Yokoi’s Cave and the Monkey Mind: How Evolution Refutes Naturalism

Several years ago while I was stationed in Japan I had the opportunity to travel to Guam where I was able to visit a most peculiar landmark. Near the Talofofo River lay a small cave where Shoichi Yokoi, a Japanese soldier from WWII, hid after the U.S. forces occupied his country in 1945. When a pair of fisherman discovered him in 1972, he explained, “"We Japanese soldiers were told to prefer death to the disgrace of getting captured alive.” That singular, powerful belief motivated the Army Corporal to hide out for 27 years.

When the discussion of evolutionary theory and philosophical naturalism comes up in discussion, I always think of Yokoi. Like the old soldier, many atheists would prefer death rather than give up their belief in these twin theories. As Richard Dawkins once said in his now famous quip, “Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” Unfortunately for Dawkins, the exact opposite is true. For contrary to what is commonly believed, modern evolutionary theory (macroevolution) and philosophical naturalism are quite clearly incompatible.

Such a statement will likely come as a surprise to those who believe that philosophical naturalism (which claims that either supernatural beings do not exist or if they do that their existence is irrelevant) is a foundation for macroevolution. But these two concepts have been soundly rebutted since 1994 when Notre Dame philosopher Alvin Plantinga published “Warrant and Proper Function.”

Though I’ve discussed Plantinga’s explanation in a prior post (Trusting the Monkey Mind: Naturalism and our Noetic Equipment), my summary can hardly substitute for the complete 58-page argument made in "Naturalism Defeated." Still, the gist of the paper can be outlined rather simply:

1. If (naturalistic) evolution is true, then our cognitive faculties will have resulted from blind mechanisms like natural selection, working on sources of genetic variation such as random genetic mutation.
2. Assuming the truth of #1, we find that the ultimate purpose or function of our cognitive faculties, if they even have a purpose or function, will be survival - of individual, species, gene, or genotype.
3. If #1 and #2 are true then it is unlikely that our cognitive faculties have the production of true beliefs as a function.
4. If production of true beliefs is not a function of our cognitive faculties, we have no reason to trust that we can form true beliefs.
5. Therefore, we cannot claim that any belief, including a belief in the theory of macroevolution, is true.

Plantinga fleshes out the argument until we arrive at the conclusion that if naturalism and evolution (N&E) is true then we have no reason to trust that the belief that N&E is true. The combination of N&E becomes self-defeating, providing its own justification for believing that it isn’t true. The actual argument, of course, is more complex, though, certainly understandable by anyone willing to do a bit of “hard thinking.” After a decade of attempts, no philosopher has even come close to satisfactorily rebutting Plantinga’s paper.

But if believing in naturalistic macroevolution is irrational why do so many people continue to do so? There are, I believe, several reasons:

The first is that bad philosophical ideas are hard to kill. Take, for example, logical positivism, which was the leading philosophy of science from the 1920’s to the 1950’s. Logical positivists claimed that metaphysical statements are meaningless and that a statement is meaningful if and only if it can be proved true or false by means of experience. The obvious problem with this contention is that the claim itself is a metaphysical statement and, according to LP, would be meaningless. Smart philosophers often refuse to give up dumb ideas even when they are self-refuting.

The second reason why the connection is still believed is that those who deny naturalistic evolution do such a poor job of pointing out the fallacies of naturalism. While many philosophical naturalists have no qualms about claiming that theistic beliefs are unjustifiable, we are either hesitant to make the same claims or are unable to explain why we hold such a position. Even though some of the leading epistemologists in America are evangelical Christians, those of us in the trenches of debate have a poor grasp of the concepts involved. Our effectiveness would magnify exponentially if we would only spend a bit more time understanding the basic concepts of philosophy. For instance, I’ve often heard people waste time making the specious and unprovable claim that “naturalism is a religious belief” when all that really needs to be pointed out is that naturalism is irrational.

The third and most common reason is that it is difficult to convince someone that they hold an irrational belief. As Plantinga clearly shows, accepting that naturalistic evolution has developed in us cognitive faculties capable of producing true beliefs requires a Kierkegaardian “leap of faith.” Yet it is unlikely that the average naturalist will give up her belief without a fight. The reason isn’t because they are lacking in intellect but rather that they lacking in will. Our beliefs are not formed by reason alone and so are rarely changed solely by appeals to rationality. An obdurate will, rather than soft-headedness, is the primary reason why naturalists cling to self-refuting concepts.

Beliefs are perhaps the most powerful force on earth. Even now I still marvel that a simple belief kept Shoichi Yokoi living in a cave for 27 years. What is even more shocking, however, is that he knew in 1952 that the war had ended and yet continued to hide for 20 more years. Even when he knew the truth, his beliefs had so calcified that he was unable – or perhaps just unwilling – to change his behavior. The same could be said for naturalists. While they know they realize that they have no justification for trusting that evolution could produce a brain capable of forming true beliefs, they still go on trusting Darwin’s “monkey mind.” Like poor Yokoi, even the truth can't get them to leave their intellectual caves.

The Gospel of Anti-Semitism?

As an evangelical Christian I have a deep-rooted affection for Judaism. Though my theological differences with the religion are profound, they cannot reduce the love I have for the children of Abraham and Moses. The story of the Hebrew people is, after all, my story too. So it saddens and frustrates me to see that my own belief denigrated by the very people I would give my life to defend.

The website of the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, a group dedicated to strengthening the U.S.-Israel relationship by emphasizing our nations shared values, presents some outrageous claims in an editorial on anti-Semitism:

The trouble with Mel Gibson's film "The Passion" is not the film itself, but the gospel story on which it's based. The gospel story, which has generated more anti-Semitism than the sum of all the other anti-Semitic writings ever written, created the climate in Christian Europe that led to the Holocaust. Long before the rise of Adolf Hitler, the gospel story about the life and death of Jesus had poisoned the bloodstream of European civilization.

The article then goes on to spout the usual nonsense about the 'historical Jesus" and pins the blame of anti-Semitic sentiment on Paul and the early Church. Finding this anti-Christian rant on the website of a respectable organization like the AICE is disturbing. Though they are not responsible for the sites content, I doubt the many members of the 'honorary committee" of the advisory board, which is composed of such esteemed members of Congress as Sen. Rick Santorum and Sen. Charles Shumer, would agree with the views of the editorial.

While Christian anti-Semitism has been a genuine threat throughout history, many Christians -- from Vatican II-era Catholics to American evangelicals -- have worked to prevent such attitudes from ever taking root again. To claim that our most sacred scriptures are the cause of this evil is not only counter-productive and disrespectful, but is itself an anti-Semitic claim. The Gospels, after all, are about the Christian God. A God who also happens to be a Jew.

Fertilization or Implantation?: Pt. II -- The Case for Conception

In my previous post I presented Christian bioethicist Gilbert Meilaender’s argument for why we should fix the beginning of individual human life slightly later than conception. Althouth my moral intuition told me there was something missing, I was beginning to be swayed by the Meilaender’s logic. Fortunately, my buddy Josiah Neely from Christus Victor set me straight by pointing out a rebuttal that I should have already known about.

Hidden in the appendix of the Bioethics council’s report on human cloning was a solid presentation of why we should accept that life begins at conception rather than implementation (note to self: always read the appendix). While Robert George’s lengthy reply deserves a close reading, I’ll highlight the two areas that refute Meilaender’s two main premises:

(1) Some have claimed that the phenomenon of monozygotic twinning shows that the embryo in the first several days of its gestation is not a human individual. The suggestion is that as long as twinning can occur, what exists is not yet a unitary human being but only a mass of cells – each cell is totipotent and allegedly independent of the others.

It is true that if a cell or group of cells is detached from the whole at an early stage of embryonic development, then what is detached can sometimes become a distinct organism and has the potential to develop to maturity as distinct from the embryo from which it was detached (this is the meaning of "totipotent"). But this does nothing to show that before detachment the cells within the human embryo constituted only an incidental mass. Consider the parallel case of division of a flatworm. Parts of a flatworm have the potential to become a whole flatworm when isolated from the present whole of which they are part. Yet no one would suggest that prior to the division of a flatworm to produce two whole flatworms the original flatworm was not a unitary individual. Likewise, at the early stages of human embryonic development, before specialization by the cells has progressed very far, the cells or groups of cells can become whole organisms if they are divided and have an appropriate environment after the division. But that fact does not in the least indicate that prior to such an extrinsic division the embryo is other than a unitary, self-integrating, actively developing human organism. It certainly does not show that the embryo is a mere clump of cells.

In the first two weeks, the cells of the developing embryonic human being already manifest a degree of specialization or differentiation. From the very beginning, even at the two-cell stage, the cells differ in the cytoplasm received from the original ovum. Also they are differentiated by their position within the embryo. In mammals, even in the unfertilized ovum, there is already an "animal" pole (from which the nervous system and eyes develop)iv and a "vegetal" pole (from which the future "lower" organs and the gut develop). After the initial cleavage, the cell coming from the "animal" pole is probably the primordium of the nervous system and the other senses, and the cell coming from the "vegetal" pole is probably the primordium of the digestive system. Moreover, the relative position of a cell from the very beginning (that is, from the first cleavage) has an impact on its functioning. Monozygotic twinning usually occurs at the blastocyst stage, in which there clearly is a differentiation of the inner cell mass and the trophoblast that surrounds it (from which the placenta develops).

The orientation and timing of the cleavages are species specific, and are therefore genetically determined, that is, determined from within. Even at the two-cell stage, the embryo begins synthesizing a glycoprotein called "E-cadherin" or "uvomorulin," which will be instrumental in the compaction process at the eight-cell stage, the process in which the blastomeres (individual cells of the embryo at the blastocyst stage) join tightly together, flattening and developing an inside-outside polarity.vi And there is still more evidence, but the point is that from the zygote stage forward, the embryo, as well as maintaining homeostasis, is internally integrating various processes to direct them in an overall growth pattern toward maturity.vii

But the clearest evidence that the embryo in the first two weeks is not a mere mass of cells but is a unitary organism is this: if the individual cells within the embryo before twinning were each independent of the others, there would be no reason why each would not regularly develop on its own. Instead, these allegedly independent, noncommunicating cells regularly function together to develop into a single, more mature member of the human species. This fact shows that interaction is taking place between the cells from the very beginning (even within the zona pellucida, before implantation), restraining them from individually developing as whole organisms and directing each of them to function as a relevant part of a single, whole organism continuous with the zygote. Thus, prior to an extrinsic division of the cells of the embryo, these cells together do constitute a single organism. So, the fact of twinning does not show that the embryo is a mere incidental mass of cells. Rather, the evidence clearly indicates that the human embryo, from the zygote stage forward, is a unitary, human organism.

(3) We now turn to the third argument. Some people, apparently, are moved to believe that embryonic human beings are not worthy of full moral respect because a high percentage of embryos formed in natural pregnancies fail to implant or spontaneously abort. Again, we submit that the inference is fallacious.

It is worth noting first, as the standard embryology texts point out, that many of these unsuccessful pregnancies are really due to incomplete fertilizations. So, in many cases, what is lost is not actually a human embryo. To be a complete human organism (a human being), the entity must have the epigenetic primordia for a functioning brain and nervous system, though a chromosomal defect might only prevent development to maximum functioning (in which case it would be a human being, though handicapped). If fertilization is not complete, then what is developing is not an organism with the active capacity to develop itself to the mature (even if handicapped) state of a human.

Second, the argument here rests upon a variant of the naturalistic fallacy. It supposes that what happens in "nature," i.e., with predictable frequency without the intervention of human agency, must be morally acceptable when deliberately caused. Since embryonic death in early miscarriages happens with predictable frequency without the intervention of human agency, the argument goes, we are warranted in concluding that the deliberate destruction of human beings in the embryonic stage is morally acceptable.

The unsoundness of such reasoning can easily be brought into focus by considering the fact that historically, and in some places even today, the infant mortality rate has been very high. If the reasoning under review here were sound, it would show that human infants in such circumstances could not be full human beings possessing a basic right not to be killed for the benefit of others. But that of course is surely wrong. The argument is a non sequitur.

I find this rebuttal extremely damning to Dr. Meilaender’s argument and provides an adequate justification for why we should consider individual human life to begin at conception. I owe Josiah a debt of gratitude for setting me straight on this issue.

Fertilization or Implantation?: Reconsidering the 'Morning-After Pill"

Is the morning-after pill abortion? That’s the question two columnists from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution tackle in an article highlighted by Julie Ann Fidler. While Fidler presents an interesting personal perspective, the two columnists, Diane Glass and Shaunti Feldhahn, merely succeed in talking past one another. Too bad. This is an important question that shouldn’t simply be filed under the typical pro-life/pro-choice categories.

The controversy surrounding the issue is whether the morning-after pill should be classified as an abortofacient or a form of contraception. Abortofacients are drugs or devices which cause an abortion within the weeks of pregnancy. 'Emergency contraception", however, work by either inhibiting or delaying ovulation; inhibiting tubal transport of the egg or sperm; interfering with fertilization; or by altering the endometrium (the lining of the uterus). The first three processes are no different than ordinary contraception. It is only in preventing implementation of the fertilized egg that the line between contraception and abortofacient becomes blurred.

Ordinarily I would automatically assume that preventing implementation would be no different than performing a first trimester abortion. Once conception occurred and life began, I would have assumed that any attempt to end the process would be the equivalent of an abortion. But then an argument by Christian bioethicist Gilbert Meilaender caused me to rethink my position:

[There] are some good reasons to hesitate, reasons why we might fix the beginning of individual human life slightly later than conception. For one thing, the fertilized ovum must successfully implant in the uterus before pregnancy is established and research seems to indicate that as many as half of fertilized ova may fail to implant successfully. If any figure even approaching that is accurate, and if an individual life begins at fertilization, we would be forced to conclude that half of the human race dies after a life of four to five days. Although that is logically possible, it is also rather counterintuitive. Moreover, for the first fourteen days after fertilization, the individuality of the developing entity is not firmly established. Up to that point, the developing blastocyst can 'segment" -- that is, 'twinning" can occur if the one blasotcyst divides into two (or more) of the same genotype. Therefore, it is difficult to argue that individual human beings exist prior to that point. (George Meilaender, Bioethics (pg. 31))

From this, Meilander concludes that emergency contraception is more like contraception than abortifacient procedures.

I must admit that I find the argument compelling and believe this position would resolve many of the difficulties associated with unwanted pregnancies. By fixing, as Meilaender says, 'the beginning of individual human life slightly later than conception" we narrow the window of abortion even further and provide an alternative 'choice" that removes many of the excuses for having a first trimester abortion. This also has the effect of limiting the scope of Roe’s 'first trimester" to a ten week window.

Meilander’s position is not without its difficulties and I haven’t made up my mind whether to accept his conclusion. But it does show that the issue is more nuanced than we might have considered. Whatever position we eventually decide upon, though, we should base it on solid moral reasoning rather than predigested arguments.

Update: Thanks to Josiah Neely I've found a solid rebuttal to this position that strengthens the case for why life begins at conception.

The Martyr Plateau:
Is the Supply of Palestinian Suicide Bombers Limited?

Yesterday Meryl Yourish pointed out that despite the expected outbreak of violence in Israel, the death of Sheik Yassin has not led to "earthquakes" of revenge." James Joyner agreed that this could be viewed as a "positive sign" but added:

I'm afraid there's no "winning" this war in the short term. The supply of fanatics seems inexhaustable.

Joyner is a former Army intelligence officer and one of the most insightful bloggers I know. But he appears to accept one of the most basic myths about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For, contrary to common misperception, the supply of suicide bombers is surprisingly limited.

In the past ten years there have been 99 suicide bombings in Israel. While it is difficult to estimate how many attempts were prevented, it is probably a safe estimate to assume the Israeli security forces catch 9 bombers for every 1 that slips through. That would average out to 100 people willing to become suicide bombers every year for the past decade. That is not, of course, an insignificant number. The damage and loss of life that would result if these terrorists were "successful" would be devastating. But when we look at the overall numbers the supply of willing martyrs is much smaller than might be assumed.

Before we can assess the pathology of the bombers, we should first look at the "normal" rates of suicide in the region. Israeli has a population of 5.1 million Jewish citizens, of which 350 people commit suicide each year. Another 1500 attempts are documented, though because of underreporting the actual attempts could be as high as 3,500 to 4,000. We can consider this the baseline for the number of potential suicides that would be expected.

The total Palestine population in the region is 8.7 million, with 3.7 million living in the West Bank and Gaza. The suicide rate for Palestinians, therefore, should be about the same (or even slightly higher) which would lead us to expect 2500 suicide attempts every year.

If we accept the "root cause" theory (the idea that hardships drive Palestinians to become terrorists) we should expect to find a large percentage of those already prone to suicidal tendencies to be willing to die for the cause. Considering all the privileges and benefits of martyrdom, the supply of bombers should actually exceed the number of people who would normally not be driven to take their own lives.

Yet the actual numbers show this is not the case. Each year (on average) .0000001% of the population becomes a bomber (1 for every 87,000 residents). If we consider that only the people from the occupied territories are willing to sacrifice their lives we find that the number only increases to .000002% of the population (1 for every 37,000 residents).

Why are there so few bombers relative to both the overall population and the number of regular suicides? The most likely explanation is that martyrdom appeals to only a small fraction of the population and has nothing to do with normal "root causes" such as economic hardship. Statistically, we should expect a fixed percentage of the Palestinian population to be susceptible to a "martyr complex" with the total numbers reaching a plateau level after the number is reached. Increases in "demand" for more bombers isn't likely to produce a corresponding increase in "supply", even when presented with additional incentives (i.e., Saddam's $25,000 bonuses for the bomber's family). While Hamas and Islamic Jihad may wish for more people to die for the cause, the recruiting pool appears to remain stagnant.

The Future of Terrorism: Part I -- Knowledge-Enabled Mass Destruction

In November 1984, Fred Cohen, an electrical engineering student from USC, performed an experiment for a weekly seminar on computer security. It took Cohen eight hours to develop a new program called 'vd" which displayed Unix file structures graphically. He provided the program on a Unix system bulletin board and once programmers downloaded it to their system, Cohen was able to acquire, without the knowledge of the users, the system rights to their machines. After the success of the experiment on the Unix system, it became apparent that the same techniques would work on many other systems.

Len Adleman, a colleague of Cohen, called the new technique a 'virus."

From the experiment, Cohen concluded, 'Viral attacks appear to be easy to develop in a very short time, can be designed to leave few if any traces in most current systems, are effective against modern security policies for multilevel usage, and require only minimal expertise to implement." Cohen was right. Three years later, the first PC virus, known as Brain, was written in Pakistan and ushered in a new age of economic terrorism. It is estimated that between 2001-2003, PC viruses cost businesses 98 billion dollars.

Computer viruses provide a model for the interconnection between an inherent trait of human nature (malevolence) and newly harnessed biological concept (self-replication). Viruses have no purpose other than destruction and require for their creation nothing more than a programmer with a malicious intent. Considering the fact that there are over 60,000 such viruses in existence, there appears to be no lack of would-be evil geniuses ready to unleash their monsters on the world.

But what gives the programs their power is their ability to self-replicate. The viruses not only infect a computer or a system but have the ability to recreate themselves in order to infect others. This provides an exponential increase in their destructive impact. Self-replication has an incredible power that, once unleashed, is nearly impossible to control. When unleashed in the form of a computer virus the power can bring computer systems to a grinding halt, causing significant expense and reductions in productivity. But what will happen when self-replication is combined with other forms of technology? As Sun Microsystems cofounder Bill Joy wrote almost four years ago*:

Accustomed to living with almost routine scientific breakthroughs, we have yet to come to terms with the fact that the most compelling 21st-century technologies - robotics, genetic engineering, and nanotechnology - pose a different threat than the technologies that have come before. Specifically, robots, engineered organisms, and nanobots share a dangerous amplifying factor: They can self-replicate. A bomb is blown up only once - but one bot can become many, and quickly get out of control.

Much of my work over the past 25 years has been on computer networking, where the sending and receiving of messages creates the opportunity for out-of-control replication. But while replication in a computer or a computer network can be a nuisance, at worst it disables a machine or takes down a network or network service. Uncontrolled self-replication in these newer technologies runs a much greater risk: a risk of substantial damage in the physical world.

What was different in the 20th century? Certainly, the technologies underlying the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) - nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) - were powerful, and the weapons an enormous threat. But building nuclear weapons required, at least for a time, access to both rare - indeed, effectively unavailable - raw materials and highly protected information; biological and chemical weapons programs also tended to require large-scale activities.

…

The 21st-century technologies - genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics (GNR) - are so powerful that they can spawn whole new classes of accidents and abuses. Most dangerously, for the first time, these accidents and abuses are widely within the reach of individuals or small groups. They will not require large facilities or rare raw materials. Knowledge alone will enable the use of them.

Thus we have the possibility not just of weapons of mass destruction but of knowledge-enabled mass destruction (KMD), this destructiveness hugely amplified by the power of self-replication.

At the time the article was written it would have been easy to dismiss Joy as a Cassandra ranting against technological progress. After 9/11, though, ignoring such claims as the musings of a Luddite are both dangerous and naïve. Though we are unlikely to give up our idol of technological progress we can at least prepare for the inevitable unintended consequences that will emerge. Such exercises in foresight, however, should not lead us to despair. As Italian revolutionary Antonio Gramsci said, 'I'm a pessimist because of intelligence, but an optimist because of will." We also must have the courage to face the truth about the future while never losing the will to change it for the better.

Next we’ll examine how the self-replication and the synthetic biology revolution may pose a greater threat than nuclear weapons.

*Link via: Daniel McConchie

The Fury of a Scorned Academic: Salon.com on Dr. Blackburn (Pt. III)

Bloggers have a curious relationship with the media. When we find a story that we disagree with we ruthlessly fact-check every statement in order to find weaknesses. When we agree with the story, though, we never think to second guess the accuracy of what we’re being told.

When I first heard the claims that Dr. Elizabeth Blackburn had been removed from the President’s Council on Bioethics for political reasons I became suspicious. I'd been in the process of reading the council reports and meeting transcripts when the story broke and the facts didn’t fit correspond with Blackburn’s claims (I wrote several posts (1, 2, 3) documenting the discrepancies).

Numerous bloggers, however, jumped on the story as evidence that Council chairman Leon Kass was 'stacking the deck" with like-minded cronies. No one, it seemed, found it necessary to check to see if it were true. No one, it appears, except for Farhad Manjoo, a staff writer for Salon.com. In a recent article in which he criticizes Bush’s policies, Mr. Manjoo took the time to clear the problems with Blackburn’s claims:

To critics of the Bush administration, Blackburn's analysis of the situation sounded unimpeachable. George W. Bush's unhappy relationship with science has been well documented. Indeed, just a week before Blackburn was let go, 60 prominent scientists -- including 20 Nobel laureates -- accused the president of routinely mangling scientific fact in the service of "partisan political ends." So just about everyone concluded that Elizabeth Blackburn was the latest victim of the Bush administration's partisan attacks on science. The story line was simple and compelling: Blackburn was a proponent of embryonic stem cell research, while Bush -- and his most ardent supporters -- was not. During a campaign stop shortly after Blackburn's dismissal, likely Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry told reporters, "A scientific panel ought to be chosen on the basis of science and on the basis of reputation, not politics."

The problem is that this simple story line is almost certainly wrong. Interviews with several members of the council -- including its chairman, University of Chicago ethicist Leon Kass -- and, more important, a review of its meetings and reports on stem cell research show Blackburn's charges of partisanship to be weak. It's not at all clear that Blackburn was dismissed for her views, rather than for her performance on the council (she was, for starters, serially absent from meetings, missing about half, more than any other member). And the council's reports -- particularly its lengthy inquiry into stem cell research, which the council released in January -- bear none of the biases she has accused the council of harboring.

The reshuffling of the President's Council on Bioethics is probably not, in other words, just another in a long line of Bush's scientific misdeeds. The real story of the bioethics council, the one that's been lost in the hail of political accusations, is that it has done some fascinating and admirable work -- and rather than letting the president off the hook, the council's report on stem cell research actually highlights the unsustainability of Bush's policy.

Perhaps now, some of the bloggers (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9) who believed the claims will take the time to check the evidence and find that they were duped. Perhaps they will even apologize and provide a correction. Perhaps they will show that they have a modicum of integrity.

Perhaps. But I won’t be holding my breath.

Human Dignity and the 3% Difference

Dallas Police have recently come under scrutiny for using deadly force to subdue a local resident named Jabari. Two women and a 3-year-old boy were assaulted by Jabari before he turned on police and was shot six times. Some citizens, however, are disturbed that the police didn’t resort to non-lethal means before applying deadly force and have even considered the shooting a 'murder." "Probing questions must be asked and answered," said Don Feare, a local lawyer. "Let our call go out to [Dallas] Mayor Laura Miller and the council to ask the hard questions."

The night after the shooting a small group of mourners held a candlelight vigil to mourn Jabari’s death and to protest the police use of lethal force. "I'm sorry about the families that were hurt -- especially the baby," said area resident Jarrod Garrett "We just wish the zookeepers were there before the police."

Zookeepers? Oh yeah, did I forget to mention that Jabari was a 340 lb. gorilla?

Perhaps its symptomatic of our age that we put the rights of an animal before the safety of an innocent child. While the modern concept of 'animal rights" began over two hundred years ago when the English social reformer Henry Salt wrote 'Animals' Rights: Considered in Relation to Social Progress (1892)", the movement has only gained momentum over the past thirty years.

One of the key proponents of the philosophy is the Princeton ethicist Peter Singer. In a 1989 essay titled 'All Animals Are Equal', Singer asked why human’s have more intrinsic dignity than other animals:

The truth is that the appeal to the intrinsic dignity of human beings appears to solve the egalitarian's problems only as long as it goes unchallenged. Once we ask why it should be that all humans—including infants, mental defectives, psychopaths, Hitler, Stalin, and the rest—have some kind of dignity or worth that no elephant, pig, or chimpanzee can ever achieve, we see that this question is as difficult to answer as our original request for some relevant fact that justifies the inequality of humans and other animals. In fact, these two questions are really one: talk of intrinsic dignity or moral worth only takes the problem back one step, because any satisfactory defence of the claim that all and only humans have intrinsic dignity would need to refer to some relevant capacities or characteristics that all and only humans possess. Philosophers frequently introduce ideas of dignity, respect, and worth at the point at which other reasons appear to be lacking, but this is hardly good enough. Fine phrases are the last resource of those who have run out of arguments.

I must admit that Singer has a point. Appeals to dignity must have some basis in either 'relevant capacities or characteristics" that can be used to distinguish the intrinsic dignity of humans from other animals. Christians and Jews are able to claim that our dignity rests upon being created in imagio dei, in the image of God. Secular critics, of course, might disagree with our reasoning but what basis can they build their own case?

After all, the genetic differences between humans and gorillas are miniscule. We have 97% of the same chromosomes as gorillas and 98% of the same genetic material as chimpanzees (in fact, chimps are -- genetically speaking -- more like us than they are like gorillas). It would hardly be fair to exclude primates from equality with humans on the basis of a 3% difference. And as Singer points out, 'some humans who quite clearly are below the level of awareness, self-consciousness, intelligence, and sentience, of many non-humans." Without a significant basis in either genetics or characteristics, what grounds do secularists have for not including these animals under the 'equal protection" clause of the Constitution? I’m curious to hear their reasoning as, I’m sure, are the few thousand gorillas, chimps, and orangutans now in captivity.

Ann Richards, Comedian

With all of the fuss being made about Bush’s WMD joke, another quip slipped beneath the media’s radar. Ann Richards, the most overrated former governor in the history of Texas, made a name for herself at the 1988 Democratic National convention with her remark that George H.W. Bush was born 'with a silver foot in his mouth." Now at the Democratic unity rally for Kerry she turns her wit on her fellow Democrats:

"[The Republicans] drove us into each other's arms," former Texas Gov. Ann Richards said. "We are so united that, before their wives got wind of it, Joe Lieberman and Al Sharpton were on their way to San Francisco to get a marriage license."

The funniest thing about the joke is that she doesn’t even realize how ridiculous her party has become.

End of Week Roundup

Bad Art for Bad Music Pork Tornado has the 10 worst album covers of all time.

Notes to Myself I’ve often said, 'If only I knew then what I know now." Unfortunately, you can’t go back into your past to tell yourself what you know. But you can go into the future by sending yourself an email.

Simile of the Week From Jeffrey Collins: 'You don't get to take only the attributes of God you like. God isn't a buffet table where you get to pick and choose. God's more like the 72 oz. steak at The Big Texan. Either you eat the whole thing, or you're going to have to pay."

New Blog Alert One of my favorite commenters has finally given in and started her own blog. Mary Rose Maguire is a 'Life and Relationship Coach" who focuses on training single women in identifying valuable character traits in men for the purpose of marriage (glad my wife didn’t know about her before we married or I would have been in trouble). She started her blog, Find Your Path, in order to provide encouragement to others so stop by and encourage her in the new venture.

A Libertarian No More Mitch Berg has an interesting piece on why he isn’t a libertarian. I wrote a similar post before but Mitch’s point of view is one of a former 'true believer."

Re-Praiseal Several months ago I wrote about how Bill Wallo is one of my favorite bloggers. Since then he has only gotten better. Like me, Bill comes from the Stephen De Beste School of Blogging, so his posts tend to be longer than what you might be used to. But who have a longer attention span than an MTV viewer will appreciate his well-thought out points and solid arguments. Bill is one of the rare types who actually thinks before he forms an opinion (an approach I’m trying to learn from him). If you haven’t visited his blog before, now would be a good time. He has a slew of interesting posts up that would serve as a proper introduction.

Is the Christian God a Pacifist?

Over the past few days Josh Claybourn has taken criticism for a post he wrote comparing the death of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin to the evil Saruman of the Lord of the Rings. While I think his detractors are completely out of line, Josh has been more than capable of responding to their absurd accusations, so I won’t attempt to defend him here.

What I would like to respond to, however, is the inane and unbiblical motif that has been floating beneath the surface of these critiques. Since the theme is being espoused by Christian bloggers for whom I have the utmost respect I can only hope that I am completely off base in my assessment. But I feel compelled to correct the misunderstanding: God is not a pacifist.

This may strike some people as rather obvious and others as quite absurd. But any Christian who takes the Bible seriously must either concede that point or suffer from a self-imposed cognitive dissonance. Believing that Christ is the Son of God requires accepting that he is the same Being as the 'Old Testament God." You can’t point to Jesus as evidence to deny the warlike characteristics of God without doing violence to the doctrine of the Trinity.

We attempt to exclude God's warlike attributes by focusing on other more "gentle" traits. But that leaves us with the question of which is the "real God." Is God a God of 'justice" or is He a God of 'mercy?' He is, of course, both. Justice and Mercy, and Love and all the other attributes of God are one because God is one. We cannot pick and choose our favorites among these attributes. We must accept God as He is and accept that He appears to have a 'warlike" nature it is precisely because of these very characteristics. Keeping this in mind will also help us gain a better understanding of the nature of war.

As Christians we are called to recognize the authority of the State. But what authority is higher than the State? Many people assume that there is an objective 'international law" that binds all sovereign nations but this is an illusion. Nation-states may find it in their best interest to submit to a 'social contract" with other states but they are not submitting to a higher authority only subordinating some of their own to another body (i.e., the United Nations). Though they may face severe consequences for doing so, nations are free to opt out of international law agreements anytime they choose (as Saddam did in Iraq). There is only one authority higher than the nation-state and that is the one who establishes this power in the first place -- God.

The State is not only authorized by God to carry out certain tasks but is compelled by a duty to do so. (Just like individuals, nation-states will not escape God’s judgment because they do not accept Him.) Since all states have the same fundamental duties we can consider them to be 'just" if they perform them in ways that are consistent with God’s expressed will. Two of the most important duties that must be carried out by any 'just" nation are to protect the good and punish the evil.

In order for the State to carry out these duties, they may be required to resort to war. Throughout church history, Christians have debated the reasons which justify resorting to such an extreme measure with this collective wisdom being handed down to us in the concepts of the 'Just War." I’ll save the argument for how the 'war on terror" fits the criteria of a 'just war" until a later date. For now I want to discuss the attitude we should have when we carry out our duty to restrain evil.

Since many of the bloggers I’ve previously mentioned have expressed dismay over the killing of Sheikh Yassin, I’ll use him as my example. While the issues surrounding his death are debatable, certain facts are indisputable: Sheikh Yassin was an avowed enemy of the state of Israel whose actions had lead to the death of innocent civilians; Yassin was still conspiring to murder Jewish citizens; The Israeli Army, carrying out their 'holy vocation" as soldiers, killed him when they had the right opportunity; Yassin was an enemy combatant in a guerrilla war against the state.

Clearly, his killing falls within Israel’s duty to 'protect the good" and 'punish evil.' The question remains, however, what attitude should we take toward Yassin’s death? As a Christian I believe we must always recognize the dignity of even the most debased human being and we should not take pleasure in their death. What we can take, however, is satisfaction in knowing that evil has been restrained. In fact, we should praise the Israeli government and its soldiers for upholding the 'Godly Virtues" of Justice and Mercy. What we must not do is act as if we should regret the death of this terrorist. As C.S. Lewis wrote in Mere Christianity:

"War is a dreadful thing, and I can respect an honest pacifist, though I think he is entirely mistaken. What I cannot understand is this sort of semi-pacifism you get nowadays which gives the people the idea that though you have to fight, you ought to do it with a long face as if you were ashamed of it."

Unlike Lewis, I can’t say that I respect pacifism. But I do share in his perplexity over the idea that we should feel ashamed of doing what God has ordained. And like Bene I am, 'saddened and sickened and occasionally angry when I see goodness or hope or faith being mocked or trivialized by those who claim to hold it." That is why I have little tolerance for pacifist arguments and attitudes. Goodness, hope, and faith sometimes require that we go to war, not as a 'necessary evil" but as a 'positive good." Those who refuse to acknowledge that fact should recognize that that their view is shaped more by the idol of humanistic ideology than by the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Semper Fu: A Day in the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program

Apologizing for 'light blogging" is rather pretentious. As the Comrade once said, 'I hate to be the one to tell you ... but we will survive. Really. With support of my family, I think I will be able to get by the next day or two without an update from ‘YourDailyNanoBlogPundit.com.’'

He has a good point and I won’t insult you by apologizing for the paucity of posts over the past few days. What I will do, though, is give an explanation for the lack of output (and yes, there is a difference).

For the past week I’ve been working on earning my 'gray belt", the second rung on the ladder of the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program. Since I haven’t had much time (or energy) to keep abreast of the latest news and current events, I’ve been left with little to blog about. So in order to produce something I’ve decided to post about what I did today (normal blogging will resume soon):

0550 -- Wake up -- Instantly regret having stayed up until 1 A.M. writing a blog post about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
0720 -- Arrive at the base -- Think to myself, 'What other job would pay you to learn martial arts. I can’t believe I get paid to do this."
0730 -- Pull up to training site -- Think to myself (while watching my fellow Marines put on their body armor and helmets), 'What kind of job requires you to wear this stuff. I don’t get paid enough for this."
0740 -- Warm up (½ mile run) -- After running while wearing body armor and a helmet I realize why Nike doesn’t produce athletic clothing made from Kevlar.
0755 -- Body hardening drills -- There is no greater compliment you can give a Marine than to say that they are 'hard.' Hard is a mysterious, intangible personality trait that belies definition. Hard, however, also has a physical component. In order to become hardened physically we go through a series of drills in which we: slam our femur bones together, kick each other on the side of the thigh, kick each other in the inner thighs, and punch each other in the abs. I realize, to my dismay, that I am neither 'hard" nor 'hard."
0810 -- Hip throws (see photo) -- Imagine being lifted three feet into the air, put in a horizontal position (with your feet slightly higher than your head), and then dropped onto a slab of concrete. That’s what happens during a hip throw. You‘re picked up and slammed to the ground. Hard. Extremely hard. 'Dang-I‘m-gonna-feel-that-tomorrow" hard. The throwing part is easy; falling is the more difficult task. After lots of practice, however, I was able to master the art of being thrown to the ground. Now I’m almost always able to do it without crying like a little girl.
0955 -- Knife fighting techniques -- After almost two hours of being body slammed, practicing knife fighting techniques was a welcome reprieve. I was motivated to learn such skill in case anyone ever attempts to use a hip throw on me again. I’d have no qualms about stabbing somebody over that.
1100 -- Lunch -- Consider going to my office and post an excuse for the light blogging (too sore, too tired) but then remember that 'blogger apologies" are lame. Decide to go to Burger King instead.
1305 -- Front choke -- We learn techniques for the 'blood choke" which cuts off the carotid artery. Once the blood supply to the brain is cut off your opponent passes out. For some reason the only part I remember is my partner saying, 'Let me know if this is too tight…'
1400-- Counters to chokes and holds -- During this period of instruction we're taught how to break out of a front choke, a front head lock, and a front bear hug. Now if I’m every attacked by a wrestler from the WWE I’ll know exactly what to do.
1445 -- Unarmed manipulations -- When I first went to Boot Camp in the late ‘80s, our close combat instruction was comprised almost entirely of ways to deliver a 'killing blow." In the new program the majority of the techniques consist of non-lethal ways to immobilize our opponent. The U.S. has the most lethal military in the history of the world and yet we go out of our way to reduce the number of casualties that we inflict. That’s just one more reason I love my country.
1515 -- Weapons of opportunity -- The MCMAP’s slogan is 'one mind, any weapon." If we don’t have a rifle, bayonet, or knife handy we can always pick up a stick and put a whooping on the enemy.
1545 -- Bull in the Ring -- Our class consists of eighteen Marines ranging in age from 18 to 45. For the final event of the day we form a circle with one Marine in the center. One by one, a Marine runs toward the man in the center who uses a hip throw to toss them aside. This is repeated until he throws every man in the circle. We each take our turn, throwing and being thrown. We toss seventeen men and seventeen men toss us. By the end I’m wondering why I didn’t join the Air Force.
1630 -- Prepare to Leave I cringe after hearing my instructor say, 'Be prepared for tomorrow. It won’t be as easy as it was today."
1700 …5 p.m. -- Conversation with my wife:

My wife: 'How was your day."
Me: 'It was fine."
My wife: 'Anything interesting happen.'
Me: (pause) 'Nah, not really…"

Is the State of Israel Insane?: Perceptions and Reality in Israel's War on Terror

According to Benjamin Franklin, '"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." By this definition we can conclude that the government of Israel is insane. Why else would they continue to assassinate leaders of Hamas and Islamic Jihad as a way to hinder terrorism? Because, as everyone knows, such actions only lead to more terrorist violence, right?

Wrong.

The Israelis live in a land that is considered strange and foreign to many American editorial writers and pundits. And no, the land in question isn’t the Middle East but rather a place called 'Reality." To live within the realm of Reality requires accepting logic, facts, and certain hard truths that don’t always fit conveniently within a preconceived theory of how the world is supposed to work. This requirement often excludes many otherwise intelligent people from accepting citizenship in that land.

Since the state of Israel, however, would cease to exist if it ever believed the perceptions portrayed in many areas of the American media, it’s probably worth examining some of these differences:

Perception -- Assassinating leaders of Hamas doesn’t hinder terrorism.
Reality -- Killing the leaders of Hamas and Islamic Jihad have a significant impact on future terrorist activity. As David Plotz explained in Slate almost three years ago:

The military logic of assassination is this: Murdering operatives saps the effectiveness of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Assassination not only neutralizes the dead man, it also forces other terrorists to go underground. Since they know Israel may kill them, they spend much of their time running and less time plotting terror. Without skilled bomb-makers and planners, Hamas and Islamic Jihad should have more difficulty infiltrating Israel and carrying out deadly assaults. There are already hints that this is happening. The quality of bombers seems to be dropping. Numerous Palestinians have been killed or wounded in bomb-making accidents, several bombers have been caught before they could detonate their explosives, and some of the bombers who have detonated have not managed to kill any Israelis. So even though Israel knows that assassinations enrage Palestinians and swell the ranks of would-be bombers, it is counting on degrading Hamas and Islamic Jihad faster than the new volunteers can restore them.

Perception -- Most Palestinians don’t support terrorism.
Reality -- A poll taken in September 2003 showed that 79% of the respondents don’t’ consider Palestinian bombings of Israeli buses and restaurants to be acts of terrorism. On the other hand, 84% of the respondents do consider attacks by Israelis against Hamas and Islamic Jihad leaders to be acts of terrorism.

Perception --Palestinian terrorism is due to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza
Reality -- The Palestine Liberation Organization was created three years before the occupation in 1967.

Perception -- Suicide bombing is caused by the Palestinian’s despair over not having their own homeland.
Reality -- Suicide bombing started after1993 Oslo Accords, which provided Palestinians with their best opportunity for an independent state.

Perception -- The success of suicide bombing is dependent on the number of willing martyrs.
Reality -- The success of suicide bombing is dependent on such factors as: the capacity to get past Israeli security, the ability to fashion hidden explosive devices, and the ability to obtain professional-grade explosives.

Perception -- Retaliation creates more people willing to become suicide bombers.
Reality -- There are 3.7 million Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza yet there have only been 127 bombings in the last ten years (2004 -- 5; 2003 -- 22; 2002 -- 44; 2001 -- 36; 2000 -- 4; 1999 -- 0; 1998 -- 1; 1997 -- 3; 1996-- 4; 1995-- 4 ; 1994-- 4). Even if Israel were to concede to every demand of the Palestinians a handful of the populous would continue to seek the annihilation of the Zionist state.

Bioethics Roundup

New Blog Alert Daniel McConchie not only has a job I envy (director of Public Relations and Public Policy for The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity) but his new blog (McConchie on Bioethics) puts mine to shame. Anyone who thinks that bioethical issues are important -- and that should be everyone -- should add McConchie’s blog to their daily reading. Don’t miss it.

Ban Watch Brazil is on the verge of passing legislation that would ban research on embryonic stem cells as well as all forms of human cloning.

Assisted Suicide I The Liberal Democrat party in Great Britain has voted overwhelmingly to adopt medically assisted suicide as part of its official policy.

Assisted Suicide II Oregon has seen a slight increase (38 in 2002; 42 in 2003) in the number of medically assisted suicides.

Adult Stem Cells New research on mice is raising hope that ASCs may lead to a cure for baldness.

Virginia Doesn't Get It In the interest of full disclosure let me confess that I’ve never been impressed by Virginia Postrel’s blog. I’ve never found her arguments very convincing and her posts on bioethics rival on Glenn Reynolds in their complete lack of substance. One of her recent entries helps illustrate this point:

The United States has a politically influential religious right and a cultural tradition of distrusting government intervention in private affairs. (That's "distrusting" not "never allowing.") Canada has neither a politically influential religious right nor any cultural tradition of distrusting government regulation. Guess which country has banned cloning human cells for research?

Postrel appears not to have considered that there could possibly be valid reasons for banning cloning that have nothing to do with the 'religious right."

Update: In response to Mike's remarks in the comments section, Dan McConchie has added an excellent post explaining some of the reasons why we shouldn't kill embryos for 'therapy'.

The Palestinian Exemption: Our Immoral Double Standard on Terrorism

Earlier this month I was encouraged by my country’s willingness to stand with our Spanish allies when they were attacked by terrorists. The refrain of 'We are all Spaniards now" rang out from both ends of the political spectrum. But now, only two weeks later, I’m getting the sense that we don’t always stand with our friends when they are targeted by groups that wish to annihilate them. Or perhaps 'We are all Jews now" just wouldn’t be as catchy.

After Israeli forces killed Sheik Ahmed Yassin, the founder of Hamas who was known as the 'godfather of suicide bombers", the U.S., along with every other country engaged in the war against terror, should have cheered. Yassin, after all, is cut from the same cloth as bin Laden, differing, perhaps, only in the number of civilian casualties that can be attributed to him. But as we now know, that is not what happened.

The fact that the European Union condemned the action came as no surprise. The virus of appeasement infected that continent forty years ago and continues its malignant spread through the body politic. But the hypocrisy of the Bush Administration is astounding. Denouncing the assassination as 'deeply troubling" while conducting operations to hunt down and kill bin Laden is morally repugnant.

Wasn’t it Bush who claimed that the U.S. would make, 'no distinction between those who committed these acts [of terrorism] and those who harbor them"? So why would we be troubled by the death of a leader of what our own State Department classifies as a 'terrorist organization?' More specifically, why do we continually turn a blind eye to terrorism when it is committed by Palestinians?

We invaded Afghanistan to overthrow the al Queda-harboring government. Yet when the Israelis kill a terrorist leader in their own borders we have the audacity to criticize the action. Instead of condeming our friends we should remain in constant awe of Israel’s restraint. As Lee Harris writes in his new book, 'Civilization and Its Enemies":

"If the Palestinian people were indeed a genuine state fighting a genuine war, they would have long since been annihilated root and branch or else forced to make a realistic accommodation with the state of Israel ... That [Palestinian] state will exist as a viable entity only by virtue of the liberal conscience -- and seemingly inexhaustible forbearance -- of the Israeli people." (pg. 30)

The fate of Palestine lies in the hands of the Palestinians. They know this and know that their refusal to accept responsibility for their own destiny is the only reason that they don't have a permanent homeland. Every nation should put as much pressure as they can muster to force this people to denounce their hatred and desire to annihilate their Jewish neighbors. Until then the Israeli government has the right -- has the moral duty -- to cut out terrorism, root and branch, from their land.

Unkosher Criticism: Glenn Reynolds Myopic View of Religious-Based Reasoning

It’s no secret that Glenn Reynolds dislikes the views of Leon Kass. Since Reynold’s radical libertarian views on bioethics (e.g., he favors reproductive cloning) are the polar opposite of the positions espoused by Kass it is inevitable that genuine disagreements are bound to arise. But to bring up Kass’ views on eating ice cream in public in order to cast aspersions on the man shows a deeper bias in effect:

As I noted earlier, Kass's views on this subject, while not specifically relevant to bioethics, "suggest a more generalized discomfort with the messy, physical side of life" that may explain his views in the bioethics arena. And it's a discomfort that puts him to the right -- if that's the proper characterization -- of Miss Manners, no less.

Well, no Mr. Reynolds, that’s not the proper characterization. Kass’ perspective is not based on politics but on religion -- he is, after all, a conservative Jew. You don’t have to be well-versed in the tenets of the religion to realize that regulations on food have a profound importance in Judaism. As one resource notes:

In his book "To Be a Jew" (an excellent resource on traditional Judaism), Rabbi Hayim Halevy Donin suggests that the dietary laws are designed as a call to holiness. The ability to distinguish between right and wrong, good and evil, pure and defiled, the sacred and the profane, is very important in Judaism. Imposing rules on what you can and cannot eat ingrains that kind of self control, requiring us to learn to control even our most basic, primal instincts.

Donin also points out that the laws of kashrus elevate the simple act of eating into a religious ritual. The Jewish dinner table is often compared to the Temple altar in rabbinic literature. A Jew who observes the laws of kashrut cannot eat a meal without being reminded of the fact that he is a Jew. [emphasis added]

Now compare that to the actual quote that Reynolds refers to (but, oddly enough, never quotes in full):

Worst of all from this point of view are those more uncivilized forms of eating, like licking an ice cream cone --a catlike activity that has been made acceptable in informal America but that still offends those who know eating in public is offensive.

I fear I may by this remark lose the sympathy of many reader, people who will condescendingly regard as quaint or even priggish the view that eating in the street is for dogs. Modern America's rising tide of informality has already washed out many long-standing traditions -- their reasons long before forgotten -- that served well to regulate the boundary between public and private; and in many quarters complete shamelessness is treated as proof of genuine liberation from the allegedly arbitrary constraints of manners.

To cite one small example: yawning with uncovered mouth. Not just the uneducated rustic but children of the cultural elite are now regularly seen yawning openly in public (not so much brazenly or forgetfully as indifferently and "naturally"), unaware that it is an embarrassment to human self-command to be caught in the grip of involuntary bodily movements (like sneezing, belching, and hiccuping and even the involuntary bodily display of embarrassment itself, blushing). But eating on the street -- even when undertaken, say, because one is between appointments and has no other time to eat -- displays in fact precisely such lack of self-control: It beckons enslavement to the belly. Hunger must be sated now; it cannot wait. Though the walking street eater still moves in the direction of his vision, he shows himself as a being led by his appetites. Lacking utensils for cutting and lifting to mouth, he will often be seen using his teeth for tearing off chewable portions, just like any animal. Eating on the run does not even allow the human way of enjoying one's food, for it is more like simple fueling; it is hard to savor or even to know what one is eating when the main point is to hurriedly fill the belly, now running on empty. This doglike feeding, if one must engage in it, ought to be kept from public view, where, even if WE feel no shame, others are compelled to witness our shameful behavior."
Kass, Leon: The Hungry Soul at 148-149. (University of Chicago Press, 1994, 1999) [emphasis added]

Reynolds hasn’t expressed much interest in religion so it is understandable that he might not have drawn the connection between Kass’ religion and his views on eating. But I still find it rather disconcerting. Perhaps its symptomatic of our era that someone as intelligent and educated as Reynolds can only draw on a political framework in order to understand a person’s rationale. I can’t say who should be more embarrassed: Reynolds for being so dismissive of religious-based reasoning or those of us who value a Judeo-Christian heritage for allowing this culture of disdain to flourish.

Update: Glenn Reynolds adds:

"...this whole issue seems to call into question Kass's core argument: "The wisdom of repugnance." Kass finds eating ice cream in public repugnant. Hardly anyone else does. Sounds like aesthetics masquerading as moral reasoning to me."

Actually, I've already addressed this issue of the "wisdom of repugnance" also.

The Book That Launched A War: What Ever Happened to The Threatening Storm?

No current Iraq war conspiracy theory can be complete without a reference to Leo Strauss. Even before the war began, there were attempts to connect the Bush Administration’s 'neoconservative" foreign policy to the writings of the obscure political philosopher from the University of Chicago. The connection between Strauss, who died over 30 years, and the administration is laughably tenuous yet is espoused everywhere from New York theaters to the the House of Representatives.

Critics of the war who are looking to establish a literary connection, however, don’t have to resort to such odd theories. In fact, they don’t have to look any further than Kenneth Pollack. As the former Iran-Iraq military analyst for the CIA, and the director of Persian Gulf Affairs and Near East and South Asian Affairs for the National Security Council under Bill Clinton, Pollack has both the experience and credentials to make liberals take notice. When his book, The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq, debuted in 2002 it caused quite a splash among fence-sitters who were unwilling to accept the Republicans case for war. The New York Times claimed that Pollack‘s, 'argument for invading Iraq is surely the most influential book of this season, has provided intellectual cover for every liberal who finds himself inclining toward war but uneasy about Mr. Bush." According to The New Yorker, Pollack’s 'comprehensive and convincing" case for war was presented, 'More effectively than Dick Cheney or Paul Wolfowitz or any other of the hawkish big thinkers in the Administration…"

So where are Pollack’s critics now? Where are the anti-war protestors decrying that 'Pollack lied!" and that he duped the 'chickenhawks" into accepting that the war was necessary? We might also ask, 'Where is Pollack now?"

He’s still around. He continues to support his claims though he is, to some degree, backpedaling. Oddly his change of heart has less to do with the need to overthrow Saddam (which Pollack considered an inevitable necessity) than with the timing. His thoughts on WMDs, however, should be kept in mind by the Bush Administration’s critics. In a interview with The Atlantic Monthly (Dec. 30, 2003), Pollack made clear that Bush is not the only one who believed that Iraq had WMDs:

[The Atlantic] You too were a believer in the idea that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. How did that happen and on what evidence did you come to that conclusion?

My evidence came straight from the intelligence community. …I was certainly not alone in this—this was a consensus among the U.S. government, it was a consensus among the UN inspectors, it was a consensus of American experts outside the U.S. government. In fact, it was a consensus in the entire international community.

It's important to remember that any intelligence service or country with the ability to monitor Iraq and its weapons programs—Germany, France, Britain, Russia, Israel—was a hundred percent certain that Saddam had these programs. There may have been some debate over just how aggressive they were or how far along they were. The Germans were the most alarmist of all on the subject of a nuclear weapon. They thought the Iraqis might have one in as little as two or three years. Our own intelligence community tended to be a little more conservative; they thought it was more like four to six years away—or five to seven. But no one doubted that Saddam had these weapons.

...

So there would have been very few, if any, people, who ever posited, even as a hypothetical, that Iraq didn't have any imminent WMD programs?

I can't think of anyone who did not believe that the Iraqis had a weapons of mass destruction program. There was simply no one.

Perception, however, becomes reality. As P.T. Barnum said, 'There’s a sucker born every minute" and the 'Bush lied about WMDs" meme has spawned enough rubes to fill the tents of a three ring circus. But the next time someone spouts such nonsense ask them to point out who believed, prior to the invasion, that Iraq didn’t have those weapons.

Whether Pollack is correct in his assesment that the war could have been put off a few more years is debatable. One thing, however, remains certain. An invasion of the country and overthrow of Saddam was inevitable, a matter of 'when' rather than 'if." The case for war could have been made without Pollack’s book but there would have been fewer 'chickenhawks" along for the ride. Now that these same people are becoming less hawk and more chicken they need to answer for why they haven’t turned on the author who helped launch the war.

Corps Diplomacy

Mike the Marine shares some news from Iraq that you won’t be hearing about on CNN (note: names have been omitted to protect the privacy of the individuals involved):

Three Marines this past week stood out in their professionalism and humanity while participating in a vehicle patrol with an Army unit. The Patrol encountered an overturned truck in a canal and due to the gathering crowd could not pass. When the Marines learned an Iraqi man was trapped underwater in the truck they dismounted the vehicle, Sergeant Lxxxx established a secure perimeter while Sergeants Bxxxx and Wxxxx dropped their gear and entered the canal pulling the driver out. While the driver could not be resuscitated by an Iraqi doctor on the scene, the attitude of the crowd was noticeably and favorably changed when the Marines emerged from the water. Sergeants Lxxxx, Bxxxx, and Wxxxx demonstrated the very definition of our ethos "No better friend, no worse enemy." You should be proud of these Marines, I am.

I am too, Devil Dog. I am too.

(Hat tip: Blackfive)

End of Week Roundup

Following the Money Trail Do you have suspicions that your neighbor is up to no good? Are you wondering if he might be funding a subversive group such as…the Howard Dean campaign! Well, now you can find out. Fundrace tells you which of your neighbors has been contributing to political candidates. Now, when you discover that the lady across the street is a Kucinich supporter you’ll have a justification for calling the police about the “odd looking” plants she has growing under a heat lamp in her garage. (Hat tip: Infinite Monkeys)

The New Socialism Slate writer Chris Suellentrop has an excellent article on how socialism isn’t what it used to be.

A Preventable Condition? Rusty Lopez highlights an article from a doctor who asks, “Is Pregnancy Really Normal?” Do I even need to point out that this doctor works for an abortion clinic?

This Game Sponsored by PETA If you enjoyed the Yeti smacking the penguin game your sure to enjoy this seal toss.

King & King Some parents in North Carolina are upset about a library book their elementary-age daughter brought home: a children's story about a prince whose true love turns out to be another prince. (I guess Heather Has Two Mommies was already checked out.)

New Blog Alert Puctilious is the newest addition to the list of Hugh Hewitt Inspired blogs. Be sure to check out the posts on why we should pull our troops out of South Korea.

Zoning Regulations for the First Amendment: UNT's "Free Speech" Zones

Owen from Southern Appeal points out a photograph of a “free speech” zone at my old alma mater, the University of North Texas:

For those who can't make out the words, the plaque reads "Free Speech Area: To Schedule, Contact Dean of Students Office." That's pretty brazen, don't you think? As Truett muses, "if I were designing a university website, I'd think twice about whether or not the first thing I want people to notice is that, at my school, students are only allowed to exercise their free speech rights within specified zones, and by appointment only."

In his conclusion he asks, “Isn't it just good policy to abolish "free speech zones?"

I have a better suggestion. Why not just rename the areas “Freedom of Assembly Zones?”

The reason such zones are needed is because of the sheer size of the school. Currently there are about 30,000 students on a 500 acres campus, an increase of over 10,000 since 1987 when I was a freshman. I recall how even then it was difficult just getting from one end of the campus to another on a normal day; if there were a protest or other type of organized event you might as well skip class and stay in your dorm.

Call me old-fashioned but I think the first priority of any university should be to provide an education for its students. Obviously, organized student events have a role to play in that process but like everything else in academia it has to fit into the university’s structure. Besides, when space is limited declaring the entire campus a “free speech zone” could lead to chaos, especially now when virtually ever activity falls under the rubric of "speech.”

The problem, in my opinion, isn't so much in the concept but in the name. Even at UNT you have an almost unfettered right to free speech anywhere on the university. What you don’t have, however, is the ability to lead demonstrations and assemblies in undesignated areas.

Slippery Slopes and Androsexuals: The Inadequacies of Social Conservative Arguments

Follow the path of almost any social conservative’s arguments about culture and they will inevitably come to a slippery slope. For better or worse, the slippery slope argument has become a common appeal that we rely when we attempt to argue our point. We assume that their effectivness is dependent on others agreeing that an unacceptable conclusion awaits at the bottom of the slope. But what happens when the argument is effective but the outcome is not deemed objectionable? Where do we go from there? Matthew Yglesias provides us with a prime example:

I think the slippery slope argument against gay marriage actually works quite well. It's true as liberals say that nothing logically follows from gay marriage about, say, polygamy or any other wider questions. Nevertheless, as a causal matter I think conservatives are perfectly correct that the legalization of gay marriage will have a larger disturbing effect on the culture. Judith Butler, whose work receives much justifiable criticism, has quite wisely pointed out that the binary man/woman opposition is inextricably bound up with the heterosexual/homosexual one.

Legalizing gay marriage will be one more step down the road to dissolving these dual binaries and creating a more androgynous (or perhaps just gender-free) world. Unlike social conservatives, I regard this as a normatively good outcome, but I think their positive analysis is much more correct than the self-serving "nothing to see here" line coming from gay rights advocates who (understandably) are trying to upset as few people as possible. [emphasis added]

Before you dismiss Yglesias as a part of the lunatic fringe of liberalism, let me say a few words in his defense. While I almost never agree with his opinions, Yglesias is a smart guy. I would even go so far as to say that this Harvard philosophy grad is one of the rising intellectual stars on the left side of the political spectrum. You may fault his conclusions but he clearly attempts to put some serious thought into the positions he takes. (If he has one noticeable flaw is that he tends to wear his brain on his sleeve - he will say what he really thinks while more strategic liberals would be reticent to speak openly. If the left ever institutes a pogrom against conservatives you can count on Yglesias to be the one who unintentionally tips us off.)

Which is why I think his admission that a world of Ziggy Stardust clones is a 'normatively good outcome" deserves attention. I don’t want to make the case against gender norming (that is an argument for another day) but rather explore the question of how do we even begin to argue against such positions? We talk incessantly about slippery slopes yet we never explain how to keep from sliding all the way to the bottom. Nor do we know what to do when, like Yglesias, our opponents aren’t as concerned about the outcome. How then do we build the intellectual firebreaks that can impede the path to these outcomes? How to we prevent the unthinkable from becoming the inevitable?

While the issue deserves to be addressed by someone with more insight and intellect than I can muster, I have three modest suggestions:

First, we must realize that scoffing is not an argument. If we stacked all snaky tomes by Rush and Sean and Bill and Ann they would not fortify us against even the weakest liberal argument. Think for a moment how long Limbaugh has been on the radio. Now name one battle in the culture war in which he was instrumental in attaining a victory for our side. I can’t think of a single one. These pundits may bring the issues to our attention but they rarely provide adequate solutions to the problems they point out. We can’t rely on them to think for us; we have to do the intellectual heavy lifting ourselves. We would do well not to blindly imitate their approach.

Second, we have to become cultural missionaries, translating the components of our worldview in a way that can be understood by our opponents. Take, for example, an example of what Russell Kirk calls a 'common principle" of conservatism: the principle of prescription - a reliance on the 'wisdom of our ancestors." Since the Enlightenment, the inherent value of tradition and ancient learning has slowly been eroding. The liberal elite, in particular, have fallen for what C.S. Lewis termed 'chronological snobbery", the presumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that account discredited.

We can’t, therefore, simply make appeals to Tradition and think our work is done. Many, perhaps most, liberals can’t even fathom how such arguments could be coherent. That’s why it’s imperative for us to translate our position, whenever possible, into a form that liberals will accept. In my defense of Leon Kass’concept of the 'wisdom of repugnance", I tried (rather weakly I admit) to use the language of social science and even evolutionary biology in order to show the validity of the view. Both explanations lead to the same conclusion but the extended metaphors that are used appeal to different political mentalities. What works for us won’t always work for them.

Finally, I believe we also need an overall restoration of intellectual humility. There are things we can know and things that cannot be known. From the conservative side we need to be more humble about what can be known from both the past and the present. Rush may, as he claims, always be right. But the rest of us need to be more skeptical of our absolute certainty. Don’t get me wrong, this is not a call for epistemic relativism. Truth is not a social construct. But while there are some things that we can know with certainty, others we have to base on our best understanding (Christians, in particular, should have little problem accepting that our ability to know is bounded by our fallen humanity).

Liberals, on the other hand, need to be more humble about the future, especially when it comes to the idea of 'progress." This is not to say that we have to resort to technological Luddism. But chaos theory and the law of unintended consequences should be enough to give us pause before blindly accepting a Candide-like optimism about our ability to create the 'best of all possible worlds."

If social conservatives are ever going to make significant gains in affecting our culture we must do more to engage those who hold opposite viewpoints. Dismissing their arguments won’t make them go away. Talking past them won’t aid us in gaining their understanding. And acting as if we have all the answers will only expose the shallowness of our arguments. We must engage, understand, and take action. Otherwise the slippery slope will only get steeper.

The Battle in Seattle: Lawsuits Over Same-Sex Marriage Come From Both Sides

Forget San Francisco, Seattle is now the new battleground over same-sex marriage. King County is on the receiving end of two lawsuits, each from a different side of the issue. While one suit challenges the constitutionality of the state’s Defense of Marriage Act, another is using DOMA against the Mayor of Seattle’s decision to grant employee benefits to homosexual “married” couples.

According to the Seattle Times, four lesbian and two gay couples have sued King County Executive Ron Sims, a Democratic candidate for governor, and other officials after being denied marriage licenses. The suit attempts to use the 1972 Equal Rights Amendment to the state constitution, which “prohibits any law granting privileges to certain classes of citizens without applying them equally to everyone.” In a 1974 case, the state Court of Appeals ruled that the Equal Rights Amendment did not apply to same-sex marriage.

On the other side of the issue is the Pacific Justice Institute, which has joined forces with Affiliate Attorney K. Douglas Lee in claiming that the actions of Seattle mayor Grek Nikels, in issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples, was a clear violation of the state’s DOMA.

“This is another example of a mayor choosing to ignore the law that he has sworn an oath to execute,” declared Brad Dacus, President of the Pacific Justice Institute. “Political pandering to a particular interest group is never a valid justification for a complete disrespect for the law and breaching of the public trust. We are resolutely committed to protecting citizens against such legal violations.”

While I side with PJI and the rule of law, my sympathy lies with the county attorney. I would hate to be the one who has to defend against both of these cases at once.

Plucking Lies From Truth: Kerry’s Speech on the “21st Century Military"

Is John Kerry simply incapable of telling the truth? I ask that question in all sincerit because I'm having a hard time finding the motive behind his propensity for dishonesty. Unlike some politicians who lie in order to protect themselves, Kerry’s lies are rarely useful and almost always come back to haunt him.

Perhaps it stems from an aristocratic sense of entitlement. Or maybe he subscribes to the postmodern idea that truth is a social construct. Honestly, I truly don't know what to make of his lack of veracity. While I’ve heard of politicians who believe they’re above the law, Kerry’s the first I’ve seen who acts as if he’s above the truth.

Take, for example, the speech he delivered yesterday at George Washington University on the “21st century military.” He begins the speech with a lie and proceeds downhill from there:

One year ago this week, American soldiers raced across the desert to Baghdad. Ten months ago, George Bush stood on an aircraft carrier and proclaimed "mission accomplished."

Absolutely false. Not only did Bush never utter the phrase, “mission accomplished”, he stated, “Our mission continues. Al Qaeda is wounded, not destroyed.”

All of us support our troops. But if we had built a true coalition, they would not have to fight almost alone -- and Americans would not have to bear almost all the costs in Iraq.

Almost alone? The “Coalition of the Willing”, consisting of 48 countries, sent over 40,000 troops to Iraq.

Last month a young newlywed in Virginia who, as her husband was about to ship out to Iraq, gave him a bulletproof vest for Valentine's Day. I can tell you right now: in a Kerry Administration, no one will be getting body armor as a gift from a loved one; it will come from the Armed Forces of the United States of America. We will supply our troops with everything they need -- and we will reimburse each and every family who has had to buy body armor because this Administration made Valentine's Day part of the procurement process.

Whether this anecdote is true or not, Kerry has miscontrued the facts. Body armor was issued to every soldier and Marine in Iraq who who needed it back in December, two months prior to this Valentine's Day story.

But George Bush threatened to veto funding for Iraq if it included more money for healthcare for Reservists, and then tried to cut the pay of soldiers in the field and school aid for children of military families.

Not true. Bush threatened to veto the bill because it included a "concurrent receipt” proposal. The entitlement, commonly referred to as “double dipping”, would allow military retirees to collect retirement benefits from the Pentagon and disability benefits from the Veterans Administration at the same time. The plan would have cost $58 billion over the next decade, nearly twice the entire defense budget of France. As for Kerry's other claim, Bush not only didn’t cut the pay of soldiers in the field he increased it.

I will protect them all -- and as President, I will sign legislation to provide for those families who suffer a loss in war and to protect the livelihood of reservists who are called up and have to leave their jobs. This legislation will include $250,000 on top of their present life insurance policies for all service members who die in the line of duty.

Let me take a second from documeting his lies in order to explain something to the Senator: Service members, both active duty and reservists who are activated, are always in the line of duty. Is he proposing a two-tier system where some lives are worth more than others? Would the extra money go to the infantryman who died in a firefight but not to the aviation electrician who was electrocuted while working on a helicopter used to support of the same infantryman?

I will honor the family members of those who fall in service not just with words, but with deeds. People like Cyndi Stever and her 10-year-old daughter, Nichole. When Tony Stever was killed by enemy fire in Iraq last April, Cyndi said she felt she had lost her whole life. But more loss was to come -- not just from an enemy, but from her own government. Not long after she buried her husband, Cyndi was told she and Nichole would have to leave their home. Military housing -- they were told -- is for military families. And since Tony made the ultimate sacrifice, they were no longer a military family.

How can this happen in the United States of America? It's not right to tell a family that has just received that knock on the door, "Oh, by the way -- you have to pack up your home and move." Move where? Who among us thinks it's right to say such a thing? Who among us could move on short notice when you don't even know where your paycheck will come from? If this Administration says we can afford to throw massive tax cuts at the wealthiest Americans, then don't tell us to throw bereaved military families out of their homes without a chance to pull life back together.

So the Military Family Bill of Rights will allow the spouses and children of those killed in action to remain in military housing for up to a year after the loss of a loved one. It will offer help to move on to a new life. It will provide one year of pay to military dependents of soldiers killed in action.

Military dependents can live in family housing for up to six months after the death of a service member. Is this what Kerry meant by “short notice”? He also forgot to point out a few important details. First of all, most military dependents are living far away from their families and choose to move back to their home state after the death of their spouse. Second, the military pays the moving costs for the family. And third, the survivor receives $250,000 in life insurance plus other pay and benefits. As one who faces the prospect of dying in a combat zone, I can honestly say that the amount is sufficient to help my family get back on their feet if I were to be killed. Paying an additional year of pay is a costly idea that is unwarranted given the amount of money that is already provided.

I make this simple pledge: If I am President, I will fight for a constant standard of decency and respect for those who serve their country in our armed forces -- on active duty and as veterans.

As an active duty Marine I have a word of advice for how Kerry could raise the level of “decency and respect for those who serve.” Start telling the truth. If he wants the job as our Commander in Chief then he should start showing he is worthy of the job by exhibiting some personal integrity. The constant lies and half-truths are making us nostalgic for the days of Bill Clinton.

The Goal of Islamofascists?

Kevin Walmsley added a comment to an earlier post that I think is worth highlighting:

It would be a surprise to much of the world that Islam doesn't want everyone to convert or die. Let's click off the trouble spots of the world, okay?

1. Pakistan-India--Muslims against the Indians
2. Chechnya--Muslims against Russians
3. Spain--Basque, ETA, and now Al Queda against Europeans
4. France--blown up supertanker (Muslims) and attacking synagogues. France
thinks that appeasement will buy them time? Not so.
5. Indonesia--Muslims against Christians.
6. Somalia--see number 5.
7. Philippines--see number 5,6.
8. New York [ed.'s note: Pennsylvania and D.C. should be included as well]
9. Yemen
10. Georgia/Abkhazia
11. Israel
12. Chechen-Ingusetia
13. Yugoslavia
14. Nigeria

I have more thoughts on this that I'll share later.

Google Thy Neighborhood

Google has added an interesting feature that allows you to search for local businesses and services on the web.

Everybody's Got Something to Hide Except for Me and My Monkey

If you’ve ever spent much time around monkeys you've probably noticed an obvious trait that they all share -- they are really terrible at the game of Scrabble. In fact, for being such close evolutionary relatives, monkeys aren’t all that proficient at such traits as language and reason. This difference used to be attributed the asymmetrical shape of the human brain. But now that view is changing.

A British psychiatrist is even accusing some researchers of having an 'observer bias" and of finding asymmetry where it doesn't exist:

In a paper in the April issue of the journal Laterality, Tim Crow of the Warneford Hospital in Oxford also criticizes the high-profile journals that have published their findings. 'It is as if the editorial policies of Science and Nature are directed towards obfuscating the origins of Man," he writes (Laterality, 9:233-242, April 2004).

Crow believes the authors of these papers want to find precursors of language in nonhuman primates to support a theory of graduated evolution. Instead, he revives Paul Broca's 1877 hypothesis that an evolutionary leap took place between our closest ape relatives and us, and produced language.

What? Peer-reviewed science journals skewing evidence to fit their preconceived notions of macroevolution? No way. They would never do that. Because if it were true that would cast doubts on the interpretation of other evidence and then we might have to start thinking about these issues for ourselves. We certainly can't have that, now can we?

Scaling Back Marbury vs. Madison

In 1803, the power of judicial review was established by the Supreme Court’s decision in Marbury vs. Madison. Now, 201 years later, Congress wants to take that power back for themselves.

A dozen Congressmen have co-sponsored H.R.3920, the Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act of 2004 which will 'allow Congress to reverse the judgments of the United States Supreme Court." The impetus for the bill was the November ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Court to allow same-sex marriages and the subsequent rulings on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. As Kentucky representative Ron Lewis said while introducing the bill:

'The Marbury v. Madison case decision provides an extraordinary recognition of judicial power in a constitutional form of government. The exercise of such broad authority, expanded over time through political tradition, clearly has a growing adverse effect on the relationship between coequal arms of our national government. As judicial power expands, congressional power contracts. This is especially true when the power to interpret the Constitution rests in the hands of activist judges anxious to find the latest ``right'' hiding between the lines of our founding document.

Our Founding Fathers created three separate branches of government, each with equal checks and balances on the other. Our founders also ensured that each branch, including Congress, play a role in constitutional interpretation, requiring officials in each branch to take an oath to support and defend the Constitution.

The framers did not give authority to one branch over the other. Certainly each branch has its separate functions, but debating, defending, and upholding the tenets of the Constitution involve the decision and duties of each branch. As a Congress, we must change our thinking and reaffirm our authority to interpret constitutional issues in concert with, and independent from, the courts.

A two-thirds majority of each House would be required to reverse a judgment of the Supreme Court. The Court would still have an additional means of checking the Congress by determining the constitutionality of an act following the enactment of this bill.

This bill is nothing more than a raw transfer of power, taking it from the Courts and giving it to the Congress. But we are, after all, a government of the people so maybe that is what we need. At least we have a modicum of control over our legislators. Besides, leaving the ultimate fate of our laws to be decided by an oligarachy of nine Justices doesn’t seem to be the answer. Maybe it's time to try something different. And if it doesn't work out, SCOTUS can simply rule the law unconstitutional.

The Indiana Jones of Saints

An aristocratic Brit who was kidnapped by pirates at the age of 16, sold into slavery, escapes, becomes a priest, returns to Ireland and face off against hordes of Druids…Patrick isn’t your typical Saint. Mark Roberts has more on the “Real St. Patrick.”

And you thought St. Patty’s day was all about green beer and parades…

Reading Al Queda: The “Text” and “Subtext” of the Madrid Bombings

In Whit Stillman’s charmingly quirky comedy Barcelona, there’s a scene where Ted, a stuffy corporate drone working in his corporation's Spain headquarters, has a conversation with his cousin Fred, a dim young Naval officer assigned as an advance man for the 6th Fleet:

FRED: Maybe you can clarify something for me. Since I've been, you know, waiting for the fleet to show up, I've read a lot, and--

TED: Really?

FRED: And one of the things that keeps popping up is this thing about "subtext." Plays, novels, songs--they all have a "subtext," which I take to mean a hidden message or import of some kind. So subtext we know. But what do you call the message or meaning that's right there on the surface, completely open and obvious? They never talk about that. What do you call what's above the subtext?

TED: The text.

FRED: OK, that's right, but they never talk about that.

Ever since the bombing in Madrid I’ve felt the same way as Fred. While everyone talks about the subtext of the event – the terrorists caused the Socialists to win the election, the Spanish will pull their troops out of Iraq, etc., -- no one talks about the text, the part that is on the surface, completely open and obvious: the fact that nothing significant has changed.

The reason, of course, that no one talks about this is that it is so obvious. No one praises your profundity for restating what everyone already knows. Better to be original and wrong than hackneyed and right. Which is why every pundit is predicting another terrorist attack prior to a future election (any country will do). If they’re right they can pull their dusty prediction out of the archives and look prophetic. If they’re wrong no one will remember anyway.

No one will praise you as an oracle, however, for pointing out that al Queda would like to attack us before the next election…and right after the next election…and after Uncle Jim’s birthday, on Mother’s Day, and on the first Friday in July. In fact, for the terrorists, every day is a good day to kill Westerners. They aren’t waiting around for a reason to attack us.

While the bombing is tragic and we mourn for Spain’s loss, it hasn’t changed anything of significance. Naturally, we don’t want to denigrate the loss of the 160 Spaniards who died in the attacks. But why exactly are their lives any more relevant to world events than the 300+ people who were killed in terrorist attacks over the past month and a half?

My guess it that our Eurocentric bias clouds our ability to judge the event in its proper context. Europe has been so significant throughout the history of Western Civilization that it’s difficult for us to fathom the idea that the most of the continent's individual countries are now less important than Pakistan. While the European Union may wield power as a federation, Spain has as much individual relevance on world events as West Virginia.

Before you disagree with my assessment, ask yourself this questi