Opium of the Masses

Extremist Christian Talibinists aside, today’s true opium of the masses is the Industrial Entertainment Complex. This encompasses Hollywood films, television, videogames, and sports.

Believe me, I’m as much a child of pop culture and a consumer of entertainment as the next person. But when one considers the amount of money made and spent on these industries, and the amount of time devoted to such pursuits by consumers, it certainly calls into question American priorities and values.

I am writing this the day of the New England Patriots – New York Giants football game, as the Pats attempt to go 16–0. Although I’m interested in the outcome, I was amazed by the amount of exhaustive coverage the game has been receiving, similar to the kind of all-day coverage of the SuperBowl and the Academy Awards.

I went through a phase several seasons ago where I followed pro football. I always was content to simply watch the games and track what was going on through the sports section. But I always thought that the coverage the games received on gameday was ridiculous, obvious, and overkills, with subscriber-only channels and services for the truly sports-obsessed.

I similarly stopped watching the Oscars for the same reasons. In view of the SAG Awards, the Director’s Guild Awardes, the Golden Globes, etc ., there has been for me a saturation of award shows±basically a place for Hollywood to self-promote and to pat themselves on the back.

It’s a larger reflection of the fact that we’re a celebrity-obsessed culture. Athletes and top tier entertainers get paid way more than what they do merits—but as much as people complain about it, these out-of-kilter paydays are the result of a society that constantly craves to be diverted and entertained. I’m sure that’s to the relief of an Administration that prefers a disengaged public that doesn’t ask questions and wants to be able to fight terror and wage wars without being asked to pay new taxes or make any inconvenient sacrifices.

The China Century

U.S. policy has become obsessed with terrorist threats and the so-called Axis of Evil. While terrorist threats certainly need to be taken seriously, the Administration’s shrill approach and flat-out incompetency—and its use of the fear card—have played into terrorists’ hands by giving what is a rather fragmented, disorganized movement more credence and attention than it deserves. Designing virtually our entire foreign policy and its attendant resources around the fear of a terrorist attack seems to be a case of the tail wagging the dog, which in turn has seriously affected American prestige and its international standing.

Given somewhat less attention has been the quiet ascendancy of China, which probably poses the only true “threat” to American hegemony. In anticipation of this, many people have already dubbed this century “The China Century.”

China has made no secret of its desire to advance itself among the community of nations. To its credit, after surveying the international landscape and recognizing that the primary source of global power today is economic strength, the Chinese have for the most part eschewed a classic geopolitical, colonial and militaristic approach and instead identified economic, educational, and technological mastery as the key to prosperity and respect. While it certainly remains a Communist state, its met with great success in developing a market-style economy and has shown little interest in developing a geopolitical sphere of influence (unlike, say, the newly assertive, petro-dollar-driven Russia).

China is well on its way to achieving its goals. Although many of its political, social and legal institutions lag behind and remain the main threat to fully achieving its goals, it is one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Its hunger for resources already has made it one of the largest donor nations in Africa and South America (and unlike the West, China provides funding with no strings attached, whereas Western nations tie human rights issues to funding). The Chinese have benefited greatly from sending its students and scientists abroad for legitimate study and training (primarily in the U.S.), and have a growing professional, middle class that is educated and increasingly proud of its country’s recent strides. Its middle class is projected to become the largest in the world by around 2025, and most ordinary Chinese feel a renewed sense of national pride and are understandably optimistic about the future.

Recognizing the importance of Sino-U.S. relations and trade, the U.S. has generally tried to play nice with China. At the same time, it has rightly raised serious concerns about its environmental records, its economic policies that often are at the expense of the U.S., and its human rights and political institution.

By the same token, it seems a bit disingenuous and hypocritical, however, to fault China for acting out of economic self-interest or to hold it to some higher standard. The U.S.’s growth to international prominence in the 19th and 20th century is marked by plenty of disregard for workers’ rights and the environment, and benefited a definite robber baron class. It’s arguable that the U.S might not even have become an economic powerhouse without these abuses; fortunately, the work of unions, anti-trust policies, and other such activities “corrected” these abuses in the long term. In view of this, one must wonder whether it’s just to hold another country to the same high standard while it makes the leap from an agrarian and basic industrial economy to a 21st century high tech one.

Obviously, the U.S. needs to act out of its own best interests as well, which understandably includes protecting its own place as the world’s premier superpower. However, we also need to wake up to the fact that, given China’s booming economy, its growing middle class, and its clear ambitions, it’s very possible that China may become the economic and technological engine for the world, the world’s tastemakers, and the largest consumer class that drives everything else. How this will benefit, or hurt, the U.S., remains to be seen; and, as a reporter for National Public Radio recently reported after a visit to China, there certainly are people who don’t wish the Chinese well, I suspect both for xenophobic and chauvinistic reasons. But it will be difficult to hold China back. And relative to the other threats that exist in the world, it would be prudent for the U.S. to develop a good partnership with an ascendant fellow economic superpower that is relatively benign compared to the kind of very real geophysical and national security threats that pose serious problems the U.S. around the world.

Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss

I’ve been meaning for awhile to post about the latest brand of despots who’ve emerged in recent years, chief among them Vladimir Putin and Hugo Chavez. (North Korea’s Kim Jung Il is defiantly old school and in a kooky class by himself.) Like many of the tyrants who’ve emerged over the centuries (particularly the 20th), they’ve used the guise of nationalism to consolidate power. And like many of their predecessors, they initially rise to power under legitimate means, usually by election.

In some ways, my feeling is that these countries get what they deserve--while I recognize that there usually isn’t often much choice, and it may be a matter of voting for the devil you know, by the same token, it’s hard for me to be sympathetic to an electorate that votes wholly for nationalistic or tribal reasons. While I certainly can’t pretend to understand the thinking of your average Third World citizen, given the lessons of history, I can’t believe these electorates actually don’t know what their voting for.

Chavez, in particular, appears to be the most transparent and a real live cannon. Emboldened by petro dollars (like Putin), he likes to throw his weight around and so obviously craves personal power.

So I must say it was quite a delight to watch Chavez get slapped down by the Valenzuelan people in the recent elections which would have, among other things, extended the President’s term of office and done away with term limits, essentially making him president for life.

It appears the honeymoon is over. Even many of Chavez’s supporters saw through transparent attempts to consolidate control and make the state more authoritarian. More importantly, however, the emptiness of Chavez’s rhetoric is beginning to show through. Despite the nation’s oil wealth and the largesse he has shown throughout the region to buy friends, little of that appears to have trickled down. While Chavez does provide handouts to the poorest in the country who constitute his largest supporters, he has done nothing to create opportunities or economic growth that would truly lift the masses and the country. And, apparently, crime in the country remains rampant, partly it is reported because Chavez is reluctant to move on those areas from where his strongest support comes. And, of course, his family and cronies have benefited greatly from his presidency.

Mark my words, like all good lunatic dictators, Chavez will pursue some other extra-constitutional way to achieve his authoritarian goals. Whether the Venezuelan people have the will and the unity to stand up to him when that day comes remains to be seen. But at least Chavez is now weakened and the opposition has been emboldened.

Support Your Local Union!

It’s been encouraging to see that the WGA strike generally has strong public support. While I think most mainstream Americans generally are ambivalent about Hollywood and Hollywood types (despite the fact that we are a celebrity- and entertainment-obsessed society), it’s clear that there’s not much to sympathize with when it comes to the movie and television studios and media conglomerates. The industry’s rush to maximize their presence and content on the Web only undermines their argument that there’s “no money to be made in new media.” As many people have pointed out, writers are only requesting a percentage of profits—so if no money is made, how would it actually hurt the industry to agree to give a tiny percentage of revenues to the artists who actually create the content?

Yet, as a recent L.A. Times article pointed out, it’s not clear exactly how this public support translates into anything really tangible for the writers. Offering such support is simply symbolic and requires no sacrifice—frankly, it’s just lip service. If people want to really hurt the studios, they would need to boycott going to films, watching TV, etc. And I don’t see that happening, nor have I seen as yet the union suggest people do that.

So while such public support certainly is heartening to the cause, I don’t see it as pressuring the studios to end the strike fast, so long as people keep watching their shows and whatever they choose to put on the air when new content runs out.

Spidey Sense Tingling!

The Dishonorable Larry Craig
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510-1203

Dear Sister:

I never heard of you until your recent lewd conduct arrest, but the minute I heard your high-pitched lilting voice, my “gay-dar” went on full-Spidey tingling alert.

I don’t know about you, but in my part of the world, anonymously sucking a guy’s cock in a public restroom usually is considered fag behavior. But maybe not in Idaho.

Perhaps it’s time you start admitting it to yourself--it sure is obvious to the rest of the world. And probably to your sons. Hopefully, you did not molest them when they were children.

By the way, perhaps you wouldn’t be deserving of contempt if not for your hypocrisy, particularly in voting for the impeachment of Bill Clinton for a sexual indiscretion. But, again, I guess you were particularly disgusted since his peccadillo was with a woman.

I saw that you were quoted on Tim Russert’s show as referring to President Clinton as “a bad boy, a naughty boy.” OMG, what a giveaway.


A straight U.S. Citizen


P.S. BTW, I do hope you do decide to stay in office to underscore how completely hypocritical and morally bankrupt the GOP is during the upcoming elections.

Blame America First!

The most recent issue of Time magazine has reaffirmed my decision to discontinue my subscription when it expires later this year. The ridiculous “lifestyle” Mcarticles dominating the magazine in recent years and the need to kowtow to the conservative right with new columnists were annoying enough. But the idiotic commentary from Michael Kinsley in the August 13 issue was the final nail in the coffin.

In a new low even for war apologists looking desperately for a scapegoat, Kinsley uses the high poll numbers at the start of the war to blame the American people for the conflict, rather than the Administration that prosecuted it and got us into the ill-advised conflict in the first place by misleading the country with outright lies and fear mongering; nor, do I notice, does he place any blame on the journalists who willingly lapped up and presented to the public as fact this misinformation without any questioning or investigation in what surely is one of the most stunning failures in the annals of American journalism. And they say it's liberals who like to blame America first!

I’m proud to say that I personally was against the war at the very start, even when it wasn’t "cool" to be against it.

Yes, as Kinsey says, the American people “now apparently regret those opinions” of having supported the war. At least the American people can recognize a policy failure when they see it. If only the present Administration had the same wisdom.

Low Expectations

Recent news stories have reported that the U.S. failed to meet the benchmarks established by the Bush Administration for progress in Iraq.Of course, in keeping with the Administration’s penchant for constantly moving the goal line, the White House has been downplaying the news.

It does cause one to wonder just how badly things are going in Iraq when even the Administration’s own goals--which no doubt set the bar as low as possible to ensure some progress could be shown--have fallen short!!

Bush to Nation: Fuck You

By intervening in the sentencing of Scooty Libby, George W. Bush has finally demonstrated the deep contempt he holds for the American people, the Constitution, and the Judicial system.

This decision was made not in the interest of justice but out of self-interest to protect a corrupt administration, a failed presidency, and a fading legacy.

Bush essentially has told the American people that he and his friends are above the law. And that he doesn't serve the American people, but rather his own friends and cronies. Does Bush intend to review all sentences and reverse any that he deems harsh?

Bush similarly showed contempt for the country, its people, and its laws when he supported Dick Cheney's ludicrous claim that the Vice President is not a part of the Executive Branch.

This man's poor judgment and leadership already have led this country into an ill-advised quagmire in Iraq that was based on personal animosity, false pretenses and misleading information given to the American people. His actions have led to instability in the Middle East, the emboldenment of Iran, and inflamed anti-Americanism and terrorist activity around the world, not to mention the deaths of thousands of American service people.

Assuming we survive this man has done, there already is consensus that George W. Bush will go down as the worst president in American history. When he ends his presidency, he'll leave a country in worse peril than when he arrived. He does not even have the decency to make any substantive attempt clean up the mess; rather, he obviously has chosen to play out the clock so that whoever follows him will be left holding the bag to clean up the mess created by his incompetency and mismanagement.

Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?

Wouldn't You?

Now that the prosecution in the trial charging Phil Spector for the murder of actress Lana Clarkson has just about rested, the Spector Defense Dream Team has begun its work.

The defense team has made no secret of the fact that their defense strategy of the diminutive music industry legend will center on their contention that Clarkson committed suicide. They will make this claim despite the testimony of four women (among many others over the decades) who testified that the pigmy producer had a history of waving loaded guns in their faces when they refused to spend the night with him, and the unshakable testimony by Spector's driver that after he heard the shooting, the midget music god told him that he thought that he "killed someone."

The defense will claim that Clarkson committed suicide because she was despondent over her failed acting career.

The defense clearly has missed the boat here. Rather than focus on her failed career as the motive for taking a bullet in the mouth, I think a much stronger defense would be that Clarkson clearly chose suicide over going to bed with the shrimp producer. I mean take a look at that picture! Wouldn't you?

The good soldier

Awestruck by the steady stream of reports coming out of the White House that serve to underscore both the Administration’s incompetence and its outright arrogance, I guess I’ve just been too overwhelmed of late to post recently. I mean where to start?

Scooter Libby? Let’s face it, this was a tempest in a teapot that only Beltway insiders cared about. Libby played the good soldier and threw himself on the grenade to protect the people in the regime who really matter in the party machinery. Otherwise, all the trial did was give expose the cynical game the Washington establishment and the media play with each other. Libby goes to jail and the American public is supposed to feel justice was done. No doubt Libby will be given a presidential pardon by December 31, 2008, and will have a cushy job waiting for him at Halliburton—assuming, of course, he and his family are willing to move to Dubai.

A recent cover story in Time magazine recently asked, “How the Right Went Wrong.” The answer to that, my friends, is as old as time itself (no pun intended): Hubris. Pure hubris (which incidentally, is one of the Seven Deadly Sins. Why do those Christian talibanists often fail to remember that one mortal sin?)

Well, having spun the Wheel of Woes, I have decided to weigh in on the controversy over the firing of U.S. attorneys that appears to be leading into the White House.

Like the Libby case, it looks like the “cover up” may be worse than the actual “crime,” with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales poised to be the next scapegoat who’ll be taking take one for the team, as the Justice Department scrambles to come up with a consistent story about the firings.

This latest controversy brings to mind the infamous 1973 “Saturday Night Massacre,” when then-President Richard Nixon—at the height of the Watergate scandal—ordered Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire the independent special prosecutor assigned to the case, Archibald Cox. Refusing to compromise the integrity of his personal reputation as well as that of the Justice Department, Richardson resigned. As did the Deputy Attorney General, William Ruckelshaus, when he was given the same order. (Solicitor General Robert Bork was subsequently named acting head of the Justice Department, who then fired Cox.)

While a dark time in American history, the episode was a unique moment when the Constitution, personal and institutional integrity, and the federal government’s checks and balances were tested to their limits and, perhaps in a rather torturous manner, affirmed.

Clearly, Mr. Gonzales does not seem to recognize his responsibilities as the highest law enforcement official of the nation. Instead, he feels being subservient and beholden to political patronage is more important than upholding the integrity of the Justice Department’s reputation and integrity. And that without having the trust of Congress or the nation, it will be impossible to for him to fulfill his responsibilities as Attorney General.

Who would have thought it possible that a presidential administration could come along that could make one pine for the moral certitude of the Nixon era?

Gayest President Ever?

In yet another wonderful example of war apologists being on the defensive while raising the quality of debate in the nation, one well known conservative sectarian recently caused waves by calling Democratic candidate John Edwards a "faggot."

Well, I wonder what they make of the following photos....

If ever a photo underscored how much in bed this Administration and the Bush family are with oil interests, this certainly is it. I mean, they're actually FUCKING HOLDING HANDS!

Who do you think is on top? (Considering the price of gas, I would surmise it's the President getting it up the ass.)





Here Bush hugs Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva after a news conference in Brazil.

I guess with so many few friends left around the world, o Decider no Chefe (that's Portuguese for "Decider in Chief") is understandably desperately in need for some man-love.







Here Bush and his loverboy are at it again, at yet another event, after a quick change out of sweat-stained clothes.

Geez louise, we get it already--get a hotel room already!









My God, who'd've thought it possible, but McCain actually even looks gayer than the President. If Bush wasn't a draft dodger and so scared of combat, I'm sure he wouldn't've minded spending some quality time in the Hanoi Hilton with all those big manly pilots (nudge, nudge, wink, wink).

They are, after all, two men with daddy issues.










If any Conservative whore decides to shoot her mouth off about faggot-loving politicians, they should first look in their own backyard at their own closeted Decider in Chief.

--or perhaps at Dick Cheney's bull dyke daughter who (oh, God, this is too good to be true) is preparing to give birth with her partner in an act of "selfish hedonism."

Though, apparently, according to the Vice President, it's not okay to attack people's sexual orientation if it's true and involves members of your own family.

Win Win (or everything I know about the Middle East I learned from “Lawrence of Arabia”)

Anyone who thinks I’m a “Blame America First” kind of guy should read the following...

At the end of the great David Lean film, Lawrence of Arabia, a pan-Arab Council—a nascent attempt at nationalism and self-rule—collapses in Damascus when the various tribes and sects can find no common ground and are unable to restore the city’s infrastructure and other basic services. Waiting strategically in the wings, the British swoop in to restore stability and thus create colonial control in the Middle East. I often think of this scene when I hear descriptions of Iraq’s parliament fraying due to sectarian conflict.

Today, many of those same conflicts inform Iraq and the Middle East. A recent cover story in Time magazine looks into the historical roots of the schism between the Sunnis and Shi’ites in Iraq and asks “whether anything can be done to stop it.”

At the risk of sounding politically incorrect and engaging for a moment in realpolitik, is this necessarily a bad thing? Yes, the U.S. brought down a regime that to some extent had subdued (if only superficially) differences between two sects of Islam that go back to the 7^th century—differences that the U.S. presence has fanned into open civil war. But ultimately the bloodletting is of their own choosing. In the Time article, someone from one sect is quoted as saying that if he saw a child from a rival sect about to drown he would not reach out his hand to save him. I ask you, is that a society worth salvaging or worth more American lives? In a time when the U.S. is looking for a way out of the quagmire, it seems to me that this is the perfect opening for us: that we did our part and now it’s up to the Iraqis and their neighbors to decide if they want peace and stability.

And before moral relativists go on to argue that such a view is insensitive or intolerant of another religion’s beliefs, I’d like to hear cases where Muslims are institutionally defending the right of Christians (let alone Jews) to practice their faith within their own borders, in the same way Western countries have bent over backwards to ensure that Muslims are able to observe their customs in the West. Anyone? Anyone?

As many scholars and observers have noted, Islam has not reconciled itself or adapted to the modern world. Over the centuries and continuing into the present day, Christianity began losing absolute control over their respective communities as new thinking and philosophies gradually gave way to individual self-determinism, where the individual exercises greater control over their actions, beliefs and destiny. Such changes had a broad impact on society and politics (arguably reaching its apex with the founding of the United States), and were made possible through literacy and broad-based education. As a result, over time, Christianity lost its preeminence as an all-powerful, patriarchical political institution and has evolved back into being a religious and moral institution.

By contrast, in much of the modern age, Islam countries became colonies of imperial nations. In addition, its rulers—first the colonizers and then later the native people put in power by the departing imperial nations—found it in their best interests to keep the local populations uneducated and ignorant.

Ignorance of the masses is perhaps the most effective way to keep a populace in thrall, and nowhere is that more evident than in Islamic nations where democracy not only is absent, but their rulers blame the twin “Great Satans” of the United States and Israel for their people’s poverty as a convenient way to divert attention from their own failings and to justify continued absolute authority and power. As this suggests, in many of these nations, it is their own religious and political leaders who are the real oppressors, by giving them little education, political or religious freedom, or the opportunity to be prosperous, successful or to think for themselves.

Until that changes, and these nations choose to become modern nation-states that respect the right to individual self-determination as well as international law and conventions, the following denunciation will remain true, as mouthed by the title character in Lawrence which remains surprisingly and sadly prescient today: “So long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people, a silly people—greedy, barbarous, and cruel.”

Coloradans too lazy to work

According to the L.A. Times, Colorado is considering using convicts as farmworkers. Apparently, as a result of passing some of the strictest anti-illegal immigration laws in the country, farms are experiencing a severe labor shortage and crops are rotting in the fields.

Hey, didn’t Colorado pass these laws to ensure that illegal immigrants weren't taking jobs away from hard working Americans? I presume Colorado’s unemployment rate is not zero, so now that illegal immigrants have been forced to look outside the state for work, why aren’t the Coloradans who had lost these jobs to migrant workers rushing to fill the void? Rather than hire convicts, shouldn’t the state find some way to bus in workers from outlying areas around the state and have them stay in the same housing where the illegal immigrants stayed? This is good, honest work that can put food on the table.

One can only conclude that Coloradans--particularly its youth and unemployed--are lazy layabouts. I mean how hard can it be to spend 8 to 10 hours a day picking vegetables from the ground?

Once a cokehead...

I recently read a report about how the conservatives are sharpening their knives, ready to go after Hillary Clinton (and, no doubt, anyone else who they oppose) by attacking her as a “flip-flopper.”

I always find such charges to be rather transparent and ridiculous. Outright hypocrisy, of course, should always be fair game. Last September’s Mark Foley scandal comes to mind, for example, where a sitting Florida congressman was found to be sexually harassing and pursuing House of Representative pages while simultaneously sponsoring sexual predator legislation. (A Republican, mind you!)

Otherwise, who holds the same exact views throughout their lives? Is no one allowed to change their minds, esp. with age, education and experience? Conservatives, of course, consider such unchanged constancy to be a virtue, particularly given their views on moral absolutism and their disdain for moral relativism of any kind.

Strangely, the Decider-in-Chief is often held up as the poster boy for “staying the course.” Doesn’t anyone find this ironic given the fact that Bush is an admitted coke fiend and alcoholic? If conservatives believe a coke-sniffing party boy could make such a radical reversal, shouldn’t the same courtesy be extended to others, particularly in more nuanced circumstances? All I know is that if I ever was accused of being a flip flopper, I’d certainly use George Bush’s about-face from being a cokehead as proof #1 that change is, after all, possible.

[Pictured above: Mug shot of President Bush's niece, arrested for possession of crack cocaine. No doubt expect to see the President's daughters, Jenna and Barbara, pictured here soon, or perhaps checking into "rehab."]

Signs of Intelligent Life in Kansas

One of the most ludicrous yet disturbing debates in the cultural wars is the argument over evolution. It’s amazing to think that we are still having this discussion in this day and age—in the 21st century mind you. Were it not for the threat to our nation posed by the Christian sectarians who wish to Talibanize the U.S. by turning us into a theocracy, it would be easy to dismiss the people who wish to insert this bunk into the classroom as a bunch of lunatics. It is this kind of dangerous fringe thinking where the extremes of the right come around to meet the extremes represented by terrorist organizations like Al Quaeda. Like the Taliban and religious extremism seen throughout the world, Christian extremists arrogantly believe their view of the world trumps empirical knowledge and accepted science (not to mention common sense), and they seek to impose their view of the world on all Americans and punish and exterminate those who disagree.

(I feel no need to apologize for the strong tone of this accusation, esp. at a time when conservatives find it very easy to engage in similar rhetoric by labeling liberals as “traitors.” It needs to be recognized that those who wish to turn the U.S. into a haven for Christian extremists on a par with the Islamic republics are the ones whose actions threaten to destroy the spirit of our Founding Fathers and the foundation of U.S. freedom and democracy.)

While my thoughts on this matter have been simmering for awhile, what triggered these comments now are recent reports on the Kansas’ Board of Education’s quiet decision last week to repeal guidelines that had been put in place in 2005 to inject creationism (under the misleading, faux-scientific name of “intelligent design”) into the public school curriculum while casting doubt on evolution. The creationism curriculum had been put in place by a previous board that had been emboldened by the election of several Christian sectarians, which deservedly drew the ridicule of the nation and anyone with half a brain.

It’s worth noting that shortly after this decision, most if not all of the board’s members who supported this change lost their seats when they ran for re-election. Creationists suffered another significant setback at the end of 2005 when in an unrelated case, a Federal judge—appointed by a Republican with otherwise solid conservative credentials—struck down a similar attempt by a Pennsylvania school district to introduce creationism in its schools.

As the judge's unambiguously wrote in his decision,

The breathtaking inanity of the board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

It’s important to note that evolution and belief in God are not mutually exclusive. If anything, evolution in itself may be seen as proof that there is a higher “intelligent design” at work. But science inquiry by its nature must be limited to what can be researched and qualitatively measured. By contrast, religion and belief in God are based in faith.

In fact, I would argue that when Christian extremists seek to have their beliefs legitimized by science, they are engaging in heresy because, like the disciple Thomas (the "Doubting Thomas" of the scriptures), faith is not enough to validate their beliefs.

Born and raised a Catholic, I do occasionally ponder the existence of God. However, I know that I do not need to have society at large validate my beliefs; and that the rightful place for my child to learn about God is in a church or other religious institution, not the school, which is supposed to teach empirical thought and knowledge, not faith-based beliefs.

Such attacks on common sense and the very principles of our nation don’t lead me to doubt God, but they definitely reinforce my feeling that religion sectarianism and extremism of any stripe pose a real danger to society, and are the cause of much of the world’s ignorance, tribalism, and misery.

Amateur Hour

In a scene from one of my favorite films, The Remains of the Day, a U.S. senator played by Christopher Reeve graciously but sternly chastises a gathering of European noblemen rushing headlong towards the appeasement of Nazi Germany on the eve of World War II for being a bunch of “amateurs.” What he meant was that they were idealistic ivory tower types, disconnected to the real world and how it operates.

The mess in Iraq is a perfect example of the danger of letting the ideologues, with no sense of consequences or the real world, run the show.

While the U.S. always has cloaked and “sold” its policies and actions in moral terms, self-interest and pragmatism often have played important roles as well. Thus, conflict with the Soviet Union was fought indirectly by a Cold War (not a “hot” one), based on containment and checks and balances.

The reasons for going into Afghanistan—as a safe haven for terrorist camps and the people responsible for 9/11—seemed rather straightforward. However, the justification for invading Iraq, using tenuous connections to 9/11, were markedly less so. In fact, the primary reasons for going after Saddam simply seemed personal. To the neocons, Saddam remaining in power just stuck in their craw, esp. since they felt the success in Kuwait had washed away the ghosts of Vietnam and made America pre-eminent once again. And Bush the Younger seemed anxious to play out some Greek tragedy psychodrama, and to to atone for the sins of his father, as if the decision to not “finish the job” in the aftermath of Persian Gulf War I was a sign of failure, at least among the neocons, and was the reason he only served one term. (Bush the Elder was seen by the neocons as an internationalist who was not a true believe and someone they never considered their own.)

Now let’s review, instead, what has been achieved:

Within a year, the administration completely squandered all of the good will, sympathy, and moral capital in the international community, and made the U.S. look like a rogue state to many.

By destabilizing Iraq without a clear plan in mind, it now has destabilized the whole region and, in fact, empowered Iran which has become an emerging dominant power in the region, esp. as the U.S. has shown itself to be less than invulnerable and overextended and exposed (Iraq actually was the one power in the region that effectively served as a counter to Iran—the old “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” approach to realpolitik.)

The level of incompetency by this Administration, esp. when viewed in the context of past administrations, truly is astounding.

Amateur hour indeed.

No Do-Overs Allowed

Let me say up front that I opposed the war in Iraq at the outset. (And mind you, this was before it was cool to be against it.) The connection between Saddam and Al Quaeda seemed flimsy (if not non-existent) at best, and the fact that the justification for war later became a moving target certainly confirmed my worst suspicions. The search for terrorists eventually morphed into a search for WMDs and, after that, the goal was to bring democracy to Iraq. Anyway, the real reasons for the whole enterprise all seemed obvious and transparent to me, so during the headlong rush to war, it made me wonder whether I was missing something. Or did I just have the good fortune not to drink the Koolaid that day?

(In case anyone doubts my hawkish credentials, let me say however that, by contrast, I all was for going into Afghanistan after 9/11 to root out the Taliban and their terrorist links. There, the justification and goals seemed crystal clear.)

Well, now with everything going to hell-in-a-hand basket, and after several years of staying the course and flailing around with no clear direction, the present administration wants to escalate the war.

To state the obvious (and, as you can see, I have a good track record on this), the President's primary goal at this stage of the game is no longer to help Iraq. Instead, his aim is to save tattered legacy--saving Iraq is only gravy. By increasing the number of troops in Iraq, he gets to ensure that he is not the President who technically exited Iraq and left it in shambles (I guess simply destabilizing the region will be enough.)

Instead, he lets the next President--and of course the American people--get left holding the bag. It’s nice to know that he’s willing to spill more American blood simply to save his ass and what’s left of his reputation.

What this country now needs is not just a fresh strategy but fresh leadership. Other people and nations know that this is a person who is flexible and open to new ideas. I believe that everyone--including allies and enemies alike--are simply biding their time to see whether the next president will be someone they can deal with and start with a clean slate.

Bush 43 has operated under the conviction that “staying the course” and being unchanging was a strength. Americans now recognize that it’s a liability. After all, as a friend once noted, the only problem with having the strength of your convictions is what if you’re wrong all the time?