I think the American military is above the use of chemical weapons, it's just that I keep wondering if they'd be crazy enough to do it. I keep having flashbacks of that video they showed on tv, the mosque and all the corpses. There was one brief video that showed the same mosque a day before, strewn with many of the same bodies- but some of them were alive. In that video, there's this old man leaning against the wall and there was blood running out of his eyes- almost like he was crying tears of blood. What 'conventional' weaponry makes the eyes bleed? They say that a morgue in Baghdad has received the corpses of citizens in Falloojeh who have died under seemingly mysterious conditions.

The wounded in Falloojeh aren't getting treatment and today we heard about a family with six children being bombed in the city. It's difficult to believe that in this day and age, when people are blogging, emailing and communicating at the speed of light, a whole city is being destroyed and genocide is being committed- and the whole world is aware and silent. Darfur, Americans? Take a look at what you've done in Falloojeh.

Despite the carnage taking place in Iraq and the sad state of the world engendered in part by the simplistic foreign policy of the current American president, Baghdad Burning's signature expresses a gleam of hope in an otherwise bottomless pit:

"I'll meet you 'round the bend, my friend, where hearts can heal and souls can mend."

Voltaire and Theo van Gogh

2004-11-20T13:05:00.000-08:00

There is a last chapter to this story. As an expatriate living in the Netherlands, I felt the shock of the assassination of filmmaker Theo van Gogh somehow blunted by the fact of the first one, the murder of the politician and sociologist, Pim Fortuyn. It shouldn't have happened again so soon but it did and, for some reason, it did not surprise me.

Both were examples of intolerance, the first from the European community and the second from the Muslim world. Both sent shock waves through the Dutch population. Both brought tens of thousands of people into the streets to protest violence that seemed directed at the very core of democracy - free speech.

But there was one significant difference. When Fortuyn was killed, a large section of Dutch society made their voices heard and showed their grief in public. But Fortuyn was a vocal opponent of immigration, which kept another large group of residents - the immigrant community - off the streets. When Theo van Gogh was felled, the shock was also felt among the immigrant Muslim population.

Thousands of local Muslims joined the commemorative marches, lined up outside the crematorium and appeared as never before on Dutch radio and television, expressing their concerns about the damage done to the Muslim image in the Netherlands by a small group of fanatics. More surprisingly, these same Muslims began to voice their support for freedom of speech - something that probably would have been unheard of a few years ago.

Ironically, while the Muslim community in the Netherlands reacted to van Gogh's murder by showing support for the filmmaker's right to insult Muslims in public, many Dutch politicians took a sharp turn to the right. The current right-of-centre coalition announced new, hard measures to go after "terrorists". They caught the main suspect in the van Gogh assassination and rounded up more than just the usual suspects.

Incredibly, the Dutch Ashcroft-like Minister of Justice responded by saying publicly that there should be a crack down on blasphemy! I kid you not.

A few hundred years ago the French philosopher, Voltaire, described the problem this way:

"The man who says 'believe as I do or God will damn you', will presently say 'believe as I do or I will assassinate you!"

Like Salmon Rushdie, van Gogh personified free speech around the world, in his provocative films and on television to a select public. While he had his share of enemies, no one deserves to die because their views shock or offend others. There are still those in free countries who attack free speech from the pulpit and the political stage in words, laws or with bloody deeds. But they will never succeed in silencing the voices of free peoples.

Theo van Gogh is dead. Long live Theo van Gogh!

Is Bush the Chicken or the Egg?

2004-11-07T16:54:00.000-08:00

If you ask someone which came first, the chicken or the egg – the chances are they would either say that no answer was possible or, if they based their world views on metaphysical or mystic notions, they might venture a guess: the chicken. Both answers are wrong, of course, if one accepts the logic and evidence of evolutionary science.

Prior to the arrival of the chicken, a pre-chicken creature that was at least one generation away from our present-day chicken, laid an egg that contained an embryo with DNA consistent with the “new” aviary creature known as chicken. Therefore, the egg that contained the newly evolved chicken preceded its hatching. In other words, prior to the arrival of the first zygotic mix of male and female pre-chicken DNA that combined or mutated to form today’s chicken, there were only non-chickens. The DNA mutations occurred at the cellular level in the zygote developing inside the egg. Therefore, the egg clearly preceded the chicken. (Source)

If this is news to the average reader, it might be interesting to ask a similar question of the political climate in the USA. Which came first, the Religious Right or President Bush? As with the chicken-and-egg conundrum, the answer is not as obvious as one might think.

Consider, for example the fact that American politics has been laden with religious fundamentalists with a political agenda since its founding. There were peaks (late 19th century, early 20th century), declines (1930s to the 1950s)and revivals (the 1960s and 1980s). Until George W. Bush, however, no president (including Reagon) had reached out to – and activated – this group. Bush II did so deliberately, without doubt. His visit to the Bob Jones University during the 2000 campaign sent a clear signal to a minority of fanatics that their time had come – that the power of the presidency was now open to a group of people who would hitherto have access to the offices of power and who, in exchange for their votes, would ascend from oblivion and once again play a major role in American social politics.

Interestingly, there is no evidence that Bush himself particularly agrees with many of the views of the Religious Right. It is more likely, considering the people he has put in his cabinet, that he is heavily influenced by the American philosopher, Leo Strauss, who among other things advocated in a Machiavellian way that politicians who want to rule should play the "religious card". (Among Strauss's students or those influenced by his students: Justice Clarence Thomas; Supreme Court nominee Robert H. Bork; Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Dundes Wolfowitz; former Assistant Secretary of State Alan Keyes; former Secretary of Education William J. Bennett; Weekly Standard editor and former J. Danforth Quayle Chief of Staff William Kristol; Allan Bloom, former New York Post editorials editor John Podhoretz; and former National Endowment for the Humanities Deputy Chairman John T. Agresto.")

Few would deny that, for whatever reason, George W. has played that card and played it effectively. His appointment of people like John Ashcraft to high office sent signals to religious fanatics around the country. His proposal for a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, his tightrope opposition to abortion and stem cell research did not drive his supporters away; on the contrary, they sympathized with the problems he faced in a Congress largely comprised of infidels. Bush's appointment of anti-abortion groups to represent the US at the UN was the icing on the cake. He was keeping up his end of the bargain.

Perhaps that's what he meant when he stated, after the election, that he had accumulated some "political capital", which he intended to use to good effect during his second term?

The evolutionary scientist, Richard Dawkins, coined the term "mimes", to describe how ideas without scientific foundation could evolve, much in the same way that organisms evolve. If we look at the example of the chicken and the egg, we can see a similar development taking place politically in American history. One could view the "chicken" as religious fanaticism intent on legislating moral values on the American public. The "egg", according to this scenario, would be George W. Bush. His upbringing, his early history, his political charm and success in being elected governor of Texas – followed by his candidacy for the presidency in 2000 – put him in a position to change the course of American history. That was the message he got across to rank-and-file fanatics – and they rewarded him (with some help from the Supreme Court) with the occupancy of the White House.

When 9/11 came, Bush seized the moment politically and never looked back. While the concerns of fighting wars in Afghanistan and, later, in Iraq, relieved him of going overboard to accommodate those who were ready to turn American into a modern theocracy, he never lost sight of his political base, particularly those on the Religious Right. With unfailing political acumen, he (or his political brain, Karl Rove, as some would have it) identified and milked every inch of political advantage from the lesbian-and-gay marriage issue.

What we have just witnessed – in 2000 but more particularly in 2004 – is the evolution of an idea. Religious fanaticism has been legitimized in America. The president, like a politician whose time has come, has unleashed a mime that could have disastrous consequences, a Pandora's Box with the potential to destroy the tolerant, multicultural society that America was on the way to creating in the 1990s. Bush seems to be the political egg that carries the ideological DNA code for a new breed of Republican – the religious crusader at home and abroad.

And, like evolution, the irony is that this may not have been his intention at all. He may simply have been following Leo Strauss' advice: the elite should rule, religion is a political tool, might is right.

We thought, because we had power, we had wisdom. (Stephen Vincent Benet)

A Tale of Two Fantasies

2004-10-30T09:57:00.000-07:00

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. -- Friedrich Nietzsche

Those who would compare President Bush to Osama Bin Laden do the former an injustice. Despite the fact that both men have brought enmity and hatred to the world, a president of the United States is chosen in free elections by millions of voters, in a democratic system that, despite its imperfections, far surpasses other, non-democratic methods of choosing leaders. Bin Laden is an unelected, self-appointed spiritual leader of a group of Islamic extremists and dissidents. And yet – surprisingly – the two men seem to have one thing in common: they are both fantasists.

In his recent NYT article, Without a Doubt, Ron Suskind touched a nerve of what's at stake in the coming election:

It is "a battle between modernists and fundamentalists, pragmatists and true believers, reason and religion."

Suskind was not just talking about Al Qaeda and extremist Islam; he was also talking about George W. Bush and current American foreign and domestic policy. The article goes into considerable detail, touching on the personal experiences of people who know Bush well or have been close to the seat of power in this or previous administrations. It is a disturbing portrait of a man driven by an implicit belief in magic, mysticism and messages from God.

Referring to Suskind's article, another Internet contributor put it this way:

Throughout history, pretty much any time a group ends up with complete political power without any group to challenge them intellectually, people go nuts. They get drunk with their own power, believing the delusions that it's a "new world," that they create "new reality" out of sheer will, and that the rest of the world will be bystanders to their manifest destiny.

Blah blah blah. Heard it before.

Who else went down this road?

Commodus of Rome; more than a couple Popes; heads of the Holy Roman Empire; Charles IX of France; Shaka Zulu; the Nazi party; Mao; Pol Pot, the list unfortunately goes on. (Source)

Another revealing piece in the Bush fantasy puzzle, for example, comes from an article entitled Bush's Messiah Complex in The Progressive:

A picture emerges from the President's public statements--and even from such adulatory accounts as Bob Woodward's Bush at War and David Frum's The Right Man--of a President on a divine mission. Call it messianic militarism.

An even more disturbing view of Bush can be found in Culture, Religion, Apocalypse, and Middle East Foreign Policy by Chip Berlet & Nikhil Aziz:

It’s hard to believe, but the Bush administration’s foreign policy and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq are influenced by the writings of a cave-dwelling hermit who had apocalyptic visions some 2000 years ago.

These snapshots portray an American president who seems to believe he is on a messianic mission, who elevates faith to the status of a magic panacea and dismisses reason and empiricism as obstacles to action, obstacles in the path of divine will. Faced with a world of complexities in which black and white are not realistic guides to analysis and policy, George W. Bush seems to see "the evil that men do" but fails to grasp the fact that he has created his own fantasy world of foreign policy to deal with the problem – a world that may be a greater threat to friends than to foes.

In a dramatic turn of election events, television viewers yesterday witnessed another fantasist, Osama Bin Laden, the outcast Saudi merchant who has taken it upon himself to lead an extremist Islamic crusade against the West in general and America, in particular. While Bush is busy recreating his own fantasy world, Bin Laden and his not-so-merry band of Al Qaeda extremists draw on a fantasy tradition that goes back thousands of years.

In Al Qaeda’s Fantasy Ideology by Lee Harris (writing at Tech Central), the author described the nature of what he calls "fantasy ideology":

To an outside observer, the fantasist is clearly attempting to compensate by means of his fantasy for the shortcomings of his own present reality — and thus it is tempting to think of the fantasist as a kind of Don Quixote impotently tilting at windmills. But this is an illusion. Make no mistake about it: The fantasist often exercises great and terrible power precisely by virtue of his fantasy.

Harris goes on to show that the real danger of a fantasist is when there is "an entire group – a sect, a people or even a nation" caught up in such a fantasy world. It is precisely the lack of political realism on the part of such groups that feeds the fantasy – and the chief fantasist.

In reviewing these fantasy ideologies, especially those associated with Nazism and Italian fascism, there is always the temptation for an outside observer to regard their promulgation as the cynical manipulation by a power-hungry leader of his gullible followers. This is a serious error, for the leader himself must be as much steeped in the fantasy as his followers: He can only make others believe because he believes so intensely himself.

Now we have the spectacle of Bin Laden apparently rising from the dead, cautioning the American public that it does not matter who they choose for president, unless America changes its foreign policy in the Middle East. His words and ideas comprise yet another fantasy: his futile belief that Americans will give in to the blackmail of terror and violence. The fantasist does not seem to comprehend that such rhetoric only inspires people to fight for what they perceive to be right – just as the Bin Ladens of the world seem to be inspired to fight for what they perceive to be right.

The problem for the American presidential election is not that Bin Laden is offering unsolicited advice to the electorate. Rational people do not debate democracy with people who want to overthrow democracy by force. The problem is that the electorate may not fully appreciate the inherent dangers of people who build fantasy worlds and then try to act them out in the real one. Bin Laden acted out his ultimate fantasy by attacking America successfully on 9/11. Although Bush at first responded realistically and, in so doing, garnered the solidarity of virtually the entire world, his fantasy vision soon got the best of him. He began to talk incoherently of an "axis of evil", identifying countries that had nothing to do with 9/11, a fantasy ideology that culminated in the invasion of Iraq – the ultimate Bush fantasy.

Fantasy worlds proceed from a rejection of scientific thinking, from a belief in mystical "feelings", from "gut feelings" and religious "certainty". As Kerry rightly pointed out during one of the debates, "you can be certain but you can also be wrong."

Let there be no doubt that America is the attacked, not the attacker in this issue. For all his lack of understanding of world complexities, Bush is not the moral equivalent of Bin Laden. But, in trying to construct a fantasy world of his own, as a fantasist himself, Bush fails to understand the basic threat posed by other fantasists. He refuses to see the struggle against terrorism as an international, criminal issue, driven by poverty, injustice and despair on the part of millions of people on earth. Instead, he sees it as a crusade, a battle of good and evil, a showdown between "them" and "us".

Unfortunately, that is also how Bin Laden sees it.

As we near election eve, we are left with the images of two fantasists, each with his own vision of what the world should be like, each with his own belief in 14th century values, each with his own potential to ignite the world and destroy civilization, each with his own inerrant brand of mysticism – a sad, sombre tale of two fantasies.

Is 36 Your Lucky Number?

2004-10-20T13:10:00.000-07:00

Is Amendment 36 a Colorado Cassandra at the gates or a godsend for democracy?

The "winner-takes-all" principle uniquely expresses many aspects of US society. We see it in the economy, in health-care issues, in education and in the democratic process as a whole. This latter process has recently come under fire by legislators in Colorado.

Amendment 36 is a proposal to change the way the Electoral College divides its votes in that state. Two other states have similar laws, Nebraska and Maine. In these states, candiates who win the popular vote receive two electoral votes, while one vote goes to each congressional district in which a candidate receives a majority. However, neither has ever done what Colorado proposes doing – i.e. split the electoral votes.

This issue raises core democratic principles. Should voters demand that their votes count – in a one-man, one-vote system – or should they be content to allow others to choose the person who will represent them as president? Democratic legislators in Colorado are currently fighting for the former principle.

If passed by Colorado voters on November 2, the state's nine electoral votes will be allocated to each presidential candidate in the 2004 election, proportionately, based on the popular vote. Here is the text of Amendment 36.

In an article entitled Scrap Electoral College, Says New York Times. The New York Times makes a strong case in favor of Electoral-College reform.

The electoral college "thwarts the will of the majority, distorts presidential campaigning and has the potential to produce a true constitutional crisis," the paper said in an editorial.

"The main problem with the electoral college is that it builds into every election the possibility, which has been a reality three times since the Civil War, that the president will be a candidate who lost the popular vote," the editorial said.
"The majority does not rule, and every vote is not equal -- those are reasons enough to scrap the system," the Times said.

Bruce Bartlett, writing in the conservative National Review, presented an opposing view.

Although there are legitimate criticisms to make of the Electoral College, the Colorado effort is nothing but a transparently partisan effort to give Kerry a couple of extra electoral votes. If the election this year is as close as the polls suggest it will be, it could mean the margin of victory.

Here is a more objective analysis of Amendment 36 and its significance for America.

One set of proposals looks toward keeping the electoral college but eliminating its winner-take-all features. This shift could be brought about by choosing most electors on a congressional district basis, with only two electors per state chosen statewide. A 1969 Maine law provides for this method, and similar legislation has been considered in several other states. Alternatively, the office of elector could be eliminated and the electoral votes of a state simply assigned to candidates on the basis of the popular vote each receives. Constitutional amendments to that effect have been introduced in Congress but none has passed. These changes might eliminate some distortion of the popular vote, but they would not answer the complaint that the people do not elect the president directly.

Hamilton made the original argument in favor of the Electoral College in Federalist Paper #68. He even raised the spector of a "Manchurian Candidate":

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?

One factor that weighs (perhaps) subjectively for proponents of one-man, one vote, is the idea that the principle of a winner-takes-all voting system, embedded in the principle of a winner-takes-all society, is exactly what is wrong with contemporary democracy and the rule of law. One may wonder why millions of potential voters shy away from the political system, why millions of potential voters shun politics as a legitimate concern and why millions of potential voters have adopted the cynical attitude that voting for one's representatives is a sham and that only the rich and powerful have real voices in the body politic.

Perhaps Amenment 36 will pass when voters in Colorado go to the polls on November 2, perhaps not. One way or the other, the citizens of that great state have cast the die for future consideration of the Republic. Those who favor the amendment will cheer if it passes; those who are against it will decry its passage – and vice versa.

One could argue that only democracy stands to win with this vote, no matter what the outcome. The sleeping giant of popular democracy has awakened from its long hibernation. The future could belong to the people, not the monied interests. The principle of a winner-takes-all election may soon shift to focus on the princple of a winner-takes-all society -- and America can only benefit from such scrutiney.

In that sense, for people of good will everywhere, 36 may indeed be their lucky number.

Nous Sommes Tous Americains

2004-10-13T05:10:00.000-07:00

Just as the first Kerry-Bush debate failed to deal with the principle of preemtive war, so too did the Edwards-Cheney debate miss an opportunity to examine why America – and the world – has become so politically divided in the months following of 9/11.

In the days that followed the disaster in New York, it seemed as though the entire world was on America's side, sympathizing with those who lost their lives on 9/11 and showing complete solidarity with the American people and America as a nation. What happened that day was not only a shock to New Yorkers and Americans, it was shock heard round the world. As I recall, one French headline blared, "Maintenent, nous sommes tous Americains" (Now we are all Americans).

After the Bush Administration's refusal to defer to the international community and its rush to judgement in basing an invasion of Iraq on weapons of mass destruction, virtually the entire industrialised world first questioned, then protested and finally turned away from American leadership in the world. Polls taken in Europe at the time of the invasion showed every country except Poland against the American incursion in Iraq without UN sanctions – including a majority in the UK, Spain and Italy, countries that initially joined the so-called coalition of the willing.

Ironically, after France's refusal to support the Bush administration's war, conservative Americans turned against the people of France – those same people who a few months earlier had proclaimed their solidarity with America. In effect, Bush's rank and file ignored the reasons that virtually the whole world, including the French, had supported America when it was attacked unjustly by foreign elements and then condemned them for protesting when the Bush administration invaded a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Unfortunately, the Edwards-Cheney debate did not deal with this issue to the extent that it deserves. If Kerry wins in November, it may take him four more years just to repair the damage Bush has done to international relations. If Bush wins ... well, the French have a word for that -- merde.

Waiting for Godot?

2004-10-10T13:59:00.000-07:00

Although Kerry seems to have got the better of Bush during the debates, there were few intellectual fireworks and even fewer shifts in public opinion. The three debates reminded me of the three Acts of Waiting for Godot, the existentialist play by Samuel Beckett. The drama centers around the characters of Vladimir and Estragon and their desperate search for hope in a world that seems increasingly hopeless to them. Godot's main theme comes at the beginning of the play:

Estragon: Nothing to be done.

Vladimir: I'm beginning to come round to that opinion.

It seems that many former Bush supporters are also losing hope. Among the conservative groups that largely supported Bush over Gore in 2000 are the anarcho-capitalists, to use Noam Chomsky's term. Interestingly, this group may be headed towards a Kerry vote or, at least, an abstention during the 2004 elections. The Bush Betrayal by James Bovard. The message: there's no hope under Bush.

Others agree, but for different reasons. Consider, for example, the Bush administration's use of faulty or misleading science, as documented in Science's Political Bulldog.

A recent article in Le Monde Diplomatique, What's The Matter With West Virginia?, shows that in West Virginia, despite Bush's tax gift to the wealthiest 1 percent, the poor and underprivileged still seem to favor him over Kerry. The message: there's no hope for Kerry.

Robert Sheer outlines the pitfalls of the "undecided" undecided vote in The Dangers of a "What the Heck Vote".

Don't say you weren't warned. Yes, you, that otherwise reasonable centrist voter who might be tempted to cast a "what the heck" vote for George W. Bush. Don't kid yourself that the Cheneys, Ashcrofts and Rumsfelds who molded Bush's thoughts will suddenly moderate their radical vision for remaking the world or dampen their attacks on our treasury and civil liberties. It won't happen: Reward their rampage of the last four years with a new mandate to rule and they will only be emboldened.

Perhaps Steve Young got it right after all. No matter how hopeless things seem, Bush comes up smelling like roses. Check out his tongue-in-cheek piece entitled THIS JUST IN...

Kerry Saves Busload of Blind Orphans...Bush's Lead Widens!!!, by Steve Young

Sept. 27, 2004 -- HOLLYWOOD (apj.us) -- In what seems like another in a string of bad luck moves by the hapless Democratic candidate during a standard mundane stump speech in Tuscaloosa, John Kerry shocked the napping crowd by jumping into raging Mississippi River flood waters to pull fifty-five blind orphans and all but one of their seeing-eye dogs out of their sinking buses.

In poll taken by Harris, Gallup and USA Today thirty-five seconds after the rescue, 62% of likely voters found that Kerry's heroism was "too showy."

Republicans were quick to jump on the incident.

"First he doesn't save a busload of blind orphans, then he does," drolled Vice President Dick Cheney. "This guy can't make up his mind."

"A hero?" asked House Majority leader Tom DeLay. "Ask the kid whose dog he chose to leave behind."

A FOX News Opinion Dynamics Poll revealed the 89% of their viewers believe that there was a direct link between blind orphans drowning and Kerry.

"Kerry's an opportunist," claimed a former blind orphan not on the bus. "He's probably planning to become a Supreme Court justice after he serves as president, and knew saving those kids would become a plus during confirmation."

One has to wonder whether this is the future:

Who could have imagined, at the turn of this century, how quickly and completely the American republic would collapse? Historically, the decline and fall of great empires normally takes place over decades, and in the case of Rome, over several centuries. The disintegration of the United States took place in just a few brief years.

While many Americans are convinced that John Kerry is Godot, in a race that by any logical standard should have catapulted Kerry to double digits by now, he still seems trapped in his own inconsistencies. At the Democratic National Convention Kerry told his audience that "hope is on the way". In the run up to the 2004 elections, in a country completely devoid of hope for many under George Bush, Kerry will have to pull off a hat trick to convince people that he is Godot and that "hope is on the way". As things stand, for many voters, the coming election -- like Waiting for Godot -- could end up as an exercise in futility.

What Would Chairman Mao Say?

2004-10-01T13:36:00.000-07:00

As U. S. Presidential debates go, the first one between Kerry and Bush was fairly substantial. Both candidates raised issues and both occasionally scored debating points. There were few, if any, ad hominem attacks and both men came across as reasonable, well-meaning individuals. Both men also missed opportunities to score debating points. As far as declaring a winner, there can be no doubt that Kerry got the best of his opponent. Most polls seemed to confirm that view, as did the observors at Fox News. That should say something about the objectivity of the findings.

Disappointment among Bush supporters went right to the top of the intellectual pecking order this time. According Jay Nordlinger, Managing Editor of National Review:

I hate to say it, but often Bush gave the appearance of being what his critics charge he is: callow, jejune, unserious. And remember — talk about repetition! — I concede this as someone who loves the man.

Andrew Sullivan was slightly less critical of Bush but nevertheless felt compelled to conclude his October 1st blog with these words:

Watching Bush last night, I saw a president who sometimes didn't seem in control of his job, a man who couldn't and didn't defend the conduct of the war except to say that it was "hard work," who seemed defensive, tired, and occasionally rattled.

Most bloggers that support Bush called the debate a draw; most Kerry bloggers gave their man the edge. As far as I know, no one mentioned the fact that neither candidate dealt with the key issue pertaining to the war in Iraq, the question of pre-emptive military strikes.

When Kerry was asked if he accepted the idea of pre-emptive war, he responded in the affirmative. But he did not elaborate the point except to say something about "protecting American interests". He seemed to be parroting Bush, accepting Bush's definition. Neither candidate raised the core question: what is the underlying principle of pre-emptive military strikes?

Clearly, each candidate has a different understanding of this term. Bush takes the position that the U.S. has the right to strike out militarily to protect what it perceives to be "American interests", even when there is no clear threat -- even when there is only a threat of a threat. It would be a bit like attacking the Netherlands because the International Criminal Court in The Hague (which Bush opposes) could conceivably, someday, possibly, perhaps ... capture and put on trial American citizens accused of committing war crimes. The mere existence of the court could be perceived as intrinsically threatening to Bush and, based on his Iraqi invasion rationale, the U.S. could simply carpet bomb the Dutch seat of government and reduce the Court to rubble. Shock and awe politics!

When it comes to unilateral military action, the Bush administration does not intend to honor its commitment to the U.N. Charter and the rule of international law. The rationale behind this position is, quite simply, the principle that might is right.

Kerry's position – although he did not explain it clearly – is based on the principle of self-defense. This principle is enshrined in the U.N. Charter. This Charter, to which the U.S. is a signatory, recognizes the right of a state to retaliate when attacked, as the U.S. did against Afghanistan when it became clear that the organizers of 9/11 were under the protection of the Taliban in Afghanistan. The principle of self-defense also extends to threats of attack in cases where there is convincing evidence of an imminent attack. But it does not extend to the arbitrary use of military power to "get rid of bad guys", pursue state interests, safeguard oil reserves that belong to someone else, occupy lands that belong to someone else, help allies occupy lands that belong to someone else or tilt at wind mills.

The difference between the positions of Bush and Kerry is the difference between military aggression and self-defense. While Kerry wants to play by accepted international rules, Bush is ready to wing it and, it would seem, "shoot first and ask questions later."

What Bush and his supporters seem to forget is that if one nation can justify attacking other nations on any pretence other than self-defense, any other nation could do the same. If the U.S. can employ the principle of arbitrary military strikes to enforce its foreign policy, as it did in Iraq, what is to stop China or any other nation from deciding to take pre-emptive military action against the United States or some other nation? It's a principle that could fit the India-Pakistan border dispute like a glove, to mention the most obvious case. The Bush foreign policy doctrine seems to be: nuke your enemy before your enemy nukes you.

This very succinct analysis of pre-emptive war, written by Paul Schroeder, an extract from an article that appeared in American Conservative, Vol. 1, No. 2 (October 21, 2002), pp. 8–20, provides some historical context about the notion of pre-emptive war.

Also see The Folly of Pre-emptive War.

In resurrecting the principle of military aggression from now-defunct communist wars of liberation and the fascist "Lebensraum" excuse to seize land belonging to others, the Bush administration is sending a dangerous message to the world: don't count on the rule of law to settle differences -- political power comes from the barrel of a gun!

And yes -- that's what Chairman Mao would say.

Rogues and The Rule of Law

2004-09-25T11:26:00.000-07:00

When Kofi Annan said, "Today the rule of law is at risk around the world. Again and again, we see fundamental laws shamelessly disregarded -- those that ordain respect for innocent life, for civilians, for the vulnerable -- especially children," was he enunciating a basic principle of human conduct or merely abandoning a moral principle? Is ideology (of which "morality" is a sub set) a better guide to action than the concept of legality?

He was, according to this conservative perspective.

To the Left, legality matters most, while to the Right, legality matters far less than morality. To the Right and to the religious, the law, when it is doing its job, is only a vehicle to morality, never a moral end in itself. Even the Left has to acknowledge this. When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to a white man on a Montgomery, Ala., bus in 1955, she violated the law. Therefore, anyone who thinks she did the right thing is acknowledging that law must be subservient to morality. Why, then, must the overthrowing of Saddam Hussein be subject to international law as determined by Communist China, neo-KGB Russia, amoral France and the thugs who rule Syria?

Sounds good, but what does it mean? Is the law only a vehicle to morality or is the opposite true? If morality is an end, whose morality are we talking about? Has neuroscience or evolutionary psychology discovered a universal morality that would serve as a standard? Or is morality subjective, subject to the personal views and even whims of individuals?

Let's take Rosa Parks' case. The fact that the law at the time forbade black people from sitting at the front of a bus, it seems to me, is more of a reflection of the morality of the people of the South than the other way around. By the 1960s, American public opinion had caught up with much of the rest of world. It viewed the principle of "separate but equal" as discriminatory. In other words, it was an idea that conflicted with the basic freedoms guaranteed by the highest law of the land, the Constitution. The ultimate rejection of laws such as the one that put Ms Parks at the back of an Alabama bus came about because of education, the accumulation of knowledge, scientific thinking and a rejection of the morality inherent in the original Jim Crow laws.

Not morality but specific enlightened views forced the changes in law that discriminated against the Rosa Parks of America. While passion for a cause played a role in accelerating this change, it was passion for the law that made it possible – for the principle of equality as embodied in the US Constitution.

The rule of law, not subjective moral views (some of which then and now favor a segregated society) is the only real moral force in a democratic society. The law must stand above individual beliefs. It must enable people to live together peaceably and without the need to use force to resolve their differences (something that prevailed through most of human history). But the law is not merely a code for domestic action, it is a principle that can and should apply to all human activities, including international relations among nations.

That was the point that Kofi Annan raised about the war in Iraq. By the standards of international law, America's invasion of a sovereign nation, pre-emptively and not in self-defense, was wrong. There is no logical defense of US actions, not even from the pragmatic depths of apologists in the administration, the press and the neocon right. Not only was it against international law, it was the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place! It has increased the terrorist threat against America, Americans and America's allies and has opened a Pandora's Box that is currently rushing towards civil war.

"We're losing the country, one town at a time. It wasn't long ago that Steve Gilliard and I mapped out the obvious insurgency strategy -- melt away in the face of superior US firepower during the US invasion. While US officials and the warbloggers gloated that entire Iraqi units were disappearing without a fight, we knew that it wasn't the good news they thought it was -- these Iraqis were bidding their time. They would fight on their terms, not ours. Not that we didn't have a window of opportunity to set things right, and to prove that we were a benevolent force. But the electricity never came back on consistently. Abu Ghraib happened. We were responsible for too much "collateral damage". We blew the Fallujah uprising, both by going in too quickly, and then by withdrawing too quickly (hence handing the insurgents a morale-boosting battlefield victory). And the insurgency bid its time. Now, we're relegating to such Orwellian absurdities as calling insurgents "terrorists" and "anti-Iraqi forces" as we take heavy incoming and experience an ever-growing death toll and fatalities rate." (See also David Stout's "Senators Sound Alarm Over Iraq"). All FUBAR In Iraq, Daily Kos, September 13, 2004:

In Bush's Lost Year, the Atlantic's cover story for October, James Fallows argues that over the course of 2002, President Bush squandered myriad resources and opportunities as a result of his drive to war against Iraq. Among the opportunities lost, Fallows argues, were a chance to reassess our "inglorious bargain" with Saudi Arabia, a chance to wage a comprehensive war on terror, and a chance to improve the situation in Afghanistan—all amid a climate of international solidarity that followed September 11.

Perhaps the most worrisome development, Fallows suggests, concerns the threat posed by the other members of the "axis of evil"—the ones that we know have or are developing weapons of mass destruction. With our standing in the international community diminished, our military considerably weakened, and the trustworthiness of our intelligence in doubt, he explains, Iran and North Korea have much less to fear from America than they did before Iraq: "the United States now has no good options for dealing with either country."

Law and Ideology provides a deeper perspective into this question.

If law is a system of enforceable rules governing social relations and legislated by a political system, it might seem obvious that law is connected to ideology. Ideology refers, in a general sense, to a system of political ideas, and law and politics seem inextricably intertwined. Just as ideologies are dotted across the political spectrum, so too are legal systems. Thus we speak of both legal systems and ideologies as liberal, fascist, communist, and so on, and most people probably assume that a law is the legal expression of a political ideology. One would expect the practice and activity of law to be shaped by people's political beliefs, so law might seem to emanate from ideology in a straightforward and uncontroversial way.

"Ideology" was a relatively new word when Marx and Engels used it in The German Ideology in the 1840's. It had been coined by the French rationalist philosopher Destutt de Tracy, in the 1790's, to refer to the "science of ideas," as opposed to metaphysics. It very quickly took on a pejorative sense, and Marx and Engels use it in that way in The German Ideology; there "ideology" generally refers to theory that is out of touch with the real processes of history. The ruling ideas of an epoch, according to Marx and Engels, "are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships , the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas." But the relationship between the ruling ideas and the dominant material relationships are instead seen in reverse--people think that material relationships are the expression of the ruling ideas rather than vice versa:

The Nuremberg trials that followed World War II to prosecute Nazi war criminals emphasized a principle that needs to be better understood by all of us. The Rule of Law.

The point seems to be that, without the rule of law, international relations among nations is not possible; the world is reduced to the law of the jungle. This, It seems to me, is what we are now witnessing in Iraq – the law of the jungle. No doubt this is not the intention of the current administration. Nevertheless, this is the reality on the ground. That makes Bush's appearance at the UN this week even more ludicrous. According to the American president, things are going well in Iraq.

By this standard, things are going well on the planet earth and we need not worry about terrorism, poverty, the destruction of the environment, biodiversity and the widespread belief in supernatural beings that guides the actions of leaders around the world, including the USA.

Intellectuals and Religious Warriors

2004-09-14T14:09:00.000-07:00

"Ann Coulter is the most high-profile and controversial conservative intellectual on the scene today."

No, this is not a quote from Ironic Times, it is apparently intended as a serious comment by the right wing Human Events, in an advertisement at Townhall.com. Townhall.com is part of the Heritage Foundation and the Heritage Foundation, to paraphrase an old joke, talks only to Bush and Bush talks only to God.

Judging from what I've read of Ann Coulter's writings and emotional outbursts, she may be the missing link between neocon and paleocon conservatism, masquerading as a real conservative. And, as everyone knows, real conservatives are William Buckley conservatives. The difference is not hard to discern. Buckley's intellectual credentials are well known. The weapons he chooses to confront his ideological foes are ideas, not character assassination. While Buckley tosses out erudite tits and tats, Ms Coulter calls for the "for the murder of Islamic heads of state, the invasion of their countries, the forced conversion of their citizens to Christianity, the execution of liberals and a terrorist attack on the New York Times. ?" (Source: Bush Bashers & the Bashers Who Bash Them)

Humor, indeed. Intellectual? Hardly. If this is the best that the conservatives can come up with to defend against the "evils" of liberalism, it may be time for Mr. Buckley to put down his own copy of Pet Goat and return to the political battleground -- not, mind you, to save America from liberalism but to save conservatism from Ann Coulter.

Or to save the GOP from itself. Take the current presidential election campaign, for example:

Republicans' strategy is to counter critique with caricature, and they do it with all the panache of an old Roadrunner cartoon, effectively smashing Kerry with rhetorical frying pans. Read all about it here.

To be fair, though, while there may be a shortage of conservative intellectuals, there is no lack of religious warriors. Remember the infamous General Boykin?

General William "Jerry" Boykin, formerly of Delta Force, the US army’s anti-terrorist unit, was appointed in June 2003 as the deputy undersecretary of defense with responsibility for intelligence. He is an evangelical Christian who once told a congregation in Oregon that radical Islamists hated the US "because we’re a Christian nation, because our foundation and our roots are Judaeo-Christian . . . and the enemy is a guy named Satan" (5). On another occasion he said: "We in the army of God, in the house of God, the kingdom of God, have been raised for such a time as this." During the fighting against Islamic warlords in Somalia he had , said: "I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew my God was a real God and his was an idol" (6).
The general offered a few excuses for his utterances, kept his job and was able to use his talents in exporting the prison system created in Guan tánamo Bay to Iraq: we know all about the results of this (7). The US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, defended him at the beginning but the National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, then stepped in to say: "This is not a war between religions. No one should describe it as such." How are we supposed to believe that when we read the statements of tortured Iraqis, who were forced to renounce their religion (8)?

You can read the full story in the latest issue of Le Monde Diplomatique by Alain Gresh. En Anglais!

Speaking of Iraq and Bush's own battleground against terrorism, it seems that Kofi Annan had something to say on that subject today. He called America's invasion of Iraq illegal! Besides stating the obvious, Annan did little to enlighten us as to why Bush chose to make Saddam Hussein the cornerstone of his foreign policy, instead of the war against terrorism.

There are several theories. Daniel Pipes, the paleo conservative who writes for the Washington Times and other houses of ill repute, recently put forth his own. Bush did not invade Iraq for oil, he said, nor to help Israel rid itself of a fly in the Middle East ointment, he invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein turned against his American bosses! Pay back time!

There's another variant on the same theme -- viz. that Saddam tried to kill George W.'s father. Well, whichever it may or may not be, a recent scientific study seems to confirm that revenge is a potent motor in human behavior:

In Dante's Inferno, the inner circle of hell was reserved for
betrayers like Judas and Brutus. But new research indicates that punishing those who break social norms is not merely the province of poets. Scientists have uncovered evidence for an innate satisfaction in human beings for giving people their comeuppance.
Brain Scans Reveal That Revenge Is Sweet

While that may be part of the equation, Harley Sorenson has a slightly more credible argument. Writing in the San Francisco Chronicle, he used the "r" word:

So we invaded Iraq not to save ourselves from weapons of mass destruction, not to rid the world of a brutal dictator and not to avenge the murders of Sept. 11. We invaded Iraq because Bush and his pals think America should rule the world.(Source)

If it weren't so sad and detrimental to the nation and so helpful to radical Islam, it would be amusing to watch the clowns run the White House and play Risk with the world.

During the recent Republican convention, a group of prominent persons discovered another amusing pasttime -- reading the Constitution of the United States out loud. Amusing? Indeed, according to Victor Navasky:

My fear that a simple reading of the Constitution, no matter how accomplished the readers, would fail to entertain the full-house audience turned out to be unjustified. The energetic crowd whistled and whooped and cheered for their favorite passages: the First Amendment (read by Floyd Abrams), the civil war amendments against slavery and guaranteeing the vote (read by Ossie Davis), etc. Betty Friedan got a standing ovation when she recited the Nineteenth, which granted women the right to vote.
They hissed and booed when they heard the line where blacks are counted only as "three fifths of all other Persons," and grumbled during the reading of the National Rifle Association's favorite, the Second Amendment; and they laughed and booed, then cheered, as Prohibition was first incorporated into the Constitution and then repealed. From New York Minutes

A great flame follows a little spark -- Dante Alighieri

Matadors, Mimes and Messages

2004-09-11T11:11:00.000-07:00

Following on the theme touched on in The American Taliban in the preceding post, The Origins and Nature of Fundamentalism in Society by Niccolo Caldararo provides a scholarly analysis of and insights into religious fundamentalism of the kind we see at home and abroad.

Among the more original and interesting voices on the Right is that of Lee Harris at Techcentral. In a fascinating essay entitled Al Qaeda's Fantasy Ideology, Harris presents a highly original view of terrorism, terrorist ideology and terrorist motives. Well worth the read!

Bush's Lost War by James Fallows, writing in The Atlantic Monthly boldy goes where most journalists fail to go regarding the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq:

By deciding to invade Iraq, the Bush Administration decided not to do many other things: not to reconstruct Afghanistan, not to deal with the threats posed by North Korea and Iran, and not to wage an effective war on terror. An inventory of opportunities lost.

Here's another original view of the same subject:

It’s hard to believe, but the Bush administration’s foreign policy and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq are influenced by the writings of a cave-dwelling hermit who had apocalyptic visions some 2000 years ago.

And yet, it seems, there's method in this madness:

Rutgers University history professor Jackson Lears, in a recent letter to The New York Times, “How a War became a Crusade” (3-11-03), suggests a reason why Bush is so cavalier about the possibility that war in Iraq will have unintended consequences. Bush, according to Lears, “denies the very existence of chance.” “Events aren’t moved by blind change and chance,” Lears quotes Bush as saying; rather, events are determined by “the hand of a just and faithful God.”(Source)

Lest we forget -- and for those who don't but should know -- here's a slide show you won't want to miss: The Right 101.

Finally, a little fantasy of our own at our favorite message board.

As the Singing Detective said, Am I right or am I right? :)

The American Taliban

2004-09-09T13:36:00.000-07:00

Few Americans take such an idea seriously, probably because they are either not interested in knowing or not well informed about what is going on in the land of true believers.

In 1980, Republican Strategist Paul Wyrich wrote, "We are talking about Christianizing America. We are talking about simply spreading the gospel in a political context." In 2002, another Republican announced, "We need to find ways to win the war". These are the words of Karl Rove, President Bush's political director, talking to a gathering of the Family Research Council – one of the most powerful lobbying groups of the Religious Right. Rove wasn't talking about the war on terrorism. He was talking about the war on secular society. (Winning the War)

An article in the online Progressive, entitled Bush's Messiah Complex, shows that, while Karl Rove tackles the domestic evils, Bush seems bent on ridding the world of evil – at the barrel of a gun.

A picture emerges from the President's public statements--and even from such adulatory accounts as Bob Woodward's Bush at War and David Frum's The Right Man--of a President on a divine mission. Call it messianic militarism.

The step from the Bush administration's messiah complex to a seeming disregard for scientific evidence to bolster its political agenda is a matter of public record.

The problem is not so much that Bush and other members of his administration (including his Attorney General) seem guided by "higher" purposes than science and reason; the point is that such "leadership" is sending messages to some of Bush's Taliban-esq supporters.

"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good... Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism." -- -Randall Terry, Founder of Operation Rescue

"In winning a nation to the gospel, the sword as well as the pen must be used." "Democracy is a heresy against God!"(Source) -- -R.J. Rushdooney, Director of the Rutherford Institute (the person behind Christian Reconstructionism).

This is not purely a religious issue. It is a fundamentalist issue, not that different from the values and beliefs of the fundamentalist Taliban in Afghanistan. The Religious Tolerance group published this article showing comparisons between Christianity and Islam. Religious Movements, a Virginia-based group, also has an interesting article on religious fundamentalism.

Now, if all this does not seem Taliban enough, all one has to do is look at this site to understand that the Taliban mentality is alive and well in America, in all shapes, stages and ideologies.

Evil Freedom Should Be Disallowed

We, the corporeal citizens of America (and the world community), should acquiesce to the fact that many of the so-called "rights" and "freedoms" guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, its Amendments and the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights are not genuine rights and freedoms, but moral evils in the sight of God.

This was a sampling of what one might call up-front Talibanism in America. But, as I said at the top, few Americans take such threats seriously. Well, here's one person who does.

The media were shocked, shocked to discover that prominent Republicans have a soft spot for segregation -- something that was obvious long before Mr. Lott inserted his foot in his mouth. One of these years they'll be equally shocked to discover that prominent Republicans have a soft spot for theocracy.

And then, years from now, when it becomes clear that much public policy has been driven by a hard-line fundamentalist agenda, people will say "But nobody told us."

Gotta Have Faith by Paul Krugman (New York Times)

Privatizing Abuse

2004-09-08T15:30:00.000-07:00

Now we're hearing reports about private contractors being involved in Abu Graib. There's nothing surprising about that. Since the current occupation of Iraq is being run by the original Night of the Living Dead (particularly Rumsfeld and Cheney), nothing should surprise you when it comes to "interrogation methods and tactics". After all, the original theme of the invasion of Iraq was the end justifies the means.

The really interesting thing is to look back on the Conservative press in the US when the abuses at Abu Graib first surfaced. Here is an overview of who blamed whom.

Fundamentalism by any other name ...

The Woodwork

2004-09-08T14:13:00.000-07:00

As the US election nears, we are seeing a flurry of fundamentalist views hitting the public fan, most of which are coming from the Bush camp. First we had Alan Keyes calling on Dick Cheney to abandon his daughter because she is lesbian, as reported by the Chicago Tribune.

Next we had Dixiecrat Zell Miller ranting and raving about Kerry. One rather humorous comment at the above site was that Miller's speech "reads better in the original German."

Now Cheney has come out with a statement that a Democratic victory in November would invite another terrorist attack. This looks very much like electioneering desperation.

There is of course one erudite site that always manages to put things in proper perspective. Summing up the achievements of the Republican Convention, this week's Ironic Times listed key features of the GOP platform:

No abortion
No same-sex marriage
No affordable drugs
No health insurance
No clean air
No peace
No fun

When Bush Comes To Shove

2004-09-08T10:58:00.000-07:00

As cliches go, the idea that there is something fundamentally wrong with the world at the start of the 21st century has a lot going for it. Perhaps it has reached a crisis point -- or soon will --, as E.O. Wilson argued in his fascinating article in Scientific American, Bottleneck . Or perhaps it is the culmination of a "conservative" revolution taking place simultaneously in liberal democracies and authoritarian states -- a return to fundamentalist political and religious ideas. Whatever it is, the political message is clear: there are no leaders left to guide the ship of state, only incompetent, fumbling politicians who seem willing to do "whatever it takes" to stay in power or ascend to the throne of power.

Let's face it, by any objective standard the war in Iraq is not going to win a popularity contest. As an expat living in Europe, public opposition to the war in Iraq was almost palpable. Polls released on the eve of the invasion showed only one country in Europe whose population supported American policy: Poland. The leaders of such European countries as Britain, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands et. al. simply ignored public opinion and ultimately sent troops to spill blood on the streets of Baghdad and other cities in Iraq. So much for public opinion.

Even the Bush administration's "unholy alliance" with Libertarian groups such as Reason.com and Cato began to crack because of Iraq. Now, after Bush's big-spending speech at the Republican Convention, some Conservatives seem to be abandoning the Bush ship, since their leader has now dropped all pretence of being a Conservative.

Andrew Sullivan even used the phrase "The End of Conservatism" in a recent blog.

“It’s deception. To propose all this knowing full well that we cannot even begin to afford it is irresponsible in the deepest degree. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the only difference between Republicans and Democrats now is that the Bush Republicans believe in Big Insolvent Government and the Kerry Democrats believe in Big Solvent Government. By any measure, that makes Kerry – especially as he has endorsed the critical pay-as-you-go rule on domestic spending – easily the choice for fiscal conservatives."

Say what? Where has Sullivan been for the last 25 years? President Reagon talked the Conservative talk, but he failed to walk the walk. Newt Gingrige probably would have taken America farther along the road to revisiting Victorian England, but his blossoming intellectual challenge wilted rather abruptly. So now Bush II is carrying the Conservative torch -- but not really. Like most politicians who have tasted the ambrosia of power, he will apparently do whatever is necessary to hang on to it. As one Conservative publication put it, Bush is "no friend of limited, Constitutional government."

It may be that "Bush's War" in Iraq set back the fight against terrorism and gave Al Qaeda time to regroup and disappear after 9/11; it may be that Bush has caused traditional conservatives to recoil in anger and disappointment because Bush has done too little to push a fiscal conservative agenda (except for some extraordinary concessions to the Religious Right in terms of abortion, gay and lesbian marriage, stem cell research and fudging the science on official government websites).

But it seems to me that, when Bush comes to shove, there is another factor in the Conservative equation, one that is seriously underrated: the marriage of political ideology to religious fundamentalism, a phenomenon that is by no means restricted to America.

But more on that later.