Back to Washington

In response to the destruction caused Hurricane Katrina, Bush is cutting his vacation short and returning to DC "to help monitor federal efforts to assist victims" of the disaster.

For what it's worth, I think this is the right thing to do. Even though there is not much the President can do personally from Washington, continuing to nap on the ranch in the face of such extensive devastation and loss of life would look absolutely awful. It's good politics to go back to DC, but it's also something that is obviously owed to the victims.

Mary notes that Katrina also gives Bush a good excuse to get away from Cindy Sheehan, and I have to assume that was a factor in the decision to leave Crawford (or at least a bonus).

But while Katrina is certainly a reason for the President to get back to work, didn't the negotiations over the Iraqi constitution also justify ending the month-long vacation earlier? Instead of managing the growing political crisis from the White House, where whatever is left of American power in the Bush era could still be leveraged, W. literally phoned it in during a pro-war PR junket to Idaho. A nation hangs in the balance, as well as the remnants of the his post-election pledge to spread democracy, but hell, there are some cool bike trails at the resort, so what's the leader of the free world to do?

Sadly, not his job, but we've all gotten used to that by now, I think.

Kids Today

A few days ago, the local newspaper asked 14 young folk the following question: "U.S. military recruitment is down and recruiters are looking for more ways to get young people to join. If you were of age, or if you are of age, would you join the military?" Here's what they said, which can be summarized as follows:

• No, I'm just not cut out for it: 4
• No, the Iraqi war was a mistake: 4
• No, I've made other plans: 2
• No, the military sucks: 2
• No, God has other plans for me: 1
• I won't say, but the military has lousy PR: 1

Wow, 14 kids and not one of them says they're going to join the military? And at least 4 are openly opposed to Bush and the war in Iraq? That's not what I would have expected in the heart of red-state America.

Of all the answers, though, my favorite comes from Julie, a young woman who loves the war but hates the thought of serving:

Julie Flanagan, 15, home-schooled, Charlotte: I would never ever want to be drafted. I believe the certain people are called to serve our country. I will fully support those people in any way I can but don't wish for myself to be on that field…. I am saddened when I hear of all the deaths over some selfish person only wanting his way in the world. I think that President Bush is doing his job wonderfully. He is taking into consideration what our country and people in it need the most.

If a home-schooled Bush worshipper won't get out there and fight, who will? Clearly, Operation Yellow Elephant isn't going very well.

Theological Fight Club

Mary and I have both been intrigued with the recent rise in popularity of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. From the concept of noodly appendages to the ritualistic use of pirate regalia, it seems like a religion that really fits our modern sensibilities.

But converting to a minority religion is always risky, and you want to know that you'll be able to stand up to the power of the majority. So I have an important question: who would win in a fight — Jesus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? After literally seconds of intense thought, I decided to go with the FSM on the basis of its ability to fly. Jesus can walk on water, I'm told, and that's pretty cool, but military history clearly shows the advantages of having unquestioned air superiority.

However, Pat Robertson's recent pronouncement on the Sixth Commandment might indicate that Jesus was more of a badass than I previously thought. So I have to open this up to a broader audience — who do you think would win, and why?

Teach What Controversy?

The New York Times has been running a series about evolution and intelligent design. The series suffers from the usual "he-said-she-said" approach to science, which gives equal weight to the opinions of politically-motivated anti-science hacks and the consensus judgment of the scientific community, but overall it's not a bad series. And occasionally, you get moments of remarkable clarity from the hack side:

Dr. [John G.] West, who leads the [Discovery Institute's] science center's public policy efforts, said it did not support mandating the teaching of intelligent design because the theory was not yet developed enough and there was no appropriate curriculum. So the institute has opposed legislation in Pennsylvania and Utah that pushes intelligent design, instead urging lawmakers to follow Ohio's lead.

First the context: The Discovery Institute is the biggest player pushing Intelligent Design. And Ohio has chosen a "teach the controversy" approach, which is supposed to highlight the challenges that Intelligent Design has for evolutionary theory without teaching ID itself as science.

But here's what gets me — how can there be a controversy if there is not a "developed enough" scientific alternative?

If you want the detailed answer to this question, you need to be reading Chris Mooney's site on a regular basis. But the short of it is that the Discovery Institute, while mostly successful in pushing ID in the political realm, has been considerably less successful in garnering credibility in the scientific community because ID isn't science. It has successfully created its own PR controversy, but when the chips are down, the Discovery Institute can't back up its own assertions with hard science.

And so, in the end, ID turns out to be just what its critics have accused it of being all along — a thinly-veiled attempt to get religion into the schools under the guise of science. And when pressed, it appears that the Discovery Institute agrees.

Danger Kitties

Mary pointed me to this story on CNN today: Lion attacks in Tanzania up 300% in 15 years. Just a few lines below this story, however, is this one: Ecologists want to move African wildlife to Great Plains. Now I'm not sure that's such a great idea, but if we do get lions in Kansas, just think what the percentage increase in lion attacks there will be. 300% will look like child's play. Watch your back, Tanzania — America's gunning for the record.

Update: It appears as though Kansas already has enough problems with wild animals. Maybe the lions should just stay where they are.

Real Beer Is Here

I had wondered why some of the beers I came to love in Virginia didn't seem to be on sale anywhere in Charlotte, and now I know why. It seems that NC had a legal ceiling of 6% on alcohol content, but no more. Now that the limit has been raised 15%, the doors are open to all those craft and specialty beers I thought I had left behind. Happy days are here again.

Mixing Messages

In his radio address on Saturday, here's what the President says is happening in Iraq:

Iraqis are taking control of their country, building a free nation that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself. And we're helping Iraqis succeed. We're hunting down the terrorists and training the security forces of a free Iraq so Iraqis can defend their own country.

On Sunday, here's what the President's men say is happening in Iraq:

The Bush administration is significantly lowering expectations of what can be achieved in Iraq, recognizing that the United States will have to settle for far less progress than originally envisioned during the transition due to end in four months, according to U.S. officials in Washington and Baghdad.

The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say.

…

"We set out to establish a democracy, but we're slowly realizing we will have some form of Islamic republic," said another U.S. official familiar with policymaking from the beginning, who like some others interviewed would speak candidly only on the condition of anonymity. "That process is being repeated all over."

First no WMD, now no democracy. And yet the President continues his "Mission Accomplished" happy talk. Who exactly does he think he's fooling?

No Apologies, Please

The call for an apology — you hear this from Democrats whenever someone in the Bush administration or a Republican in Congress has said or done something "outrageous" or "offensive". Karl Rove's politicization of 9/11 is outrageous; Senator Santorum's new book is offensive to women. They must apologize immediately, and perhaps even resign, we are told.

Something has always bothered me about this obsession with apologies. First, apologies rarely happen, and the failure bring them about makes those calling for them look weak and ineffectual. Second, I really don't want apologies most of the time. Karl Rove? I hope he repeats his hateful 9/11 shtick every chance he gets. And the more Rick Santorum spouts off about his medieval family values, the better it is for Democrats.

But more importantly, I think, calling for an apology turns the misdeed into merely a momentary lapse of otherwise sound judgment, and the apology into an act of redemption. "I made a mistake. I'm sorry if anyone was offended by what I said." Problem solved, slate cleaned. The implication is that the person is basically good; otherwise, what value could the apology have?

Even when the path to redemption isn't taken, the Republican noise machine can often turn these personal vices into virtues. Consider John Bolton, the least diplomatically-minded person Bush could have nominated for the UN post, a rogue bureaucrat who bullies his subordinates and only cares about getting his way. "At the UN," conservatives tell us, "we need someone like Bolton, who'll fight hard for US interests against a hostile world, and reform the institution in the process. He's not bad, he's just tough. And by opposing him, you're just showing how weak you are."

What the Republicans learned long ago is that you don't win many points by simply pointing out that your opponents are people who do bad things occasionally. People forgive their leaders quite easily these days, especially if a "bad is good" counter-narrative can be even half-convincingly spun. Rather, the GOP has used a much broader brush to paint all Democrats and liberals as inherently bad people: "They are not like us normal people — they hate America, they hate the Bible, and most importantly, they hate you. And they'll never change."

To politically destroy an individual, it's not only necessary to point out their flaws, but you must transform those flaws into signifiers of that person's true nature. Take the example of John Kerry. He wasn't just a flip-flopper. He was a liberal elitist who didn't share the values of most Americans, so he just told people what he thought they wanted to hear to try to trick them into voting for him. Kerry wasn't portrayed as a good man who told a few lies; he was portrayed as a man who had contempt for the American people and had to lie to cover that up.

I'm not categorically against all apology campaigns, but it seems to me that most of our time should be spent working shoring up our basic nature and tearing down theirs. And I'm not just saying that because I think it would be the politically smart thing to do — I'm saying it because I believe that Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, and George Bush are evil men who value nothing more than their own power and use it to help their powerful friends, and to hell with everyone else. I don't want to DeLay, Frist, or Bush to apologize for anything — I just don't want them running the country.

Airport Security

I flew back from DC to Charlotte yesterday evening, and while I was standing in the security line at BWI, it seemed that security was a little tighter than usual. The line moved more slowly, I saw lots of people getting wanded and hand-checked, and to top it off, my laptop got screened for bomb residue. When I heard a TSA agent say she had to x-ray a priest's found Bible before handing it back to him, I knew something was up. I'm guessing this was it.

With all the stories about people able to get just about anything through airport security, it was good to hear that they caught this guy. Now, if airlines could only figure out a way to get me where I'm going on time, we'd be all set.

The Criterium

Saturday was the second annual Bank of America Criterium, a bike race in downtown Charlotte that passed right in front of our condo building. It had a total purse of $175K, and many of the world's top riders were present.

Mary and I and some of our neighbors grabbed some adult beverages and spent the late afternoon watching the racers fly by. Most of the time Mary and I spent in the lobby in air-conditioned comfort, but by the end of the race it was about as nice as it's going to get outside in August. We took some pictures, too.

The start/finish line was a couple of blocks away, so we went back to our place to watch the final couple of laps on TV. It was a pretty exciting finish, with a wipeout on the last lap ending the chance of a repeat winner in the men's division. Full results are here.

Signs of My Times

I'm not really sure what to say about either of these two objects in my building. The one on the left is from the security panel in the lobby. If anyone can tell me why "audible silence" is not completely nonsensical, I'd like to know. I feel good having a "trouble" indicator though: now I always have a way to know for sure.

I understand the one on the right intellectually — there might be times when you'd need to shut down air circulation in the building — but emotionally it just doesn't ring true. In my head I keep seeing this image of someone running out into the hall screaming "it's too cold!" and hitting the switch. And in the South in summer, that's just crazy.

Is Our Presidents Learning?

Our President, standing strong for the values he believes in:

President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss "intelligent design" alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life.

During a round-table interview with reporters from five Texas newspapers, Bush declined to go into detail on his personal views of the origin of life. But he said students should learn about both theories, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported.

"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said. "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes."

Exactly, Mr. President, it's all about exposing people to different points a view. And what's more "different" in the context of science class than to teach students about a bag of ideas that is completely immune to the scientific method? I was sorry to see that this same philosophy of freedom of information did not inform the first act of this Presidency — the elimination of federal funding for groups that discuss abortion — but I'm glad he's finally seen the light.

One also has to be impressed with the President's straightforward non-talk about where he personally stands on this issue. While the vast majority of people who even suggest that unsupported non-scientific alternatives to the foundational pillar of modern biology should be given equal weight in the classroom are people who have a selective appreciation of the power of scientific explanation and human reason, Bush refuses to be painted into a corner, and instead leaves himself open to follow the issue from a disinterested distance. Is our Presidents learning? You know this one is!