Response to a Republican

I posted this on Washington Monthly tonight, in response to a typical right wing Bush defender.

[You are] a sad example of a Republican who hasn't awakened yet, as I did. I voted for Ford, Reagan twice, and Bush the Elder, once. Then I began to see the Republican Party for all its lunacy and viciousness.

The subtle but very real appeals to racial prejudice--which built the Republican Party in the South.

The alliance with the Neo-Confederates.

The war against science and the embrace of creationist insanity.

The alliance with the Dominionists who want to replace our republic with a theocracy.

The incessant class war the Republicans have waged against the poor and working classes, while proclaiming that it is the Democrats who are somehow waging class war when they demand tax fairness and social justice.

The ranting ugliness of right wing media, with the ravings of far right hate radio leading the way.

The disgusting worship of this loathsome boob in the White House, an addled mental incompetent, who in 2000 was the least qualified candidate for president since William Jennings Bryan in 1896.

The refusal to recognize that Bush is a monstrous, life-long screw up who has been saved from his disasters by powerful, monied interests and cronies.

The Stalin-like attacks on anyone who dares to disagree with them, and the savage hatred of homosexuals.

And now, according to Santorum, the state has the right to police our bedrooms to make sure we are having only "procreative sex". According to Brownback, women should go back into the home and restore "traditional values". And Robertson, Falwell, DeLay, and Dobson want to declare America a "Christian Nation", which presumably excludes non-Christians (like me) from being considered a "real American."

[Is] there any sin, any crime, any form of incompetence on the part of the Republicans you AREN'T willing to defend? The torture? The rendition of prisoners to places like Uzbekistan, where prisoners are sometimes tortured with boiling water? The utter screw-ups in Iraq, and Cheney's manipulation of the intelligence that got us there? Katrina? The monster deficits? The national debt crisis? The K-Street project corruption? The bribes? ANYTHING AT ALL?

I remember a time when Republicans used to give a damn about decency, honor, and America's future. I sure as hell don't see many of those kinds of Republicans now.

I wonder if he'll read it and send a reply. Who knows?

The Dread

Do you sense it? Are you aware of it? Can you feel it? Is it just within me, or is it actual, a palpable reality that exists outside of my own perception? There seems to be hanging over our country right now a genuine sense of dread for the future, an eerie, ominous feeling that what's just around the corner is something to fear instead of something to welcome. In the sixth year of our national tragedy, that feeling seems to be spreading throughout the population. As I said, is it just me?

Or do you sense it, too?

The Middle East crisis, of course, is the most immediately obvious cause of our unease. Iraq continues to seethe with violence and our young men and women, the best of our country, are caught up in the maelstrom, being killed or wounded or just emotionally eroded or shattered, sent on a disastrous mission by fevered, arrogant, visionary madmen, a mission for which they have neither the numbers or the equipment necessary for success. Israel and its enemies are embraced in a savage death grip, with no end to the horror in sight. Iran, led by anti-Semitic firebrands and fanatics, taunts the weak men in Washington, daring them to strike. The madmen are urging the weak, mentally unbalanced leader of our country to do just that. Pakistan arms itself and a worried India takes notice. The Saudi monarchy teeters on the edge of disaster. The birthplace of organized warfare seems ready to erupt into a conflict no one can stop. And the fierce, driven, Koran-intoxicated murderers of Al Qaeda are cheering it all on.

In our own country, our economy lives on borrowed money and borrowed time. Our country is piling up obligations that will crush our children and grandchildren. Tens of millions are drowning in debt they refuse to see or acknowledge, keeping thoughts of it at bay by buying more things they don't need, things that don't make them feel any better. Tens of millions are scraping by from paycheck to paycheck, praying that illness or accident doesn't strike them, because it will wipe them out. The hedge funds burn their way through whole countries, the pieces of paper wealth disintegrate,the corporations renege on the pensions, the houses sit unsold, the bills are coming due, and no one quite knows where the money is going to come from for all this. And how many people think their kids are going to live anywhere near as well as they the parents did?

Superstition and apocalyptic fervor grip millions. Science is rejected and scorned. Entertainment is valued above all. Ugliness of all kinds spreads, in the arts, in our daily lives, in our cities, in our everyday buildings. Reading is considered to be too much trouble by many. Conversation, political discourse, and intelligent argument are in a dismal state, corrupted by shrieking hatred, posturing, talking points, and sound bites. Faith is becoming once again a bludgeon to be used against others. People gather weapons for protection against unknown dangers. Fear of the "other" is pervasive. Politics literally makes millions of people sick, disgusted, and cynical. Civic pride seems a bad joke. Too many of our neighbors are strangers.

The environment of the earth itself is imperiled, and warnings grow from all sides that the planet on which we wholly depend is becoming less hospitable. What lies ahead--pandemic? Out of control warming? Mass flooding? Ever more ferocious storms? Who knows?

Our people are losing faith. In a recent national poll, of the two-thirds that felt this country to be on the wrong track, 80% considered the decline to be long term and permanent. And hanging over all this is the dread. The fear that no one is really in charge, that no one really knows what to do. The supporters of the madmen howl and bark their hatred for all who disagree with them. The storm is rising, the rocks are approaching, the ship is foundering. And the weakest, most inept, most incompetent, most mentally limited man in the history of our country is at the helm.

Do you feel it coming? The disaster that seems to be inexorably sliding down on us? Do you ever wish, in your darker moments, that whatever is going to happen will just happen, that we'll be IN the catastrophe instead of waiting for it? It's sometimes as if I'm saying, "Come on, do it!! Hit us!! Let us know what you look like." At other times, in bitterly laughing tribute to the nonentity that "leads" us, I want to shout "Bring it on!" And then I imagine the chaos and suffering that would ensue, and I am contrite for harboring such sentiments.

Am I being too dark? Too hopeless? Too pessimistic? I'm a history teacher. I've immersed myself in the study of human life for decades. And one conclusion I've reached is this: humans tend to create realties too complex for humans to handle or fully comprehend. They achieve great things, yes. They often show courage, love, compassion, resolution, and hope. In their individual lives they often succeed gloriously. But as a group, as a collectivity, they tend to fail. The theme of human history is tragedy. A life worth living can be wrung from the larger narrative of human life, but in the end we will not escape the fate of all previous civilizations. Civilizations can crumble over time, have a "soft landing", evolve, disintegrate, transform themselves into something new. This is the most hopeful possibility. Or they can be destroyed violently, in obscene spasms of brutality, followed by ages of hardship and the loss of much that has been arduosly and painfully learned. Which road will we take?

In the end, it will be up to every man and woman to make a stand, if only to defend those they most dearly love. Shall we fall into nihilistic, existential despair? Or, against all odds, will we try for the soft landing, the evolution instead of the explosion?

Absurdly, I still believe in trying. I still have hope that this dark time can be survived, and that, as it has always done, our species will survive

and pick up the pieces

and go on

and create a new future.

Enough With the 9/11 Myths!

This site does an excellent job of shooting down the innumerable preposterous stories being circulated by various conspiracy nutjobs about the 9/11 attacks. A lot of the so-called "experts" on the 9/11 attacks are simply hysterical shills and hacks, or people who are inclined to see conspiracies everywhere. This site is aimed squarely at these "experts".

In early 2001 a commission headed by Gary Hart warned that we were vulnerable to a huge terrorist strike. It was ignored.

In August 2001 George W. Bush received a Presidential Daily Briefing entitled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike the U.S." He told the person presenting it, who urged him to take action: "OK, you've covered your ass." (Ron Suskind) Bush then went on a five week vacation.

On 9/11 itself, Bush sat there like a stunned idiot for seven minutes while the United States was under attack. He later fled across the entire country to hide himself. Cheney had to take charge on the ground.

Later, Bush fought tooth and nail to stop the 9/11 Commission from being formed.

Those are the real scandals associated with 9/11. Not all this other crap. Let's focus on what matters here.

The Fat of the Land

Check out this morbidly fascinating sequence of maps about the spread of obesity among the American population.

And then put that gallon of ice cream and mega-package of double stuffed Oreos down!

Why I Used to Be a Republican-And Why I Changed

I was raised in a deeply conservative family. (I hasten to add that my mother didn't brook prejudices against other people and was generous to others--and we didn't have a big margin for error in our own finances.) I was a strong Goldwater kid in 1964, at the age of 12. I was fiercely for Nixon in '68, in part because I was convinced he had been cheated out of what had been rightly his in 1960. (Long, irrelevant story about why I felt I had been cheated in my own life.) I lived in northern Illinois and the Mafia-connected Democrats in Chicago sickened me. I was for Nixon also because the 1960s had been so chaotic that I was hoping he could restore some kind of sanity. Oh well.

Nixon's failure to end the war began to disillusion me. In college I drifted toward the Democrats, casting my first vote for McGovern. I rejoiced at Nixon's political destruction in the Watergate scandal. I was impressed with the decency and common sense of Gerald Ford, which was such a profound contrast to Nixon.

At the same time, however, in college I was majoring in history and political science. I was particularly interested in the USSR under Stalin, and I immersed myself in Soviet history. I was so horrified and appalled by what I found (especially after reading the first part of The Gulag Archipelago) that I became a militant anti-Communist. I also grew to hate Communist China's government as I learned about it. I had been repelled, also, by those who rejoiced at the Communist victory in Vietnam in 1975 (which was NOT how the majority of the anti-war movement felt, by the way). I came to see Communism's defeat as a moral imperative.

After college, living and working in a small, very Republican suburb, surrounded by decent and hardworking conservatives also began to change me. I found Jimmy Carter to be annoyingly self-righteous and voted for Ford in 1976. And I went deeper into the horrors of the USSR under Stalin as I worked on my Masters degree in history. By the late 1970s, I was fiercely anti-Soviet, looking for someone who would have the backbone to defy the horrible system I hated with every fiber of my being. Despite the fact that he made a lot of bone-headed statements, I began to see Ronald Reagan as someone who felt about the USSR the same way I did. Here's the crux of the matter: The Democrats just didn't seem to take the threat of Soviet Communism seriously, and the Republicans did. I voted for Reagan in 1980 because of this conviction.

Although I began to hear accusations about Reagan's actions in Central America, I still voted for him in 1984. Walter Mondale struck me as a tired, whining-voiced, unimaginative northern liberal whose chief "idea" was to restore the New Deal. It was no contest, as far as I was concerned.

But doubts began to creep into my conservatism. Reagan and his people seemed indifferent to environmental concerns, which I was just beginning to embrace. I especially loved the redwoods of northern California and wanted to see them protected. When ERA failed, I was angry. Reagan's speech in 1985 at a cemetary in Germany which contained SS graves also bothered me. My family had always been pretty strongly pro-civil rights (I grew up in an integrated neighborhood and had lots of African-American friends when I was a kid) and I didn't like a lot of the neo-Confederate nonsense I was beginning to hear in right wing circles. And I was adamantly pro-evolution in my thinking, having taught myself a good deal of physical anthropology. Did being a Republican mean I had to embrace creationist idiocy? It was starting to seem so. And I had gay friends, and I sure didn't like the hatred I was hearing directed against people like them.

I almost voted for Dukakis in 1988 because I was disquieted by Dan Quayle, but Duke just didn't seem to have the leadership I was looking for. This was a big mistake on my part. By 1991, the elder Bush repelled me with his tongue-tied rhetoric, his kissing up to the radical religious right, and his general ineptitude after the Gulf War, when he had a strongly unified country behind him and did...nothing. I decided he also seemed to have no real moral or ethical core. There was something wrong with him I couldn't put my finger on. And the Bush deficits scared the hell out of me. By 1992, I gladly voted for Clinton, although his personal lack of discipline (i.e., keeping his fly zipped) was troubling.

I stayed a Democrat because the Republicans continued to move farther and farther right. I stayed a Democrat because Bill Clinton was an effective, capable president. I stayed a Democrat because to be a Democrat meant being for science, for equal opportunity and equal rights, for fiscal responsibility, for economic opportunity, for defending our environment, for the rights of women, and above all for moderation. I stayed a Democrat because I was outraged at the criminal farce of the Clinton impeachment. And faced with the most vicious, unprincipled, incompetent, dishonest, and corrupt administration in history, a regime supported by terrifying right wing fanatics of all stripes, I am a stronger Democrat than ever.

In retrospect, if the Democrats had spoken out as forcefully against Soviet brutality as the Republicans did, I don't think I would have strayed after McGovern. The Republicans seemed to feel that the defeat of the Soviet Union was possible; the Democrats seemed resigned to a permanent Cold War, which I didn't want. I was always more moderate than most of the Reaganites. Maybe with my big goal achieved (the fall of Communism in Europe), my eyes could focus on other issues. And once they did, the Democrats seemed saner and more responsible in almost every way.

I will never really be a hardcore liberal, but I'm still a moderate. And for a moderate these days, the Democratic Party is the only rational option.

My wandering days are through; I will die a loyal Democrat.

Yes! Father of Dead Marine Suing Anti-Gay Scum

The Westboro Baptist "Church", the vicious, hate-filled group of violently anti-gay "Christians" that regularly disrupts military funerals with their sick protests, is being sued by the angry father of a Marine who died in combat. Key facts:

On March 3, 2006, Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder was killed in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. His father, Albert Snyder, buried him on March 20 at St. John's Catholic Church in Westminster, Md.. It was supposed to be a peaceful, private ceremony. But the funeral was interrupted by members of the church. "The protesters — Westboro Baptist Church — showed up with their signs, their hatred," Snyder said. According to Snyder's attorney Sean Summers, the demonstrators bore their infamous "God Hates Fags" signs, as well as a lesser used "Semper Fi Fags" sign, particularly offensive to the dead Marine's family.

Though [church spokesperson] Phelps-Roper maintains that the protesters "were hundreds — hundreds — of yards from where the funeral was," Snyder was forced to travel past them to enter.

"To be honest with you, I tried not to focus on (the protest), and more on my son," he said. But according to the lawsuit, the church's presence was emotionally damaging to the already grieving father. Postings by Phelps-Roper on the church's Web site following the protest that claimed Snyder "taught Matthew to defy his Creator, to divorce, and to commit adultery," and "raised him for the devil," further added to the father's pain. The lawsuit says Westboro knowingly violated Snyder's privacy, defamed him and was an intentional infliction of emotional distress against the bereaved father. In addition to general damages, the lawsuit is seeking punitive damages against the church to act as a deterrent against future protests.

These Phelps people are pure, sick, screwed up slime. They are the lowest of the low. Let's hope and pray that Snyder wins his lawsuit and gets punitive damages that will tear the financial guts out of the Westboro bastards.

Damn right I have.

A LONG time ago.

Smearing Pat Tillman's Parents

Just when you think the radical right (aka as the leadership of the Republican Party) has hit bottom, it digs a g-d damned trench and goes deeper. Now Pat Tillman's mom and dad are being attacked because they have had the temerity to question the circumstances surrounding the death of their sun, the late Pat Tillman, an NFL star who sacrificed millions of dollars to serve his country. He then sacrificed his life in Afghanistan. Pat was a true hero, as fine an American as we have produced. It is a shocking disgrace that his parents are now being abused, but that seems to be how the conservatives in this country operate:

Lt. Col. Ralph Kauzlarich...more than any other single person below the rank of general, [is] probably most responsible for the Pentagon’s embarrassment when NFL-player-turned-Army-Ranger Pat Tillman was killed on April 22, 2004, by his own comrades.

Kauzlarich has been energetically avoiding responsibility for the fratricidal incident ever since.

It appears from reading the documents in the incident the he and others in the military may have violated multiple laws—including obstruction of justice, evidence tampering and conspiracy.

Kauzlarich may have conspired with others to award an inappropriate Silver Star, complete with a phony account of the events surrounding Tillman’s death. Members of Tillman’s chain of command attended Tillman’s memorial service without breathing a word to the family about what really happened, and it appears, again from the documents, that Kauzlarich deep-sixed the original investigation, which he then had redone under his personal supervision.

The Army’s criminal investigation division and the Pentagon’s Inspector General are currently investigating Tillman’s death and the events that ensued.

Kauzlarich now looks to Nov. 7, 2006, with a gnawing disquiet. Only a thin congressional majority that stand between a nemesis like Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and the chairmanship of the House Judiciary Committee. Subpoena authority might transform a mere gavel into a mighty political weapon. [Emphasis added]

But in the meantime, a recent ESPN.com exposé by Mike Fish aired an interview with Kauzlarich, who was the “cross commander” of the Rangers in Khoust, Afghanistan, in April 2004. Kauzlarich, in a stunning display of Christian empathy, blamed the family for continuing to ask questions about the circumstances of Pat’s death, and suggested that the reason they’d found no closure was that infidels such as themselves (the Tillmans did not belong to a church), when they die, are only “worm dirt.”

“So for their son to die for nothing, and now he is no more,” continued Kauzlarich, “that is pretty hard to get your head around that. So I don’t know how an atheist thinks…. You know what? I don’t think anything will make them happy, quite honestly. I don’t know. Maybe they want to see somebody’s head on a platter. But will that really make them happy? No, because they can’t bring their son back.”

You see, Pat's family is a bunch of dirty non-believers. That's why they want Kauzlarich to answer for his lies and cover-ups. That's Kauzlarich's reasoning, anyway. Absolutely disgusting.

Pat Tillman was opposed to the war in Iraq and he was planning to vote for John Kerry. (When told of this, the despicable Sean Hannity and borderline psychotic Ann Coulter refused to believe it and in effect called Pat's parents liars.) We need to take a stand in defense of Mr. and Mrs. Tillman and in honor of their son--a true American patriot and a model, in my eyes, of what every real man who loves his country should be.

"Rev." Moon Sends Creationist Lunatic to Kansas to Do His Bidding

Sun Myung Moon, godfather of the modern conservative movement, bankroller of the Bush family, and general all-around psychotic, has sent one of his disciples to fight Demon Evolution in Kansas:

The Discovery Institute, apparently, has decided to moon Kansas.The Discovery Institute, that overcaffienated intelligent design think tank located in Seattle, has announced plans to run two new radio commercials promoting their misnamed Stand Up for Science website and the online petition to “Stand up for Science, Stand up for Kansas.” The ads will air this weekend across Kansas just in time to drive right-wing religious voters to the polls for the primary election here.

According to Discovery, one ad features Discovery fellow Jonathan Wells -- they don't mention that Wells is a follower of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, a man who has proclaimed himself God, and the Unification Church.

"Father's [Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism," writes Wells. "When Father chose me to enter a PhD program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle."

Yes, folks, Moon and his people are not out to "stand up" for science, they're out to strangle and destroy it. They want to substitute mythology for reason and use the schools to promote their fairy tale view of reality. They need to be opposed at every step--and those fighting them need to be supported.

Vitally Important Article: "Who Turned Out the Enlightenment?"

The current online edition of The National Journal contains a profoundly important (and for many, potentially unsettling) article on the politicization of science in modern America. Written by Paul Starobin, the article assaults both the political left and the political right for deliberately trying to bend scientific research to their own ends. Many of us in the political center-left will be uncomfortable with certain of Starobin's contentions. Many on the political right (if they bother to read the article at all) will be even more outraged. Starobin thinks the same way I do about these issues: it doesn't matter what anyone wants to be true; all that matters is what is true, or at least empirically verifiable. Increasingly, science has become a political football in this country, with ideologues and religious fanatics fighting against the reality of science's findings if that reality upsets their comfortable pre-conceived notions. Key excerpts:

The partisans are of two basic types. For shorthand, they can be called The Ideologues and The Big-Money Crowd

The Ideologues traverse the political spectrum, from the Religious Right to the New Left. The former push for the teaching of a pseudo-science, intelligent design, in biology class; the latter refuse to countenance the idea, taken seriously by biologists, that males and females may have different aptitudes for such subjects as math and language. Each is vulnerable to the courtroom dressing-down that the Jack Nicholson character, Marine Col. Jessep, delivered in "A Few Good Men." "You want answers?" the grizzled Nicholson asked a young Tom Cruise, playing a military lawyer.

"I want the truth!"

"You can't handle the truth!"

As for The Big-Money Crowd, the striking example is the fossil fuel industry's willful reluctance to acknowledge "an inconvenient truth" -- global warming -- as science evangelist Al Gore asserts in his new movie by that name. Probably these cool cucumbers, unlike The Ideologues, can handle the truth -- it is their bottom-line businesses that seem invested in fable and distortion. The real loser, of course, could be planet Earth.

As far as the differences in male and female capacities, I have my doubts about that. I've been a teacher for 32 years, and I fail to see these differences. But being a history teacher, I cannot safely judge the aptitude of females for math and science. I'm not afraid of research in this area, and I would never dream of trying to block it on ideological grounds. Let's settle the question instead of arguing about it. In regard to the global warming "controversy" (I put the term controversy in quotes because the so-called controversy is wholly manufactured), we know what's at stake. Despite the overwhelming evidence that human activity is exacerbating the natural cycles of the earth's warming and cooling, a massive political apparatus has sprung up to fight this evidence. This fight is solely based on economic self-interest, regardless of potential consequences.

The Left has sometimes violently objected to research that upsets its worldview. What happened to Edward O. Wilson is instructive:

In 1978, at a meeting in Washington of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a protester poured a jug of water over the head of Edward O. Wilson, a world-renowned Harvard entomologist whose specialty was the study of ants. The miscreant's compatriots verbally denounced Wilson for giving sustenance to sexism, racism, and genocide through his research.

Wilson's sin was his founding of "sociobiology," which he defined as the extension of "neo-Darwinism into the study of social behavior and animal societies." Humans were part of this analysis -- their activities treated not as outside of biological principles but as obedient to them. The result was a politically incorrect litany of examples that were presented in a nuanced fashion but infuriated the Left nevertheless. In the chapter on "Sex" in his book "On Human Nature," Wilson wrote, concerning humans and "most" animal species, that "it pays males to be aggressive, hasty, fickle, and undiscriminating," while "in theory it is more profitable for females to be coy, to hold back until they can identify males with the best genes."

On the question of whether human beings are "innately aggressive," and for this reason prone to warfare, "the answer," he wrote, "is yes." In The New York Review of Books, Wilson was attacked for reviving theories that were the basis for "the eugenics policies which led to the establishment of gas chambers in Nazi Germany."

I think this reaction can safely be characterized as hysterical. Wilson's bottom line is this: humans are animals with a long evolutionary past that has shaped their development. To contend, as some have, that cultural influences are the only factors that shape human behavior is to be dangerously misguided about why humans act as they do. Sociobiology is a legitimate scientific endeavor, now known chiefly as evolutionary psychology. Let the facts behind human behavior be explored, and if these facts destroy cherished prejudices, so be it.

By far the most egregious offenders against science, in Starobin's view, have been right wing Big Money people and ideologues. The litany of their sins is depressingly familiar:

[In promoting creationism after attempts at banning evolution failed] religious ideologues took a different tack, seeking to have public schools teach intelligent design in science classes as an alternative to evolution. The problem is that "ID is not science," as a George W. Bush-appointed federal judge, John E. Jones III, ruled decisively [PDF] in Harrisburg, Pa., last December. "ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation," Jones wrote in his explanation of why the Dover Area School Board was guilty of "breathtaking inanity" in its requirement that students be told about intelligent design in ninth-grade biology class.

Jones tossed out the Dover school board's requirement on the grounds that intelligent design, as "creationism relabeled," breached the constitutional wall separating church from state because it was the product of a religious viewpoint. He might have ruled narrowly; instead he provided a tutorial on the origins of the modern scientific method in the time of Newton. His ruling made clear that advocates of ID were not simply displaying hostility toward evolution -- they were, in effect, rejecting the workings of science and the evidence compiled by scientists since Darwin offered his theory in "The Origin of Species" in 1859. In attempting to package intelligent design as science, the ID advocates were rejecting science itself. In a way, this was intellectual hubris of the highest order.

For his troubles, Jones was accused by Phyllis Schlafly, a longtime activist on behalf of conservative religious causes, of being in league with "atheist evolutionists" and, more than that, of betraying "millions of evangelical Christians" who voted for Bush in 2000 and thus made possible Jones's appointment to the bench. In his ruling, Jones "stuck the knife in the backs of those who brought him to the dance," Schlafly thundered in a Copley News Service column.
The intelligent-design movement may or may not be dead as a result of Jones's ruling. But efforts to deny the scientific validity of evolution most certainly are not -- the forces behind intelligent design are merely regrouping. Of course, no one is under any compulsion to accept evolution -- or to accept, for that matter, the proposition that water boils at 100 degrees centigrade under normal pressure. But should popular democracy, as Schlafly implies in her column, get to decide what is and what is not credible science?

Exactly. Science is not "democratic". Its findings do not depend on popular support. In 1632 Galileo found himself deeply isolated in his opinion that we lived in a heliocentric universe. In our own era, as late as the 1930s, only one scientist in the world truly understood how the sun works. When opponents of evolutionary fact argue that most Americans reject evolution, they are making an argument of almost mind-warping idiocy, as if the laws of nature are determined by popular vote.

Starobin reminds us of Big Tobacco's assault on research that proved its products were dangerous. He exposes the cynicism of the Republican assault on environmental science (which uses Frank Luntz derived arguments about the "inconclusive" evidence of global warming). And he also criticizes Richard Dawkins, whom I deeply respect, for his efforts to use science to prove his contention that religious believers are essentially fools. (One scientist is quoted as calling Dawkins an evangelist for atheism and adding, "He's killing us.)

Starobin's arguments will raise a lot of hackles. Good! Let the hackle raising begin. Because, in the end, reality ALWAYS wins, despite our best efforts to ignore it or bend it to our will. The world is as it is. That simple proposition has been fought by too many people for too long. The dangers of the politicization of science lead Starobin to this conclusion:

A fascinating, if somewhat frightening, societal experiment is under way. The question is whether democracy naturally advances science, or whether modern progress in science actually has less to do with heralded forms of government than with the fruit born of a special moment in historical time, the modern European Enlightenment, from which America, courtesy of the Founders, greatly benefited.

Jefferson, the ultimate optimist about progress in science and democracy going hand in hand, died in 1826, at the dawn of what became known as Jacksonian America, a raucous new era of muddy-boots rule by "the people." Alexis de Tocqueville, the French aristocrat who toured this America in 1831 and was its most perceptive chronicler, worried about the prospect for science in the new Republic. "Nothing is more necessary to the culture of the higher sciences or of the more elevated departments of science than meditation; and nothing is less suited to meditation than the structure of democratic society," Tocqueville observed in "Democracy in America."

For a very long time, this appeared to be the rare Tocqueville insight that was off the mark. Our current age, though, seems bent on proving him right after all.

Read the whole thing--and become enlightened.

Right Wing Hack David Brooks Caught Lying Through His Teeth

For some inexplicable reason, The New York Times insists on foisting David Brooks on its subscribers. Brooks is one of the worst frauds writing in America today, a person who believes himself to be some sort of profound social analyst. He isn't. He is simply a really articulate Republican propaganda hack. Today, in a lie of astonishing proportions, Brooks claims that Federal aid to education has had no real effect on college graduation or attendance rates (!!!). Washington Monthly has the scoop here. Quoting Kevin Carey, who has analyzed this:

According to the U.S. Department of Education and the Census Bureau, the percent of high school graduates who immediately enrolled in college the fall after graduation increased from 49% in 1972 to 67% in 2004.

The percent of 25- to 29-year olds who completed at least some college increased from 36% to 57%.

The percent of 25- to 29-year olds who earned a bachelor's degree increased from 19% to 29%.

All of those numbers can and should be better. But it's foolish to say that the federal student aid money spent during that time did no good.

Why does a clown like Brooks have a platform at what used to be our most prestigious newspaper? Where is an editor at the NYT when you need one? Doesn't anybody fact check this guy, or are they content to let him put out right wing propaganda with impunity?

Brooks is a big neocon foreign policy fan as well. He has helped bring this country to the crisis it now confronts. He is seemingly reasonable in demeanor, and yet his facade conceals a radical mentality. It's good to see people calling BS on him. It needs to be done more often.

The Pro-Cure Movement

With his obscene and cruel veto of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, George Bush has caused a backlash against the radical Republicans that could give the Democrats a huge victory in November. Even in the Republican leaning Rasmussen poll Bush's approval numbers are down five points in recent days. To my mind, no one has clarified this issue as well as Jonathan Alter from Newsweek. And he has given us a precious, invaluable meme to describe those who support this research:

The Pro Cure Movement.

Excerpts from Alter's powerful article:

Because this was Bush's first veto—itself a newsworthy event—he found it harder to ignore the obvious questions: If destroying an embryo is "murder"—the Bush position, according to his spokesman—how can he support the existence of fertility clinics, which routinely throw out thousands of surplus embryos? His answer lay in last week's photo op, where he surrounded himself with cute babies "adopted" from these embryos. How many such "snowflake" babies are there? Despite federal funding and intense outreach, only 128 of 400,000 frozen embryos (.032 percent) have been adopted, says Sen. Arlen Specter. It turns out that couples using the clinics overwhelmingly prefer to donate their surplus embryos to science, while couples looking to adopt prefer babies already born who need homes, a large constituency of extremely needy children Bush seems to have put in second place.

*****

It is now almost five years since Bush's August 2001 stem-cell "compromise," which allowed for work on 60 existing cell lines. When most of those lines turned out to be unworkable or irrelevant to cures for humans, he didn't let the new facts affect him. In that sense, the whole issue is emblematic of what's wrong with the Bush presidency: his inflexibility, obsession with his conservative base, religious arrogance and contempt for scientific consensus. Most of all, last week's decision betrayed his oft-stated belief in the sanctity of life. The question, as in all moral issues, is whose life? I'll choose yours or mine over a piece of protoplasm no larger than the period at the end of this sentence.

Bush has handed it to us on a plate--a major issue on which the radical Right is opposed by almost 70% of the population. This is an issue we can build into OUR wedge issue, a sledgehammer we can use to smash the candidacies of extreme right Republicans all over the country. (The representative from IL-11, right wing Republican clown Jerry Weller, has been an adamant opponent of stem cell research. Am I going to use it against him? Damned right I am, at every opportunity I can think of.) Think of the stake that millions of Americans have in this research, not only the sick and injured but the people who love them, the people who are in emotional agony seeing their children, their siblings, their parents, or their life partners go through horrible suffering every day. A lot of Americans are OUTRAGED by Bush's veto and the radical Right's efforts to keep their loved ones from benefiting from what could be the most promising medical resarch in history. Bush has chosen to elevate the moral status of a blastocyst above that of a real, tangible, living, breathing human. If that isn't something worth fighting against, then why do the Democrats exist at all?

Make stem cell research an issue everywhere. Tie Bush's huge unpopularity around the neck of every right wing Republican Ann Coulter-loving bastard running for office anywhere, including Utah, Mississippi, Idaho, and Alaska. (Yes Howard, I've been listening to you.) By God, take a stand--and grab the leadership of what could be one of the most powerful political forces in recent American history--THE PRO CURE MOVEMENT.

Rampant Readers, What Are YOU Personally Doing to Crush the GOP?

I'd like to hear from you. Specifically:

• Are you registered to vote?
• Which Democratic candidates are you supporting?
• Are you contributing money to a Democratic candidate?
• Do you plan to campaign (phone bank, canvassing, etc.)?
• Do you direct people to Democratic blogs (like this one)?
• How many people will you take with you to the polls on 7 November?
• Will you stuff envelopes, hand out flyers, etc.?
• Will you be a poll watcher on 7 November to keep Republicans from stealing votes or intimidating voters?
• What issues do you think voters are interested in this year?

Let me know what you think!

Bush: Spiraling Over the Drain

Down, down, down, the Boy Emperor goes, sinking ever lower in more polls. American Research Group has more bad news for the Chimp:

Among all Americans, 35% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 59% disapprove. When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 31% approve and 63% disapprove. Among Americans registered to vote, 36% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 58% disapprove. When it comes to the way Bush is handling the economy, 32% of registered voters approve of the way Bush is handling the economy and 63% disapprove.

Do you see that, Wall Street Journal editorial board? The people aren't buying into your "great economy" bullshit because they're not seeing it in their own lives. Got it? Can you comprehend that? Can you stop cheerleading for the Radical Right for five freaking minutes and see what's really going on? No, I don't expect you will.

Crushing medical insurance costs. Brutal energy prices. Stagnant wages. The weakest jobs recovery of any post-recession period in forty years. New jobs that often pay less. A collapsing housing market in much of the country. Corporations reneging on their pension promises. A pittance in federal tax relief while huge amounts are handed over to the rich. Federal debt that will burden our children and grandchildren for decades. Gee, I wonder why the American people disapprove of Chimpy's economic management by 2 to 1?

Face it people, he's a screw-up, a liar, a thug, and a fraud. Everything he touches turns to crap. He's been a failure all his life and not been held accountable for it. What did you expect?

Rampant Readers, I Need Your Comments!

I was hoping that this blog would not just be a forum for my views. I was hoping to establish a little on-line community where we could all air our opinions and share information. And some of you have responded wonderfully. But we need more! I need to hear from you. I deliberately try to be provocative a lot of times, just to see who will respond. There is so much that you, my small band of readers, could contribute. Please, I implore you--comment freely! Agree with me, blast me, tell me I'm full of crap, whatever. Let's see what we can do when vigorous minds are interacting.

Pakistan Gets a Pass

Pakistan is engaging in a disquieting escalation of its nuclear capabilities:

South Asia may be heading for a nuclear arms race that could lead to arsenals growing into the hundreds of nuclear weapons, or at a minimum vastly expanded stockpiles of military fissile material," the Isis report said.

The Pakistani army is thought to have about 50 uranium warheads. India and Pakistan, which have fought three conventional wars in less than 60 years, already have nuclear weapons and an arsenal of missiles capable of reaching far beyond each other's territory.

There has so far been no official reaction from Islamabad, although the Washington Post quoted an unnamed "senior Pakistani official" as acknowledging that an expansion of the country's nuclear programme was under way.

Ayesha Siddiqi Agha, a Pakistani writer on defence issues, pointed out that since Washington had proposed a nuclear deal with India, the Pakistani establishment had been keen to "match it": "The signal is that while India surges ahead, Pakistan has ways to pull them off balance. So this may be about restoring a psychological balance between the two."

So let's see: Islamic country. Hiding place for Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. Unstable government with plenty of Islamist sympathizers in it. A country with an existing nuclear arsenal. A country that could be plunged into chaos if assassins finally succeed in killing its president, Pervez Musharraf. (They've tried before). Home country of nuclear scientist A. Q. Khan, who has spread nuclear secrets to Libya and North Korea. Well, it seems obvious what the United States should do:

Bomb Iran.

Coulter Advocates Genocide Against Iranians

When Sean Hannity (aka as the Smarmy Little Punk) asked Republican psychotic Ann Coulter what she would do if she were president to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons, she suggested that she would "carpet bomb" the entire country so heavily that they wouldn't be able to make so much as a transistor, much less a nuke. You can check it out here, although I didn't watch the video--I just ate.

Again: we see a right wing "pundit" being allowed to say anything and not receive overwhelming public criticism. If a progressive had proposed exterminating the population of a major nation, it would be national news. But Coulter casually advocates mass murder, and it doesn't raise a ripple.

"Liberal media"? Bullshit.