The Beetle Administration

This blog loves politics. This blog also loves nonsense. It probably goes without saying that the two usually go together, though rarely like the following:

Two US scientists have paid tribute to their favourite politicians by naming three species of beetle after them.

President George Bush, Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld were all honoured.

One of the entomologists said he admired all three men for 'having the courage of their convictions' and standing up for freedom and democracy...

They named them Agathidium bushi, Agathidium cheneyi and Agathidium rumsfeldi.

I cannot say I am as keen on these guys (what happened to small-government Republicanism?), but, yes, they do have a lot of balls. Unlike some beetles.

This Is How They Created Ben Affleck

Imagine a system that scans your face in a matter of seconds, renders it in 3-D computer graphics, then melds it to a performance in the movie you are watching. (Via We Make Money Not Art)

Smart Americans

Daniel Drezner has a post on how average Americans may be smarter than the elite. Consider a passage from one of the news stories he cites...

In fact, they inexplicably found that people who weigh a few pounds more than the ideal are less likely to die than those who weigh a few pounds less.

"Less likely to die..."? I am not an elite journalist, but I do know that every creature eventually passes on. The risk of dying is currently 100%. Living is the leading cause of death, folks.

Beware Of Penguin Terror

The CIA apparently determined that Osama bin Laden is getting desperate. Someone better tell him these guys do not behave in an Islamic manner.

Update: Monkey business.

Friday's Quote

C.S. Lewis, Miracles: The Englishness of English is audible only to those who know some other language as well. In the same way for the same reason, only Supernaturalists really see Nature. You must go a little away from her, and then turn around, and look back. Then at last the true landscape will become visible. You must have tasted, however briefly, the pure water from beyond the world before you can be distinctly conscious of the hot, salty tang of Nature's current. To treat her as God, or as Everything, is to lose the whole pith and pleasure of her. Come out, look back, and then you will see... this astonishing cataract of bears, babies, and bananas: this immoderate deluge of atoms, orchids, oranges, cancers, canaries, fleas, gases, tornadoes and toads. How could you ever have thought this was the ultimate reality? How could you ever have thought that it was merely a stage-set for the moral drama of men and women?

Nature is herself. Offer her neither worship nor contempt. Meet her and know her. If we are immortal, and if she is doomed (as the scientists tell us) to run down and die, we shall miss this half-shy and half-flamboyant creature, this ogress, this hoyden, this incorrigible fairy, this dumb witch. But the theologians tell us that she, like ourselves, is to be redeemed. The 'vanity' to which she was subjected was her disease, not her essence. She will be cured, but cured in character: not tamed (Heaven forbid) nor sterilized. We shall be able to recognize our old enemy, friend, playfellow and foster-mother, so perfected as to be not less, but more, herself. And that will be a merry meeting.

Bulldog Bolton

United Nations envoy nominee John Bolton is receiving mixed reviews. I read one or two or more frightening things about the current Undersecretary of State, and he comes across as a bullying lawyer.

On the other hand, I daresay Dr. Fred Newman makes an interesting point:

I know the standard stuff that people know, that he’s Bulldog Bolton, but it makes sense. His is the current American position towards the UN, so why wouldn’t that be the U.S. Representative’s position. He’s not the UN Representative to the UN, he’s Washington’s representative to the UN. I think the critique is sort of overstated.

And Bolton's supporters make a few points, as well. Andrew Sullivan, by no means a Bush Conservative, wrote in Britain's Sunday Times:

Bolton’s real sin is to see the UN for what it is: an assembly of representatives of all world governments — some of which are democratic, some autocratic, and some of which are outright kleptomaniac, genocidal dictators.

This body can sometimes be effective in limited ways, but more often it defends the international status quo and sustains corruption.

Bolton’s deeper sin is to believe that democracy matters, that democratic regimes are more easily dealt with than non-democratic regimes and that institutions — such as the UN — that make no distinction between them have a serious credibility problem.

...

It remains true that Bolton’s visceral suspicion of the UN is not what we usually think of as diplomacy. But the post of UN ambassador has long been a job in which ferocious critics of the UN have found their niche. Remember Jeane Kirkpatrick, President Reagan’s ambassador, or, more pertinently, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the late Democratic senator? When the UN passed its infamous “Zionism is racism” resolution, Moynihan diplomatically stated, “This is a lie.” When Idi Amin addressed the organisation and was granted the same respect and status as a democratic leader, Moynihan called him a “racist murderer”. Somehow the UN and world diplomacy survived this rare outburst of truth.

At a time when the UN needs some tough love, after appalling scandals and impotence, Bolton is not an inexplicable choice, as Kerry stated. He is a potentially inspired one.

With that, Kofi Annan reportedly telling Bolton, "Get yourself confirmed quickly," and other positive revelations, anti-Bolton hysteria is probably as misguided as its anti-Bush relative. He is not a very pleasant diplomat, but he's not a very dangerous one, either. In this case, a bull in a china shop might not be a bad idea.

101 And Still Kicking

Literally:

She began dancing on Broadway while the doughboys were still fighting in France. In the 1920s, she was Al Jolson's leading lady, and later was the first to perform "Singin' in the Rain" — years before Gene Kelly.

On Friday, 101-year-old Doris Eaton Travis, a former Ziegfeld Girl, was back on a 42nd Street stage, rehearsing for Broadway's 19th annual fund-raiser to fight AIDS.

Come Back Soon, Zhao

More regarding the Caper at the Capital:

After several days in a US immigration detention facility, Mr Zhao was expelled from the US and arrived in Australia early on Saturday on a United Airlines flight.

At Sydney airport, Mr Zhao told reporters he had not enjoyed living in Australia and had wanted to raise his concerns and chat generally with Mr Bush.

"Just to speak about normal topics like weather, like architecture and buildings," he said.

Zhao's behavior was suspicious and, like Mr. Chrenkoff, I find it amazing that he could be so naive. But I do feel sorry for him. Partly because he now comprehends his ordeal, partly because he is abstaining from faddish anti-Americanism despite having his personal effects destroyed, but mainly because this story reveals an understandable and refreshing tenacity in seeking to take dissatisfaction "to the top" with nothing more than a casual conversation. He attempted to take it to the head of the wrong country and in the wrong way, but I can sympathize with his plight. And if he can refrain from rooting himself and his suitcases in front of government buildings, I hope the Powers That Be will allow his return. I mean, he still hasn't seen the White House...

American TV Should Be More Like This

From the Australian Herald Sun:

NOTHING beat SBS in the TV ratings on Wednesday night.

But in glum news for the public broadcaster, the nothing was a blank screen on Channel 7.

After a mystery technical snarl sent Seven off the air, viewers remained staunch. And its 48 minutes of beige, blank, soundless screen was preferred over SBS and, at times, the ABC.

At 9.09pm, viewers of the Blue Heelers episode Killing Time found themselves doing just that.

And at 9.30, when Air Crash Investigation was scheduled, the only thing down was Seven, still.

For Melbourne viewers, though, Seven's impromptu version of Blankety Blanks wasn't the worst thing on.

SBS's Dateline program -- tracking a volunteer doctor through the Congo -- had 105,000 fewer Melbourne viewers than Seven's non-event. And the ABC's acclaimed new comedy Nighty Night could have gone to bed early. It drew 35,000 fewer viewers than Seven's ad, sound and vision-free offering.

Even at its lowest point, the blank screen had 88,000 fans -- more than anything SBS ran all day.

I say make the "technical snarl" permanent, change the color at odd times, and call it the ScreenSaver Channel. It'll be a hit. (Also via Tim Blair)

Update: In contrast to another link in Mr. Blair's post, regarding a "moderate" Sheikh's recent endorsement of raping unveiled women, and to counter some of the vulgarities in his comments section, I recommend a fascinating article on Laylat Al-Isra wa Al-Miraj (The Night Journey and Ascension) of Muhammad:

The commentaries of Shaykh al-Maliki on the Night Journey are significant to the future of Islam as a faith and to the Saudi kingdom. This is because the irrational and absurd strictures imposed by the Wahhabis on Muslims and Saudi subjects include a rigorous ban on celebration of the Night Journey, normally observed on the 27th day of the Muslim month of Rajab.

Such is but one of many prohibitions enacted by Wahhabis against the traditions of classical Islam, which make moderate Muslims hate Wahhabism. Wahhabis also forbid celebration of the Prophet's birthday; commemoration of holy men and women (Muslim saints); the maintenance of graveyards; recitation of Fatiha, the first sura or chapter of Qur'an, for the dead; intercessory prayer through Muhammad, his companions, or the Muslim saints, and, of course, the entire practice of Sufism. Possession of the great Sufi books is a crime in the Saudi kingdom. Although Shaykh al-Maliki was the head of the Maliki school of Sunni Muslim law in the kingdom, he suffered from many acts of discrimination and marginalization. Unlike his father and grandfather, he was barred from preaching in the Grand Mosque at Mecca. Nevertheless, his funeral was the largest public event in recent years in the holy city.

Shaykh al-Maliki's writing on the Night Journey stands in direct and eloquent opposition to Wahhabi doctrine. A prominent Wahhabi bigot, Muhammad al-Munajjid, also known for declaring the South Asian tsunami a divine punishment against the celebration of Christmas and the Christian New Year, has declared that commemorating the Night Journey by holding special events is a bida, or forbidden innovation in Islam. By contrast, Shaykh al-Maliki not only encouraged marking this important Islamic spiritual landmark by festivals, but also offered some comments on the Prophet's rapture that would doubtless prove surprising to many non-Muslims.

Burger & Fries--Super Sized, Please

I lost eight pounds recently, bringing me to the ranks of those of normal weight. Hooray! Success did not come by significantly altering what I consume (apart from largely giving up on soft drinks), but by moderating my diet. I continue to act like I'm allergic to exercise--that which makes allowances for the occasional pig-out and would do wonders for my lingering paunch--but one hurdle at a time, okay?

That said, I beg Cookie Monster not to follow this example.

Update: I did not know it when I wrote the above, but today is McDonald's 50th anniversary. Happy Birthday, Mickey D's. (via Tim Blair)

Traffic Safety In Tennessee

How does the Tennessee Department of Safety announce a new project to relieve highway dangers?

By holding simultaneous press conferences in the middle of the interstate.

There's A New Drug Out Of The Closet

I know a few guys who might benefit from this.

The "Star Wars" They Do Not Want You To See

We already know that George Lucas loves to tinker, but this trailer (warning: contains spoilers) for the original edit of Revenge of the Sith, then subtitled The Lost Hope, shows just how willing he can be to compromise the integrity of his craft.

The Duck Begins Here

When it comes to questionable government expenses, this is probably the cutest...

The duck, a brown mallard with white markings, has had several names suggested by Treasury Department people, including "Quacks Reform," "T-Bill," and "Duck Cheney." It has built a nest in a mulch pile right at the main entrance to the Treasury Department on Pennsylvania Avenue.

The Secret Service's uniformed division, which provides protection for the White House and Treasury building, has set up metal guard rails to protect the nest, which has attracted the notice of tourists on their way to see the White House.

Seems appropriate, actually, considering the lessons of ol' Scrooge McDuck.

Humanitarianism And Iraq

I referenced Norman Geras a couple of times here, so that may explain why The Tone-Deaf Mushroom is now among the links on his blog, though I like to think my charming personality has something to do with it (stop laughing). Endorsements or criticism always make it easier for me to write, because I don't feel as though I am venting into a void. So thank you, Norm, though admittedly I never dreamt I would receive promotion from a Marxism scholar!

The issue that attracted me to Geras' blog in the first place was his thoughtful approach to the Iraq War. From his latest post on the topic:

We were not choosing between a real-world war and an ideal-world peace (of glowing humanitarian projects), any more than critics will be willing to allow the opposite - that we were choosing between an ideal-world war (of glorious, costless liberation) and a tarnished real-world peace. We were choosing between a real regime-change war and a real avoidance of war that would have spared the regime in question - with all the complexities there are, of value and of cost and benefit, on either side of that choice structure. The pressure to simplify possibly reflects some troubledness of mind with a less simplified statement of the case. It's hard to know.

Of course my screed is what it is, long and repetitive, in no small part due to those complexities. I recently wrote an e-mail (reprinted in revised form below, for archival purposes) that offered a few summery notes precisely because we need more serious discussion on what the war meant and what it should mean for us today.

I mentioned that the international community should have put more pressure on Hussein than Bush if it were genuinely concerned about peace. The response was that there is "a huge difference between trying to increase pressure on a country like Iraq via international coalitions." That is true. Even something like a World War II-style coalition of the willing would suffice. Apparently, America went into Iraq unilaterally--nobody from England, or Australia, or Poland, not even strictly humanitarian support from countries like Japan. Still, I must say America is doing well considering that there is no international coalition in Iraq.

The United Nations received a mention. The U.N. exposes the biggest flaw in U.S. foreign policy: We are the wealthiest nation in the world, so why aren't we buying nations off? It worked for Saddam for years. The Enron on the East River illustrates time and time again that you can get at least helpful indifference for anything, up to and including genocide, provided you make the right noises. It may catch up with you later, perhaps, but unless some agitators like the United States or Australia raise a fuss, by then you achieved whatever it is was you wanted and can safely retire to a comfy villa in France. One of our fair-weather allies made a chunk of change aiding the slaughter in Rwanda, Sudan remains a killing field, six countries facing sanctions for ongoing human rights abuses made a full third of the commission to investigate human rights abuses, Iran has a say regarding cracking down on WMD proliferation, etc., so perhaps America should pay its dues to the international Murder, Inc., chalk up some brownie points by spreading the cash to kleptocracies (before President Bush ruins all the best ones), and after awhile we'll be able to indiscriminately carpet bomb Antarctica (there is something fishy about those birds in formalwear). Plus, I see that a large number of U.N. peacekeepers are experts at pillaging, and we could use the help: Our rampage in Iraq has been a disaster; insurgents keep messing things up before our troops get a turn.

There was also a suggestion that those people mutilating others will behave if we just don't talk so mean.

Yes, I love making snarky comments, but there is more at stake.

Here is a story. Frank Devine's research for The Australian pointed to one conclusion on the Iraq invasion:

The Americans had established and then strengthened a military presence in countries surrounding Saudi Arabia - Yemen, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait. Invasion of Iraq would complete the encirclement."

In short, illicit weapons programs and human rights abuses in Iraq provided a smokescreen for a containment policy against Saudi Arabia. Is it true? I have no idea. Is it a legitimate rationale for the war? Arguably. But it illustrates how the human tendency to lock into a specific possibility at the expense of all others can account for unnecessary conflicts. Devine may be correct, but that has nothing to do with why I support the presence in Iraq or whether my reasoning is correct. It is possible that both pro-intervention and anti-intervention forces are right to some extent (i.e., Bush did a good thing for bad reasons, or a bad thing for good reasons). It may actually explain some of the cognitive dissonance we see. My view of the Iraq War and subsequent occupation is not "Did [insert name here] justify this?" or some other question for which the answer can vary wildly depending on whatever narrow position you take, but the broad, challenging "Is this justifiable?" We need honesty and reason (and snarky comments).

Anyway, as promised...

From An E-Mail To My Friends

No human is so "good" as to be trusted with absolute control over others. That is one reason why having a representative government is so important as to be essential.

But if the world is so bad, how could any sane person see much good in himself? The average person surrounded by death does not conclude that he is immortal. Quite the opposite, in fact. So what is the man who sees himself in a positive light comparing himself to in order to make his conclusion? There is goodness in the world, and it requires defending. Vaclav Havel noted that "Evil must be confronted in its womb and, if it can't be done otherwise, then it has to be dealt with by force."

These are hardly ideas originating from "neo-conservatives". President Bill Clinton urged the overthrow of the Iraqi regime in 1998, Congress passed his bill making "Iraq liberation" official U.S. policy, and he signed it into law. Heck, just read what former Vice President Al Gore said in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations not too long ago:

Even if we give first priority to the destruction of terrorist networks, and even if we succeed, there are still governments that could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq. As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table. To my way of thinking, the real question is not the principle of the thing, but of making sure that this time we will finish the matter on our terms.

Also, Bush could only have invaded with the support of Congress (which holds the purse, and is the sole government power capable of legally authorizing military force) and the American people (he is a democratic politician, after all, and is thus very much poll-driven). Regardless of whether the decision was the right one, nobody can truthfully say it happened on a whim, was never debated, and bypassed the public and institutional checks-and-balances of our American republic.

There are many reasons why I stand by my support of the Iraq intervention. That it saved lives is one of them, no matter how bold the lies of those who wish it were otherwise. The lowest estimates indicate that Saddam Hussein's regime killed about 5,000 Iraqis every month by deliberately withholding food and medical supplies, and violently executed hundreds of Iraqis a month (including children). Unless we assume these practices would have ceased by now in Iraq without intervention (a rather difficult assumption, considering blowing up Iraqis or shoving them into plastic shredders were long established as regime entertainment), that equals at least 124,800 lives over 24 months. IraqBodyCount.net, which liberally includes "insurgents" as "civilians" and factors in unsubstantiated death claims, currently puts the Iraqi death toll at a maximum of 19,800. So the policy Clinton initiated saved around 105,000 Iraqis thus far. (Frankly, I am impressed that the Iraqi death rate is so low. I recall reading that the brief [and truly useless] war with Iraq in 1998 killed nearly 1,000 Iraqi civilians a day.)

I am not one for speculation that a Democratic president would have done better, whether in planning or merely leaving the gate. Gore was a major contributor to the policy of regime change in Iraq, and there are few circumstances where leaving a mass-murdering sociopathic dictator in power may be necessary. Gore has since changed his tune, true, but then that happens a lot when trying to appease a political base while part of a minority party. Clinton and his senator wife are still among the Democratic supporters of the Iraq War, so a President Gore, only having to worry about a hostile Congress and buoyed by his predecessor, may very well have gone much the same route as the current POTUS. I think of Art Buchwald's famous "If Goldwater Had Won" column.

As for culpability for lives lost (including Americans), here comes my own speculation: Everybody is to blame. The U.S. wanted the Husseins to go into exile, and for the United Nations to handle administration of Iraq a la Afghanistan--a handover that I propose would not have caused anywhere near as much bloodshed. All the international community had to do was apply enough pressure to Saddam & Sons. After all, the worst that could happen was what happened anyway when the international community chose to shout streams of rhetoric instead. France, China, Russia, etc., are as culpable as the United States, England, Australia, etc.; surely lives could have been saved had they made as much effort in working out a peaceful solution as they did in having fits and protests over one "last resort" solution many of them had approved previously.

I believe in liberty, specifically that "rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others" (Thomas Jefferson). Where "rightful liberty" exists, I have little stomach for intrusions--not from my government, or anyone else's. If the people do not have it, I say we give them the opportunity to grab it, through force if necessary. It is the only social construct that inherently allows for its own rejection, so they can always opt for imprisonment or servitude later.

For my part, I still have hours' worth of unused notes and URLs, and all that research has me utterly convinced that going into Iraq was the correct thing to do come hell or high water. Iraq may be a morass, but it was one before the war. On top of the mass murder, the entire country’s infrastructure largely existed only in places Saddam liked, with a great many people surviving without such niceties as the electricity and clean water they have at least some access to now. True, he kept the people "in line" so that there were considerably fewer crimes and no terrorist attacks, but then Iraq had little need for criminals--Saddam's security forces offered better pay for the same activities. And unlike during Saddam reign, the new morass has always had a shot at ending in the foreseeable future. There is hope. That counts for quite a lot.

A Bite Out Of The Sun

Don't forget the partial solar eclipse this afternoon!

Bad Chimera

A National Geographic story from January: Scientists have begun blurring the line between human and animal by producing chimeras--a hybrid creature that's part human, part animal.

Curiously, this article on fractionally-human beasts makes no mention of members of Congress.

R.I.P. John Paul II

Much has changed in the 26 years since Karol Wojtyla's papal election. Food, literacy, wealth, charity, medical care, environmental stewardship, and essential freedoms are more widespread now than at any moment in Earth's past. Countries are now debating same-sex marriages, when just a short time ago they were imprisoning homosexuals, condemning interracial marriages and enforcing segregation. Western wars are looking less like wars and more like police actions, while the most heinous crimes result from indifference or unseriousness such as we see happening with Sudan. An unregulated Internet enables the rapid distribution of ideas, as well as rapid responses to ideas. We remain every bit as a fallen as our ancestors (albeit in different ways), and human progress is always of the one-step-back-for-every-two-steps-forward variety, but at the same time we are struggling to rise with greater nobility than before. There were leaps and bounds in a matter of a few decades, and I have every reason to look to more leaps and bounds. My motto: Prepare for the worst, but hope for and work toward the best.

With the [beautiful, if repetitious] funeral of Pope John Paul II now at an end, I recall the Holy Father's ministry with both sadness and satisfaction. In attempting to mold entire societies to Church dogma (see today's quote) he held ill-considered views on homosexuality and the like, while on a related theme his blanket opposition to matters like therapeutic cloning and stem cell research revealed frightening scientific blind spots. He was also the pope who wholeheartedly embraced the Church's oft-neglected view that "The Bible tells us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go," brought the papacy into the 20th Century with outreach well beyond traditional Catholicism, was as much a force in working toward the collapse of the Soviet Union as Ronald Reagan (who was socially liberal compared to the pope, come to think of it), and brought powerful diplomatic force to bear on behalf of countless lives in need. He fought intelligently, ethically and devoutly for some of the progress we take for granted. I respect him for that.

Friday's Quote

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity: ...I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused. The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is the quite different question--how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mohammedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine. My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognize that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not.

That logic applies to many things in many places, not only British divorce laws.