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?