Solid Journalism Doesn't Have a Prayer

Watch the news today to see the anchors and correspondents struggle awkwardly with how to report the massive study that showed third-party prayers have no effect on the recovery of heart patients. The bad journalism has already begun.

I haven't read the Times piece yet, but you can find it here.

The Associated Press has a truly awful, one-sided, aggressively biased piece that you can find here.

I haven't read the Reuters piece yet, but just its headline tells you that someone fucked up. The study didn't "fail" to find prayer's power any more than telescopes fail to find the gleaming spires of heaven. Telescopes showed us that heaven ain't there. This study has SUCCEEDED in showing us that heaven ain't there.

Can you imagine if the study had shown a better recovery rate among patients who had been prayed for? The TV anchors would be positively gleeful today -- and you can bet they'd be playing the story higher than they will be now.

This outcome, however, will see them somber and neutral. Count on some bubble-headed hairdo to tag out of a piece with some moronic attempt at feel-goodity like, "well, a lot of people know that prayer works for them!" or some other such horseshit.

What most people fail to understand is that a universe in which prayer worked would be a miserable, frightening, awful place. Imagine if physical causality were not the
chain that led to illness or recovery. Imagine if there really were an invisible magic man making life-or-death decisions based on, well, his whim. Would you really feel better in a world where we had no hope of and no reason for pursuing advances in medicine? Would you really feel better knowing that, at any second, for any reason (including, but not limited to, moral judgment of who you are, or the pleading of people who just don't like you) you could be stricken with a flesh-eating virus? Imagine how stigmatized sick people would be in this world (the way they used to be) if everyone knew that Magic Man had decided not to heal them. How would you feel toward Magic Man if he let your Mom waste away from cancer? How would other people feel about your Mom if Magic Man decided she wasn't worth saving from cancer? Listen for half a second to people today who believe in god when they struggle to understand why he didn't save them or their loved ones from 9/11, Katrina, the tsunami, whatever. Do they seem happy and comforted by their faith?

Fuck, no. But that won't stop the media from happily reporting on efforts to keep them in fold, or soft-pedaling this study in order to minimize the potential bummer effect.

It would be nice to see someone with credibility and skepticism report this story. Like Peter Jennings.

Please everyone, post here your thoughts on the coverage of this story. All anecdotes and links appreciated!

Read more...

Blind Spots

I witnessed a car accident today.

It was a three-lane service road. The right-hand lane peeled off into local traffic. Ahead of me, in the leftmost lane, was a blue compact car. Immediately prior to the point at which the right lane split off, the blue car veered suddenly and sharply to the right, in a clear, last-minute bid to try to make the turn-off.

Unfortunately, there was another car in between her and the turn-off. She slammed right into it.
I pulled over ahead of the two cars, got out and checked with their respective drivers. Both women were fine. I gave my name and number to the woman whose car had been struck and told her I'd be willing to give a statement saying what I had seen.

The other woman was a little shaken. She kept repeating how the other car had been "in [her] blind spot." As I prepared to leave, I told her that if I were asked, by the police or insurance companies, I would tell them that I saw the whole thing and that, in my view, the accident was clearly her fault.

The woman then became pissed at me -- not raging or anything, but irritated and frustrated. She repeated her previous statement, emphasizing that the other car had been in her blind spot.

I almost wish I had had the time to discuss this with her. Clearly, the fact that the other driver had been in her blind spot was supposed to change my assessment of culpability. Leave aside for the moment the fact that she had veered so suddenly there hadn't been a realistic window of time in which she could have adequately checked her path. In her view, it was reasonable to believe that:
a) She was in the right to have driven into another lane without checking to make sure that there was a car in her blind spot
b) The fact that she didn't see the car absolved her of blame in hitting the car
c) Other people (e.g., me) would understand these views.

Basically, she didn't know whether there was a car in her path, and therefore, she wasn't morally responsible for hitting it.

In reality, of course, she had two other options: Slow down enough to look before switching, or don't switch. Instead, her ignorance became her excuse. Ignorance is supposed to -- and, I think once did -- constitute a reason for caution, rather than an excuse for the consequences of lack of caution.

I have no evidence for this, but I feel as though this is not an uncommon mindset. I'm not just referring to the obvious political analogies. I'm also referring to the people who vote for these politicians. I'm referring to everyone out there who thinks they're free of a moral burden to apply rigorous logic to their place in the world and the consequence of their actions. I've written before that I think a stereotypically liberal mindset -- that we're all due respect, every emotion and impulse we have is great and worthwhile, feelings are all that matter, logic is bad, etc. -- has enabled the emergence of a political culture in which people actually vote for president based on the having-a-beer-with criteria, and think that's okay.

Ignorance is not an excuse. We have a moral duty to stop exalting emotion and instinct at the expense of logical assessment. We have to start embracing what once were stereotypically conservative values -- hard-headed rationality -- if we want to get back to a government and a politics that holds people -- politicians included -- accountable for their actions.

Read more...

The Secret War of Christianity

I love crooksandliars.com, and I'm glad they nailed it here, but I think they missed a larger point. At best, you can argue that there is a war on government endorsement of Christianity. That war was started by the founding fathers when they wrote the First Amendment. That war also helps to ensure that Christianity thrives as much as it has in this country (as opposed to other nations that nominally endorse specific denominations).

But while I'm glad C&L pointed out the war on gays and science, the reason that war is possible is that the real theological war in this country is being waged against atheists. Here's the proof. Gays and minorities still, clearly, suffer from discrimination. But there are gay and black and Latino and Asian members of Congress. Are there any atheists?

Atheists make up a comparatively large percentage of the nation's top scientists, leading America in technology and research. The most praised casualty of the war on terror was a man whose family said had no use for religion. Atheists base their morals on rational choices, rather than on the coercion of unseen forces. That makes them MORE moral, not less. And yet, still, people in this nation treat them like moral lepers. Fortunately, our numbers are growing. The internet is allowing more and more people to escape the cognitive confines of even the most remote, shuttered communities. We're making progress, but we won't make real strides until we can get the mainstream media -- or even our friends at C&L! -- to recognize that atheists are a disenfranchised, persecuted target of religious-based bigotry. Everyone who champions tolerance ought to make sure that they're including atheists (and, of course, agnostics), among the ranks of those being defended.

Read more...

Your Soul Is Keeping Us in Iraq

When we think about religion and politics, we tend to think in terms of religious leaders and demographic blocs exerting political influence. But that's not the most pernicious effect religion has on the public sphere. The most insidious religious beliefs, the ones that damage our society and culture most, are the ones that are held by everyone of a religious bent, from fundamentalist conservatives to the most radical lefties who say they reject god and superstition yet cling to superstitious, religious notions such as souls and spirituality and even fate.

For instance, if you believe in such a thing as souls, you're a part of the reason for some of the support he still has for the U.S. war in Iraq. Here's how.

On Wednesday, President Bush spoke yet again about the war. He made one interesting comment which got a lot of play on cable news, but I haven't seen it picked up in print yet. I suspect that's because the certainty of his delivery made for good TV better than the insubstantial content made for good print. Here's what he said about the (presumably monolithic) enemy in Iraq:

They're not going to shake my confidence, I just want you to know. I understand their tactics and I know their designs. But I also believe that Iraqis can and want to self-govern. That's what I believe. And so when you see me make decisions, or make statements like I make, you've got to understand it's coming from a basic set of beliefs. That's what I believe. And that's what a decision-maker ought to do. The decision-maker ought to make decisions based upon deep-seeded beliefs. You don't need a President chasing polls and focus groups in order to make tough decisions. You need Presidents who make decisions based upon sound principle. Now, people may not agree with the decisions; I understand that. But I hope after this talk, those of you who didn't agree at least know I'm making my decisions based on something I believe deep in my soul.

There are, in fact, people who are uncertain (at the very least) about this war, but who actually do take solace in the fact that his decision to send U.S. troops to invade another country was based on a belief that's located not just in his soul, but deep within it, away from the surface of it.

There are actually people in this country who believe that and, worse, think that it matters. If you believe in souls, then you have to support the idea that they matter (in some way, somehow), in which case, you can't logically deny Bush the political shelter he's just claimed by ascribing his war-mongering (which we know is actually politically motivated) to the soul (which, of course, we all know, is where purity and "essential" goodness reside).

In a world where journalists observed the Ten Commandments of Covering Religion, Mr. Bush's remarks would have demanded several follow-up questions from the journalists in attendance, such as:

• Why should people care whether this belief is held in your soul, rather than in your brain?
• Is a belief that resides in a soul intrinsically better or more credible than a brain-based belief?
• We have it on good authority that other people believe in their souls -- at an equal depth -- that the war in Iraq is wrong. What mechanism can you suggest for comparing and assessing soul beliefs that are held at equal depths?
• Why does it matter to you that other people know where you hold this belief?
• Have any other of your soul beliefs -- of equal or greater depths -- ever turned out to be wrong?
• Have any soul beliefs of yours at any depth ever been proved wrong?
• What is the greatest depth at which a soul belief of yours has turned out to be wrong?
• By what mechanism did your soul communicate this belief to your brain?
• How did your brain recognize this belief as originating from within the soul and how can you assure the American people that this belief was not planted either in your soul or in your brain by Satan?

If the American president will reap political gains by ascribing beliefs to an ethereal, supernatural expression of some essential "self," then American journalists have a duty to pursue all of these questions and more. But as long as you treat souls like real things -- with an understood but unchallenged (and absurd) set of governing principles -- then journalists will have no reason to ask precisely the questions that would deny him the political safe haven that has afforded him the ability to start and wage this war.

Read more...

Card Shuffled Out; New Head Waiter Installed

Andy Card has resigned as White House chief of staff. He's being replaced by Josh Bolten.

Bolten will now assume the responsibility of obtaining for the commander-in-chief his presidential cheeseburgers.

Nothing will change about the Bush administration or its impact on people's lives. Who implements Bush's orders will not matter unless Bush decides to start listening to people who disagree with him and applying logic and empirical results to differing arguments, and choosing courses of action based on those results, rather than on the same "gut" that told him to ignore the Aug. 6, 2001, PDB; dismantle FEMA; invade Iraq rather than pursue Osama bin Laden; vacation during Hurricane Katrina; violate U.S. laws against warrantless wiretaps; detain alleged terrorists without affording them due process; dismantle Iraq's army; endorse Vladimir Putin, Michael Brown, Julie Myers, Harriet Miers......

Read more...

The Ten Commandments of Covering Religion

For too long, American journalism has treated spirituality with condescension, neglect or disdain. This was a moral and professional error even before this nation was both attacked by and led by people who define themselves in religious terms. It is an even more grievous error now. And the time has come for a change.

From this day forward, let every journalist who wishes to call himself or herself a thorough, responsible, thoughtful journalist know that religion can no longer be ignored. Religious coverage can no longer be relegated to the ghetto of the so-called culture wars, focusing on trivial issues such as ritual language and symbols, while ignoring the profound consequences religious thought has had for the course of history.

Journalists must now elevate religion to the same status as other areas of legitimate inquiry. They must accord it the same weight. They must address religious issues in every story to which those issues relate. They must apply the same tools, the same methods of inquiry. They must utilize the same sharpness of eye and pursue the same depth of inquiry. To that end, journalists must observe the following ten commandments:

The Ten Commandments of Reporting on Religion

1. Thou shalt have no other god without confirmation. Journalists must confirm, specifically, which god is being worshipped and which religious system has been chosen. If a politician claims to have "faith" or belief in "God," a good journalist must ask that politician to identify their specific denomination, as well as their specific concept of "God," so that people might know whether the politician believes merely in something as vague as "a sense of connectedness," or in the actual definition of "God" as a sentient, all-powerful, all-knowing creator. If they swear to belief in the Bible, that belief must be elucidated: How do they reconcile its internal contradictions and errant prophecies? Do they believe in a literal interpretation? If not, how do they decide which parts to take literally and which to treat as metaphor? How do they know that their method of distinguishing is reliable?

2. Thou shalt not make the grave mistake of assuming uniform adherence to denominational tenets. If a politician claims to be a Methodist, a good journalist must ask what kind of Methodist, and whether they diverge from any tenets of their branch of Methodism. Once that politician's religious beliefs have been fully articulated, then the good journalist must hold them accountable for adherence to or departure from those beliefs. The politician enjoys political benefits from espousing that belief; it is a journalist's job to ensure that those benefits are not falsely gained from a populace left unawares by the journalist's failure to scrutinize that belief.

3. Thou shalt not take the Lord's word in vain. The word of God comes not just through scriptures, but also through preachers. A good journalist should identify the preacher or preachers chosen by the politicians they cover, hold politicians accountable for the content of those sermons, and pursue with those preachers the precise meaning, logic and sourcing of their messages.

4. Remember the soul, to keep it wholly in mind. The concept of a soul has been a cherished one throughout recorded human history. Any assault on the soul must be chronicled in full. Even the tiniest conceptual shift could have far-reaching implications for societal notions about psychology, sociology, justice, motivation, causality and the very self. Already, advances in neuroscience are rendering obsolete traditional claims that mental phenomena such as love and even religious faith originate from an eternal, ethereal spirit-self, rather than from the brain itself. A good journalist should not report on new findings in neuroscience without explaining the implications for widely embraced beliefs about souls.

5. Honor thy first source and thy second source. A good journalist does not merely rely on two sources before repeating a claim; a good journalist relies only on sources uniquely positioned to know, empirically, the truth value of their claim. For instance, the claim that dead people somehow go to "a better place" is a claim that no one can empirically prove, let alone know, and therefore ought not be repeated as fact by a good journalist, no matter how many sources claim it as fact.

6. Thou shalt not kill heterogeneity. Every faith differs from every other faith. Every denomination of a faith differs from every other denomination. Every adherent of a denomination differs from every other adherent. Some politicians will try to sway journalists into treating believers, denominations, faiths, or even all religions, as monolithic. They are not; a good journalist will explore and illuminate the differences.

7. Thou shalt not commit adulteration. If a politician says that they believe in "God," or "fate" or "heaven," a good journalist shall not condescend to that politician and substitute their own meaning for these words. A good journalist shall consult their dictionary and treat that politician as they would anyone else who claims belief in supernatural phenomena. Journalists shall pursue the implications of these beliefs to their logical ends. For instance, a politician who espouses belief in evil spirits -- such as Satan -- that cause wrongdoing in this nation, ought to be asked to outline their plan for researching (the way prayer's impact on health has been researched) the method through which evil spirits influence our nation, and methods our nation might employ to insulate or defend ourselves against such influence.

8. Thou shalt not steal the boundaries between faith and reason. A good journalist knows that every religion ultimately rests on faith. But a good journalist also knows that many believers start with a premise of faith and then use reason to extrapolate or justify rules about the world and about moral behavior. A good journalist should never presume to know where someone's logic ends and faith begins. Until the source specifically says that they have reached the end of reason and must now rely solely on faith, it is a journalist's duty to pursue the logic of any religious claims. Further, in those matters when someone employs logic for their claims, a good journalist will subject that logic to the fullest rigor, including but not limited to extrapolation of their reasoning and comparison to past acts and statements.

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor's religion or lack thereof. Now that religion has assumed a place in the marketplace of ideas, a good journalist shall no longer weight stories in favor of religion. Thus, a good journalist will not refer to unexplained phenomena as miraculous phenomena; a good journalist will not refer to belief in a supernatural being or beings as a mark of character or integrity; a good journalist will not presume to know whether a violent sect or a pacifist sect more accurately represents their faith; a good journalist will not ascribe purity or innocence to motives of a religious rather than rational nature; a good journalist will not conflate religion with ethics, or a lack of religion with a lack of ethics; a good journalist will not assume that the having of faith or reclamation of faith are intrinsically good things or that the absence of faith or eschewing of faith are intrinsicaly bad things.

10. Thou shalt not covet privacy for religion. The taboo against discussing religion and religious beliefs ended when religious advocates won a place for religion in the town square. If the town is to accommodate religion in the marketplace of ideas, the townspeople must be free to examine, discuss and assess all aspects of any religion or religious belief wishing to compete in an atmosphere of free intellectual trade.

Until now, some -- be they atheists, secular humanists or simply members of the political left -- might have considered journalistic neglect of religion to be appropriate. They are wrong. And the time has come for a revolutionary change in American journalism: The full embrace and engagement of religion as a viable, vital topic.

Religious people of every political stripe have long called for journalism to recognize and address the religious component of life in America. This call has come most vocally, but by no means exclusively, from the Christian right. That has, unfortunately, made it easy for the gatekeepers of supposedly mainstream media to write off such calls as politically motivated, intended to demonize the media or to promote the agenda of the Christian right.

It's time for that to end. Regardless of the agenda pursued by some of its supporters, the notion that journalism must confront religion and religiosity head-on is indisputable. The only question should be, "How?" Some guidelines can be found in the aforementioned commandments. But the focus ought not come solely on the religious right. When Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), for instance, railed against immigration laws because, she said, they might have criminalized the Good Samaritan or Jesus, a smart reporter should have held her to her reasoning and asked whether she supported abolition of any laws that Jesus or those he held close might have transgressed. Did he disturb the peace or trespass when he chased the moneychangers from the temple? Would he have co-sponsored laws legalizing prostitution? If not, how does Senator Clinton select which Biblical edicts to incorporate into U.S. law and which ones to ignore? What is it about her methodology that she feels ought to make American voters comfortable with this decision-making?

As I've mentioned previously, Dan Dennett's important new book, "Breaking the Spell," is calling for a scientific inquiry into the nature of religious belief. I believe it is equally urgent, if not moreso, that journalism incorporate the same sort of inquiry into its pursuit of truth. In a nation whose government funds initiatives based on religious faith, the people have a right to know all there is to know about those faiths. The general assumption of a monolithic, but vague and ephemeral, religious aspect of this nation and its people has long outlived any use it might once have served. The time has come to explore exactly what people believe, why they believe it, and how those beliefs shape our lives and the course of our country's future.

Read more...

Breaking the Spell

The current issue of the New Yorker includes H. Allen Orr's review of "Breaking the Spell," Daniel Dennett's new book calling for scientific inquiry into the phenomena of religious belief. Dennett, as I mention at every opportunity, was my faculty advisor in college, so his position is not surprising to me.

Orr's review ends with the usual, waffly, ahistorical science-and-religion-explore-different-terrain silliness. Here's a prime example:

Science can certainly undermine particular factual claims made by religion (the universe was created in six days), but it’s far less clear that it can challenge religion’s general metaphysical claims (the universe has a purpose). To insist on this distinction is to recognize what it means for something to be a metaphysical, not a physical, claim. What experiment could prove that the universe has no purpose? To suppose that a kind of physics can demolish a kind of metaphysics is to commit what philosophers call a category mistake.

That may well be (my scholarship was sufficiently slovenly that I don't recall what a category mistake is) but it's also a mistake to claim, as Orr does, that saying the universe has purpose is to say something metaphysical rather than physical. Who says? There are two possible meanings to the phrase, "the universe has a purpose." One is that the universe was created to fulfill an end. The other is that the universe itself has intentionality. Both of these interpretations belong just as firmly in the realm of the physical as does the claim, "Britney Spears has a purpose." If someone created her to fulfill an end, that is something that can be determined physically. If Britney Spears herself has some purpose of her own, that, too can be determined physically. Eventually, we will be able literally to see that purpose as a neurochemical configuration in the brain of either Britney Spears or, if she was created to fulfill an end, in the brain of her creator. The MEANING of the universe may be a metaphysical debate, but whether it - or its creation - is or was imbued with intentionality, is not.

That said, I've been thinking a lot about Dennett's challenge to science, that it confront religion head on, not as an adversary but as a subject. I think the time has come for journalism to do the same thing, and in my next post, I'll attempt to lay out what a Journalism of Religion ought to look like.

Read more...

Law and Order Democrats

Sen. Russ Feingold has a short, effective explanation up at dailykos of his call to censure President Bush. I think it's particularly meaningful that Feingold begins by reminding us of how we all felt on September 11, 2001. I think the right wing (i.e., not all Republicans, and not all conservatives) doesn't necessarily appreciate just how supportive millions of Americans who hadn't voted for him felt toward President Bush then.

I didn't vote for him, and I viewed him as an embarrassment. In the first few days after September 11, 2001, President Bush disappointed me because he wasn't tough enough. Remember? His very first outings were tentative and meager. He didn't yet appreciate the scope of what had happened. He spoke in terms that were criminal, rather than martial. I was enraged. I wanted vengeance. I wanted hell unleashed.

Finally, after almost a week, either someone made things clear to Bush or the impact of coming here to New York genuinely hit him. He vowed that America would respond mightily and I was behind him all the way. He gave the Taliban a chance to turn over bin Laden and, when they failed to do so, he waged war on them. And I was behind him all the way.

Let me repeat that for emphasis: I backed President George Bush, wished him well and cheered his war on Afghanistan.

That's what the right wing doesn't get. Criticism of Bush from the left doesn't come (primarily) from radicals, people constitutionally incapable of backing him. It comes from mainstream people on the left -- who've even crossed party lines on occasion -- who were willing and eager to put aside their partisan (or non-partisan) assessments of Bush in order to support him as our president in a time of war.

Ideally, I'd prefer that Bush were censured, impeached, convicted, imprisoned not just for lying to the American people to mount an elective war that has killed 2,300 American soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis, but for the dereliction of duty he displayed in NOT mounting the war necessary not just to roust the Taliban, but to accomplish the entire point of rousting the Taliban: Capturing Osama bin Laden. There are millions of Americans just like me who don't mind that American troops are deployed overseas -- We just wish they were in Afghanistan and Pakistan, wrapping up the War on al Qaeda, rather than in Iraq, perpetuating the definitionally-unwinnable War on Terror.

But I don't know that we have the body of evidence we need for that.

We do, however, have the body of evidence we need to convict President Bush of wiretapping. Namely, his confession. President Bush won't be convicted, of course. He won't be impeached. He won't even be censured. But just because you know your position won't rule the day doesn't mean you ought not stand by it. It's not going through the motions, it's not even futile. It's denying those who would defend President Bush the ability to claim that no one disagrees with them, that no one cares. If we can do nothing else, we can do that at least. Call, e-mail or write your senator. Let them know we want a party of law and order.

Read more...

Why the Left Should Concede that Iraq Had WMDs

The right-of-Bush news site WorldNetDaily is claiming that a recent, private, intelligence summit was targeted by members of the U.S. intelligence community, trying to quiet or discredit news emerging from the summit that Iraq was, in fact, working on WMDs and trying to conceal those programs from U.N. inspectors. The idea, of course, is to rehabilitate George Bush's initial, and most effective, rationale for the war in Iraq -- especially now that support is crumbling from the very pillars of the right. We should let them do so, and help them.

Thanks to the war, Iraq's lack of WMDs can never be positively proven. And yet, for some reason, Bush has jumped onto the no-WMDs bandwagon. Why would have done that, when there way to prove him wrong? Perhaps because his advisors realized that continuing to claim that Iraq had WMDs is a political time bomb that he had to ditch as soon as possible. The left should put it back in his hands, by not only conceding the right's claim that Iraq had WMDs, but shouting it from the rooftops. Here's why.

Prior to now, the left's opposition to the war has, sensibly, centered around the notion that Iraq did not have WMDs and, therefore, President Bush was wrong to wage war with Iraq. The obvious instinctive sense of this argument has pushed President Bush to change (time and again) his war rationale -- ending up lately with the toughest-to-disprove, unrefutable-in-the-short-term argument that the war will, eventually, allow some form of democracy to take root and that, eventually, that democracy will provide for stability which will, eventually, make it tougher for terrorists to operate in Iraq.

There are several advantages to arguing that Iraq had WMDs. One, it protects the left's credibility in the event some shred of evidence turns the tide on public opinion. Two, it reminds people that Bush's rationales have shifted on the war. But, most importantly, it forces people to confront a brand new, and starkly terrifying reason why Bush's war was not only a failure, but proof that he and the Republicans are not only inept at anything but talking about national security, they're actually detrimental to it.

Remember, the war was justified as an attempt not just to deny Saddam the possibility of using WMDs, but to keep those WMDs out of the hands of terrorists. It would be bad enough if the war failed to do so, but what if the war were the very thing that made it possible for terrorists to acquire WMDs? George Bush would have helped the terrorists more directly and undeniably than all the journalists and dissenting Democrats of the last four years combined.

So, in the campaigns for Congress this year, Democratic candidates should stake out very clear ground declaring the war a failure. When Republicans call them on "declaring defeat," Democrats should simply respond that the goal of the war in Iraq was not to triumph over insurgents, but to stop terrorists from getting WMDs. If Bush was wrong and there were none, the war was a failure from the beginning. If Bush was right and there were WMDs, the war itself made it possible for terrorists to get them. And they should quote this concession of the fact that the United States government can not assure us the weapons did not fall into the hands of America's enemies:

They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country.

That was George W. Bush talking -- admitting, though the mainstream media failed to notice it, that the war may have led to the weapons making their way into some other country, into the hands (since we haven't heard about it) of an enemy. As more time passes, the less likely is the scenario that the weapons were hidden. So let's start conceding the right's point -- Iraq had WMDs. They're gone now. Our enemies have them. And that's George Bush's fault.

Read more...

Listen

If you liked Air America Radio's Morning Sedition, there's good news. I wrote earlier about how the show I helped launch (as its co-creator and first producer) was cut off at the knees, rather than supported, by new AAR CEO Danny Goldberg (whose explanations for his decision-making I've previously addressed). To his credit, Goldberg did give Rachel Maddow (whom I also produced) more exposure. But his canning of Morning Sedition was universally panned, both outside Air America and inside. Well, Goldberg's apparently been forced to address his mistake, albeit in a slightly face-saving way. Morning Sedition lead host Marc Maron is back. And, no, I've actually got no inside information on this, but from AAR's release, it looks like Maron's new show will return to the airwaves most, if not all, of what people liked about Morning Sedition.

The Cardinal is back.
So is Lawton Smalls.
Even Johnny K. Street, against all odds.

And I'm pretty sure that uber-producer Brendan McDonald is on board, too. Most importantly, though, Maron's getting two hours, rather than just one. I know that many of the people who praised Morning Sedition cited the chemistry of the on-air pairing as a crucial element. And, yes, it was fun. But please trust me when I say that the chemistry was not the catalyst for the show's unique identity. The chemistry was merely a prerequisite for two people to share the mike. With one person owning the mike, chemistry is no longer relevant -- and if you liked Morning Sedition, I can pretty much guarantee you'll like the new show just as much, if not more. (To get a sense of just how electrifying Goldberg's Maron-less mornings have proven, check out the fiery energy on full display at the show's web site.)

Not surprisingly, AAR's release doesn't make clear exactly where or when Maron's show will air, outside Los Angeles. But it apparently will be available through alternate venues, as a podcast, at least. Although we created Morning Sedition together, I can't pretend to know Maron's mind. But I do suspect that, without having to work as part of a team -- and to honor that on-air partnership -- Maron is capable of exploring territory and plumbing depths on his own that might not have been appropriate for a duo. In other words, if you thought Morning Sedition was groundbreaking radio, The Marc Maron Show has the potential to take groundbreaking to new heights.

It starts Tuesday. Please post your thoughts here if you get a chance to hear it.

Read more...

Forced Fertilization

I don't know where I stand on abortion. Neither should you. Our notions about taking life are complicated, and still evolving. We wrongly share with nations like Iran and China the distinction of killing people when we don't like things they've done. We also rightly make it possible, in some cases, for people to take their own lives when they've decided they don't want them any more.

Both of these examples involve issues of consent and autonomy. Capital punishment is always wrong for the same reason suicide (and its cousin, euthanasia) are sometimes right -- because of the intentionalities of the person being killed.

That's part of why abortion is a complicated issue. It not only involves an entity possessing no conscious intentionality (though an inferrable one: To live), but prohibiting abortion to preserve the autonomy of the unborn is an infringement on the autonomy of the mother.

Abortion is also complicated because of the nature of the entity being aborted. Birth itself no longer seems a reasonable time at which life ought to be accorded equal rights and protections under the law. Any time you draw a line, in this issue, it's going to be arbitrary on some level. That's why it is, or should be, impossible given our current scientific knowledge to know for certain when and why abortion is okay, if you think it ever is.

South Dakota is about to pass an unconstitutional law banning almost all abortions. (Despite the outcry, the bill is at least logically consistent: If your premise is that a fetus is a life, that life is surely not less valuable or deserving of protection depending on the circumstances -- i.e., rape or incest -- of its conception). The point, of course, is to give the new Supreme Court a chance to overturn Roe v. Wade. And while it's hardly a sure bet, there's certainly reason to think the court might.

The problem with the South Dakota bill is that it makes no distinctions based on anything. A zygote is a fetus is a life. If you don't care about the nature of that life, or the degree of differentiation, or the qualia of that life, then it's a fine argument. But maybe rather than oppose this approach, pro-choice forces ought to start educating people on the logical implications of this slippery slope, by pushing the amniotic envelope, as it were.

If every embryo is entitled to equal protection under the law, and maternal autonomy carries no legal weight, then science has opened the door to a dystopian conclusion that, it would seem to me, the anti-choice forces can not escape: Forced fertilization.

Specifically, if the embryonic claim to life trumps female claims to autonomy, should not the same law that calls on us to force women to deliver children also call on us to force women to bear children? After all, it's not the fact that a woman chose to create life that legally obliges her to carry it to term -- or else South Dakota would have exempted rape. That leaves only the fact that her womb represents the embryo's sole chance for life as the legal motive for forcing her to bear the child. And if that's the case, there's no reason the law shouldn't also start assigning the excess embryos that result from in vitro fertilization to fertile women.

The South Dakota bill addresses only the reality that a woman's choice to withhold her womb -- whether she chose to conceive or not -- can lead to the death of an embryo. The pro-choice movement should take it the next step and start lobbying South Dakota to take similar steps to protect the untold thousands of embryos -- which deserve no less protection under the new law! -- by forcing women to carry them.

And if that doesn't work, let's put some scientific effort into bio-engineering a male capability for carrying embryos, so that all these undiscerningly anti-choice men can start saving embryos by spending the rest of their lives carrying them to term.

Read more...

If Iraq is the New America, Both Countries Are in Big Trouble

Yesterday, as Iraq tried desperately to avoid spinning entirely out of control, President Bush tried to assure us that the hundreds of sectarian attacks throughout Iraq are just part of that nation's growing pains as it becomes a free, democratic society. Here's the analogy he drew, addressing the American Legion yesterday, to assure us that everything would be all right:

Yet history teaches us that the path to a free society is long, and not always smooth. I've seen that in our own history. In the years following the American Revolution, there were riots and uprisings and even a planned coup. In 1783, Congress was chased from Philadelphia by angry veterans demanding back pay, and Congress stayed on the run for six months. It was then that Congress learned, don't mess with America's veterans.

It's important to remember that our first effort at a governing charter, the Articles of Confederation, failed, and it took over a decade after independence before we adopted our Constitution and inaugurated George Washington as our first President.

Riots? Uprisings? A planned coup? Let's consider exactly what the awful events Bush describes suggest about the future of Iraq.

There are three possibilities here: He's wrong and Iraq will take longer than America did to achieve peaceful, democratic stability; he's wrong and Iraq will take less time than America did, or he's right and Iraq will take exactly as long as America did to achieve peaceful, democratic stability. If he's wrong and was overly pessimistic about Iraq's current path, it would probably be the first time this administration has erred on the side of caution regarding Iraq. However, even if he's right, we should not be assured by his analogy, we should be horrified.

As Bush rightly points out, America in its earliest days was beset by violent strife. Was it comparable to what Iraq is experiencing? For one thing, all of it was localized. For another, consider the nature of the grievances:

There were the folks pissed off at doctors for graverobbing, dissecting, and playing mean pranks with the bodies. Really.

Then there were the Scottish distillers pissed off that the tax on their moonshine was higher than the tax on larger distilleries. That's why it wasn't called The Sectarian Rebellion, but The Whiskey Rebellion.

And if anyone can tell me exactly what the New York City Brothel Riot was about, I'd be obliged.

Then there were the organized movements actually aimed at overthrowing the fledgling government. There was the Newburgh Conspiracy, such a fiendish plot that it was stopped only by George Washington reading the conspirators a letter, and so heinous that one of its leaders went on to become the first secretary of the Treasury.

And, of course, there was the Shays Rebellion. What sinister ends did Shays and his zealots pursue? They stormed courthouses, lynching judges and killing bystanders. And by "lynching" I mean "prevented from holding court" and by "killing bystanders" I mean "sought to prevent the imprisonment of American citizens guilty of nothing more than being in debt."

The key difference between early America and early Iraq is that the early disturbances here were (sometimes) violent expressions of legitimate, or at least genuine, concerns about fairness and the appropriate nature of America's government. They weren't trying to prevent the establishment of government, in some cases, they supported a stronger central government. They were on the same team and their grievances were not of such nature that they had to be overcome and only then could the "real" Constitution take hold -- their grievances brought to light problems with the existing Articles of Confederation, making clear why changes were needed.

For Bush's analogy to hold, he should address whether he thinks the insurgents in Iraq have legitimate grievances and, better still, he should identify what constitutional changes he thinks are necessary to transform Iraq's current equivalent of the Articles of Confederation into a workable analogue to the Constitution. If he thinks the government and its charter are fine, then he can't argue that Iraq's violence is analagous to America's. If he thinks they're not fine, he ought to specify how and suggest ways to fix them.

Furthermore, even if his logic were somehow reconcilable, consider the timetable President Bush is implying we've got in store. Let's call 2005 Iraq's 1776. Here's how the future of Middle East plays out, if America follows America's path:

2005 - Iraq achieves true independence.
2018 - Iraq's Constitution goes into effect.
2094 - Iraq's civil war ends, with all its citizens equal
2196-2197 - A series of Civil Rights Acts ensure legal protections for all Iraq's citizens regarding everything from access to the courts, to voting, to jobs and housing.
???? - Iraq elects its first atheist-Jew lesbian president.

Iraq is not America. The fact that America -- which was an experiment to determine not how democracy should work in a specific country, but how it should work at all -- endured minor, localized strife over financial and judicial matters should not be a balm to those concerned about Iraq's religious, ethnic and tribal violence.

And, perhaps most damning against our president, if Iraq's status as a democracy strong enough to ensure it's free of terrorist havens is such a distant dream, then -- if America's safety really was the motive for invading -- our country would have been better off leaving Saddam in power (isolated and defanged) and focusing our military and policy energies on the immediate threat: Osama bin Laden.

We chose not to do that, and the further off a stable, free, democratic Iraq is, the less and less certain we can be -- because who knows what alternate events might have transpired? -- that invasion was the best course of action.

Read more...

Why Democrats Don't Need a Plan

A common refrain we hear from Republicans -- and even from the pundits and commentators -- in response to Democratic criticisms is that Democrats, in order to be taken seriously as critics or as election-day alternatives, need to offer specific plans of their own first. They don't. And they can win without them. Here's why.

For one thing, I would be mightily surprised to hear of a single president, or even a senator, who won because of a single plan or even a set of plans on how to address anything -- the economy, a military foe, job creation, etc. Bush didn't. Clinton didn't. (Yes, they offered plans, but those plans were not meaningful elements of their success). Democrats shouldn't feel like they need to, individually or even as a party. (And media gatekeepers should stop acting like plans are prerequisites for valid criticism: No one requires theater critics to rewrite scenes before explaining why a play stinks).

In fact, Democrats should let the Republicans run on plans. Democrats should stipulate that they're not running on the basis of plan superiority. Democrats can run and win, instead, not just on personality superiority (which, unfortunately, looms far too largely in electoral decision-making) but also on philosophical superiority. Because where once the parties shared the same goals and basic philosophies of American governance, that's no longer the case. The White House has opened up a philosophical divide and most of the Congressional leadership has followed. Democrats should make the next elections a referendum on the philosophies on either side of that divide.

This country wasn't founded on plans for how best to organize executive-branch agencies or how to ensure independence from foreign supplies. This country was founded on the philosophy of how to go about deciding our plans and what system best embodies that philosophy. That system was intended to be both open and adversarial. We -- Americans -- were and are supposed to know as much as we can about everything, and then fight about it. That's why the plans were less important than establishing a system of three branches -- each somewhat insulated from and answerable to the others -- to determine the plans.

President Bush and the Republican Congress have not wounded this country's economic strength, its national security and its standing in the world because they had bad plans -- they have done so because they formulated and executed their plans by rejecting and subverting the governing systems that embody core American principles.

This fact is central to understanding the political and popular fallout from the Dubai Ports deal, the Katrina failures, the wiretapping debate, renditioning, Abu Ghraib and the war with Iraq itself. Each and every one of these was made possible by congressional abdication of its role as a check on the executive branch. Even the Cheney shooting gained traction because it embodied both the administration's lack of accountability and its lack of communication internally and externally.

Democrats don't need to run on lengthy, detailed plans for how they propose not to let companies owned by foreign dictatorships run our ports, not to botch disaster preparedness and response, not to violate the Constitution by spying on Americans without warrants, not to torture people and not to launch pre-emptive wars based on not skewing and not cherry-picking intelligence instead of not not continuing the hunt for Osama bin Laden. All that Democrats need to run on is a return to the American way of life: Engaging all of America's voices in healthy debate about America's future and then building consensus for how to get there. That's how we used to do things in this country not that long ago. Polls historically have shown that Americans are happiest, in fact, when neither party controls both the legislative and executive branches.

The only argument Bush has had to justify not governing this way has been the need for secrecy that national security entails. The reason that argument no longer holds is that Americans have now seen enough empirical evidence -- Iraq, Katrina, wiretapping, Dubai -- that the Bush administration lacks the basic competence we were promised from the wartime, CEO president. That means Americans are no longer willing to defer to him. And that means Democrats can and should run on one plan and one plan only: Expanding American-style democracy to America.

Read more...

How Bush Sold the War on Terror

The Associated Press is reporting that Malaysia's former prime minister, Mahathir Mohamad, claims that Jack Abramoff was paid $1.2 million to arrange a meeting for Mohamad with President Bush.

According to the article, the 2002 meeting was not Mahathir's idea, it was suggested by the Heritage Foundation. What did the Heritage Foundation have to gain by this? Here's one clue.

So, Prime Minister Mahathir, whose policies had been rebuked by both the Clinton and Bush administrations, was told by the allegedly conservative alleged think tank that he could patch up his relations with Washington by meeting with Bush. How to arrange such a meeting? Here's what Reuters said regarding coverage by the Bernama news service of Mahathir's recent remarks:

Mahathir said it was the practice of the U.S. government to ask people who wanted to meet the president to use the services of lobbyists and this was not viewed as a form of corruption, Bernama added.

And what lobbyist did Malaysia turn to? According to the L.A. Times, Jack Abramoff back in 2002 allegedly took credit for setting up Mahathir's meeting with Bush, with help from his old buddy Karl Rove.

The White House told the Times the meeting was arranged through "normal staffing channels." Which is a classic way of getting to sound like you're denying something, when you might actually be acknowledging that you do it all the time.

Why does any of this matter? Because it wasn't just a corrupt lobbyist selling out to an anti-Semitic, anti-democratic national leader. It wasn't just the Heritage Foundation doing a complete 180 from its previous, principled opposition to Mahathir. It wasn't just President Bush somehow getting duped into meeting with the wrong guy. It was the executive branch of the United States of America selling itself by selling Mahathir to the American people as an ally and a friend.

Bush met with Mahathir, the White House told America, "to discuss Malaysia's role in the war on terrorism." But that's not what Mahathir thought he was paying $1.2 million for. Here's how the Associated Press reported Mahathir's comments Monday:

Mahathir said the Heritage Foundation believed he could help "influence (Bush) in some way regarding U.S. policies."

And Bush himself was asked after that May 14, 2002, meeting, what the point was of meeting with Mahathir. Here's what Bush said, according to the White House transcript:

Q Mr. President, can you tell us what you -- what we can expect of future Malaysia-U.S. relations as a result of these talks that are taking place today?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think you can expect continued cooperation -- intelligence sharing, for example. Let me finish, please.

One of the things that we're finding is that our enemy is shadowy. They lurk behind civil institutions and then they strike. They -- they're not like an enemy we've known before. And in order to make sure our respective societies are as secure as possible, we must share intelligence. We find out a lot about movements throughout the region, and we're more than willing to share with the Prime Minister's government what we know. And vice versa, and that's important. That's incredibly important. My most important job -- I remind this to the American people -- is to secure our homeland.

Q Not more extensive than that --

THE PRESIDENT: There's a lot more. We'll talk about trade. We'll talk about economy. There's a lot more to talk about. But when it comes to the security of a homeland, that's about as extensive as it gets. You see, I'm not going to let our nation forget, or our friends in the world forget what happened to us on September the 11th. It could happen to somebody else, as well, and the Prime Minister understands that.

The point of laying all this out is not to launch into a gratuitous opportunity to bash the president. It's to point out the striking familiarity of the language he used back in 2002 to explain his meeting with Mahathir. He acknowledged that trade and economic issues were on the table, but he refused to talk about them, steering the issue right back to the safety of his even-then-tired rhetoric about terrorism. It's fair to wonder what's not being said the other times he hews to that rhetoric.

Bottom line: An un-democratic country wanted to do business with America, so they made friends with influential people at the Heritage Foundation and they poured $1.2 million into a bogus foundation set up by an American lobbyist who called his friend Karl Rove and arranged to have the president of the United States -- for whom the lobbyist had raised more than $100,000 -- appear on national television to look the American people in the eye and tell them that he was meeting with a man previously found abhorrent by Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Colin Powell and the Heritage Foundation itself, in order to pursue the war on terror.

This is called war profiteering and the White House is now officially a part of it.

Read more...

Drudge REPOrt

I'm sure there were a zillion better ways to do this, but I'm an HTML idiot, so I just copied the entire page. That said, can anyone explain to me why Drudge, in a headline/link about Sen. Hillary Clinton, chose to spell the word "aids" entirely in capitals? (UPDATE: Drudge has now removed the headline entirely. Wonder why?) In any case, you can still see what the page looked like beforehand here:

Support The DrudgeReport; Visit Our Advertisers

After Cheney's Shooting Incident, Time to Unload...
CHENEY WRITES $7 CHECK TO TX WILDLIFE...


CROWDS CHEER ANTI-AMERICAN FILM IN TURKEY

NEW 'BREAKTHROUGH' FOR CLONING RESEARCH IN UK... Blair wins key vote on ID cards... NO '08 GOP FRONTRUNNER AFTER TOP CONSERVATIVE CONFERENCE... Archaeologists Find Massive Tomb in Greece... Worldwide Shark Attacks Down in '05... JUDGE: FEMA CAN STOP KATRINA HOTEL PAYMENTS... Support The DrudgeReport; Visit Our Advertisers AP WORLD AP NATIONAL AP WASHINGTON AP BUSINESS AP ENTERTAINMENT AP ON THE HOUR AP HEADLINES AP BREAKING AP/REUTERS PHOTO WIRE AP AUDIO SEARCH Date Range: Within 14 DaysWithin 13 DaysWithin 12 DaysWithin 11 DaysWithin 10 DaysWithin 9 DaysWithin 8 DaysWithin 7 DaysWithin 6 DaysWithin 5 DaysWithin 4 DaysWithin 3 DaysWithin 2 DaysWithin 1 Day Any word(s) in article: Date Range: Within 14 DaysWithin 13 DaysWithin 12 DaysWithin 11 DaysWithin 10 DaysWithin 9 DaysWithin 8 DaysWithin 7 DaysWithin 6 DaysWithin 5 DaysWithin 4 DaysWithin 3 DaysWithin 2 DaysWithin 1 Day Any word(s) in article: ANANOVA BLOOMBERG DOW JONES EFE INDO-ASIAN NEWS SERVICE INTERFAX ISLAMIC REPUBLIC WIRE ITAR-TASS KNIGHT RIDDER [DC] KYODO PRAVDA PRESS ASSOCIATION PR NEWSWIRE [SHOWBIZ] PR WIRE SCRIPPS HOWARD US INFO WIRE U.S. NEWSWIRE WENN SHOWBIZ WORLDWIRES XINHUA WORLD FRONT PAGES TV RATINGS MOVIE BOXOFFICE RESULTS ABCNEWS ABCNEWS THE NOTE AD AGE DEADLINE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE BBC BBC AUDIO BILLBOARD BOSTON GLOBE BOSTON HERALD BROADCASTING & CABLE CBS NEWS CBS PUBLIC EYE... C-SPAN SCHEDULE CHICAGO TRIB CHICAGO SUN-TIMES CHRISTIAN SCIENCE CNN CNN TRANSCRIPTS DAILY VARIETY D.C. DAYBOOK E! ECONOMIST EDITOR & PUBLISHER ELECTRONIC MEDIA EMIRATES TODAY... EMERGENCY NET EMPIRE [MOVIES] ENT WEEKLY FINANCIAL TIMES FORBES MAG FOX NEWS HELLO! HILL H'WOOD REPORTER HUMAN EVENTS INSIGHT MAG INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIB INVEST BUS DAILY JERUSALEM POST JEWISH WORLD REVIEW LA DAILY NEWS LA TIMES LEXISNEXIS NEWS LUCIANNE.COM MEDIA CHECK MEDIA LIFE MEDIA WEEK MSNBC MUCHMUSIC NATION NATIONAL ENQUIRER NATIONAL REVIEW NEW REPUBLIC NY DAILY NEWS NY OBSERVER NY POST NY TIMES NEW YORKER NEWSBUSTERS NEWSBYTES NEWSWEEK N. KOREAN NEWS PEOPLE MAG R & R REASON MAG ROLL CALL SKY NEWS SLATE: PAPERS SMOKING GUN STAR SYDNEY MORNING HERALD TIME MAG TMZ TV SHOPTALK [U.K.] DAILY MAIL [U.K.] DAILY MIRROR DAILY RECORD [U.K.] EVENING STANDARD [U.K.] EXPRESS [U.K.] GUARDIAN [U.K.] INDEPENDENT [U.K.] NEWS OF THE WORLD [U.K.] STAR [U.K.] SUN [U.K.] TELEGRAPH [U.K.] TIMES US NEWS USA TODAY VILLAGE VOICE WASH POST WASH TIMES THE WEEK WEEKLY STANDARD WORLDNETDAILY

Scary Crashes, Falls Mar Day 3 of Games... PHOTOS... Will Kwan's lucrative ad contracts dry up?... Medal count... GREENSPAN IN MILLION DOLLAR MEMOIR TALKS... Gonzaga Students Asked To Stop Yelling 'Brokeback Mountain' at Opposing Players... Sir Ian McKellen says Hollywood closed to gays... REPORT: Wayne Gretzky has lost millions in Vegas casinos... STUDY: MONEY DOESN'T BUY HAPPINESS... MATT DRUDGE 3 AM GIRLS CINDY ADAMS JONATHAN ALTER ARMY ARCHERD DAVE BARRY PETER BART STEPHEN BATTAGLIO BECK/SMITH BIZARRE [SUN] TONY BLANKLEY SIDNEY BLUMENTHAL GLORIA BORGER BRENT BOZELL DAVID BRODER DAVID BROOKS PAT BUCHANAN BILL BUCKLEY MONA CHAREN ELEANOR CLIFT RICHARD COHEN JOE CONASON DAVID CORN ANN COULTER CRAIG CRAWFORD STANLEY CROUCH MICHAEL DALY LOU DOBBS DE BORCHGRAVE ROGER EBERT LARRY ELDER SUSAN ESTRICH JOSEPH FARAH SUZANNE FIELDS HOWARD FINEMAN NIKKI FINKE MICHAEL FLEMING ROGER FRIEDMAN JOHN FUND LEAH GARCHIK BILL GERTZ GEORGIE GEYER JIM GLASSMAN JONAH GOLDBERG ELLEN GOODMAN NANCY GRACE LLOYD GROVE MARTIN GROVE CARL HIAASEN NAT HENTOFF CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS INSIDE BELTWAY INSIDE POLITICS INSIDE THE RING MOLLY IVINS AL KAMEN MICKEY KAUS MICHAEL KINSLEY JOE KLEIN HARRY KNOWLES KRAUTHAMMER PAUL KRUGMAN LARRY KUDLOW HOWIE KURTZ JOHN LEO DAVID LIMBAUGH RUSH LIMBAUGH HAL LINDSEY RICH LOWRY MICHELLE MALKIN SCOTT MCCLELLAN DICK MORRIS PEGGY NOONAN BOB NOVAK ROSIE O'DONNELL OFF THE RECORD MARVIN OLASKY THOMAS OLIPHANT BILL O'REILLY PAGE SIX JIM PINKERTON BILL PRESS TV NEWSER TV PROGRAMMING INSIDER WES PRUDEN ANNA QUINDLEN WILLIAM RASPBERRY REX REED RICHARD REEVES RELIABLE SOURCE RICHARD ROEPER RUSH/MOLLOY SCHLAFLY TOM SHALES GAIL SHISTER LIZ SMITH MICHAEL SNEED JOE SOBRAN THOMAS SOWELL ANDREW SULLIVAN HELEN THOMAS CAL THOMAS TV COLUMN VEGAS CONFIDENTIAL JEFFREY WELLS GEORGE WILL WALTER WILLIAMS WASHINGTON WHISPERS JAMES WOLCOTT MORT ZUCKERMAN BILL ZWECKER

Hillary's Likely Challenger Says She 'AIDS And Abets Our Enemies'... STARS GATHER FOR OSCAR LUNCH... Robots are saving American lives in Iraq and Afghanistan... Support The DrudgeReport; Visit Our Advertisers RECENT DRUDGE HEADLINES AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE AFP INTERNATIONAL AFP NEWS WRAP REUTERS WORLD NEWS HIGHLIGHTS REUTERS DIGEST REUTERS WORLD REUTERS POLITICS REUTERS ODD UPI ALL UPI WORLD Support The DrudgeReport; Visit Our Advertisers GOOGLE NEWS WEATHER ACTION QUAKE SHEET SEND NEWS TIPS TO DRUDGE [ANONYMITY GUARANTEED] THE LIST... VISITS TO DRUDGE 2/14/06 011,944,866 IN PAST 24 HOURS 282,299,998 IN PAST 31 DAYS 3,634,002,319 IN PAST YEAR DRUDGE ARCHIVES DRUDGE REFERENCE DESK EMAIL: DRUDGE@DRUDGEREPORT.COM BE SEEN! RUN ADS ON DRUDGE REPORT...

Read more...

The Left Screws Up on Global Warming

This past week, 86 Christian evangelicals issued a statement acknowledging the abundance of evidence that global warming is real, and that mitigating action should be taken. The response from the left was pretty predictable: Lauding this development and trumpeting its support for the cause. The instinct behind this reaction is understandable. Acting on it is stupid and short-sighted.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those people who rejects any endorsements from the right, or from religious people, for the causes I favor. Hell, I agree with some of their positions. And in the past, I've specifically argued that the left ought to applaud right-wing nutjobs when they see the light on any particular issue. In that case, I was talking about Rick Santorum, who is, whether we like it or not, due to his office, involved in every issue. But, in general, I was referring to the kinds of issues that are, essentially, subjective matters of public policy. The kinds of issues on which everyone has a voice.

Global warming is not such an issue. Global warming is science. It's very new science, and it's very complex science, and it's very uncertain science. But it's still science. That's why the correct response to 86 evangelicals, or 8600 evangelicals, should be the same as if they had weighed in on the fine points of brain surgery, or the principles of building a suspension bridge. The only correct response is: Who gives a fuck what you say?

Yes, it's tempting to say that we serve a greater good by hailing this announcement and praising the evangelicals who made it. After all, that could, in theory, help lead to some positive policy changes. But it would also be helping to perpetuate the same dynamic that has allowed religion to hobble science for, well, always.

Why? Because religion -- most notably Christianity -- has been at odds with science since day one. And religion has virtually always done whatever was within its power to stifle any scientific advances that challenged its tenets or its power or its authority. Only at those junctures when empirical evidence is so overwhelming that broader society has stood up to defend science has science (i.e., rationality) been able to prevail.

And the only reason religions have managed to withstand these challenges is that they -- with unwitting irony -- evolve new adaptations that enable them to survive. When their anti-Copernican cosmology became untenable, for instance, they revised their claims about what the Bible says about Earth and the heavens. Religions have consistently retreated when faced with common-sense evidence of scientific reality -- in order to avoid the jeopardy to their credibility that would ensue if they maintained their opposition.

When you praise the recent evangelical announcement as meaningful, let alone laudatory, you're essentially helping to perpetuate their hold over people who should be looking to the scientific community, rather than the religious community, for guidance about scientific issues. When you appeal to evangelical worshippers to support environmental progress because their evangelical leaders do, you're perpetuating the power those evangelical leaders have to dictate scientific policy not just now, but in the future. In fact, there's a very easy way to determine how much this announcement is genuinely about seeing the light on science, and how much is about maintaining their own credibility and power. How?

Well, if they are sincere in their intentions, and sincere in wanting to remedy their past wrongs (i.e., their vocal support for anti-environmental politicians), they would say the following: We were wrong to stake a claim to leadership on scientific issues; we hereby renounce any and all authority on empirical matters and we urge those in the evangelical community to turn in the future to the scientific community for guidance and leadership on such issues. But that would mean giving up their power.

So, we're left with the absurd spectacle of allegedly "green" evangelicals battling it out with the old-school evangelicals. That's right, such stalwarts as Colson, Wildmon and Dobson released their own manifesto in response to the 86. You can read it here, but please don't bother. The idea that anyone is going to listen to what either side of this supposed debate believes their magic book tells them about planetary climatology is almost obscene. Throughout history, scientific and medical advances have been delayed and thwarted by the forces of religion. Imagine how much further humanity might have advanced by now if religions hadn't opposed advances in astronomy, physics, germ theory, evolutionary biology, genetics, psychology, dissection, reproductive medicine, stem-cell research, etc. Imagine how much better your life would be. Speculate for a minute on how many years of scientific progress have been lost to religious interference. One? Ten? A hundred? Who would still be alive if not for religion? How much longer would you live, and with how much greater a quality of life? How much pain will your children endure, thanks to the scientific progress religion has impeded? When you suggest that evangelicals have a credible voice on global warming, you become a part of this problem.

In each and every field, religions have retreated only when evidence became so overwhelming that their opposition became untenable. When we endorse the notion that evangelical Christians have a place in the field of climatology, we perpetuate a cycle that has been detrimental to humanity throughout history.

When religions get on board with the latest scientific advances, it's not evidence that religions are somehow improving. Religions have always survived by flexing enough to accomodate prevailing notions of reality. The Christianity of the year 100 A.D. could never survive today. It would have to redefine itself to conform to modern notions of reality in order to survive. That's all these evangelicals are doing: Surviving long enough to keep fucking up our future, just as their predecessors survived long enough to elect the anti-science politicians determined to fuck up our present.

Read more...