Glenn Greenwald has a thoughtful essay in Salon (titled “A tragic legacy: How a good vs. evil mentality destroyed the Bush presidency“), which is an excerpt from his upcoming book of the same name, in which he discusses the role that Bush’s simplistic and dogmatic worldview has played in his disastrous administration.

The article is an interesting read, and one doesn’t have to agree with everything that Greenwald says to accept the basic premise, which is that if one thinks one is the holder of an absolute truth, then the gray areas that make up most of life, and the complexity that underlies almost every important decision in the modern world, will forever be beyond you, and you are doomed to failure. While Greenwald applies this to the thought processes that led the country into the ill-conceived Iraq quagmire - that one can see people and actions as purely good or evil and hence make decisions based on that determination rather than a deep understanding of the situation - the general point applies to many other actions taken by the President.

Interestingly, this column appears on the very same day that Bush has once again vetoed a bill to promote embryonic stem cell research. As Sheryl Gay Stolberg reports in The New York Times

“I will not allow our nation to cross this moral line,” Mr. Bush said, exercising the third veto of his presidency. At the same time, he issued an executive order intended to encourage scientific advances in regenerative medicine, a move that he said would respect “the high aims of science” without encouraging the deliberate destruction of human life.

His (Christian) morals must be the right ones. A human life is the same thing as a few cells. Although support for stem cell research is quite popular among Americans, there appears to be no room for discussion with the President about the complexities or scientific debate around these issues. Because his decisions don’t come from informed discussion; they come from ideology, which trumps reason, science, and complex debate with depressing regularity these days.

It was an embarrassing moment in the first Republican presidential debate when the participants were asked, “Does anyone not believe in evolution?”, and three candidates — Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, and Mike Huckabee — raised their hands. Embarrassing for those three, obviously, but also for the Republican party, in which they are far from unrepresentative, and for the United States, that anyone would even think to ask such a question of serious candidates for the highest office in the land.

One of the candidates, Sam Brownback, felt the need to amplify his position in a New York Times op-ed piece. He appeals to many favorite creationist weasel words, invoking the distinction between “microevolution” and “macroevolution,” but tries not to come off as completely anti-science. Nevertheless, the heart of his argument is stated clearly at the end of the piece:

While no stone should be left unturned in seeking to discover the nature of man’s origins, we can say with conviction that we know with certainty at least part of the outcome. Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order. Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.

Without hesitation, I am happy to raise my hand to that.

In our scientific understanding of the universe, man does not reflect an image and likeness unique in the created order. Humanity arose by the same process of natural selection as all the other species. Calling it “atheistic theology” doesn’t change the fact that it’s how the world works, according to science.

Eugene Volokh asks whether it really matters what a presidential candidate thinks about human evolution. He tentatively argues that yes, it does matter, but I think it’s a lot more cut and dried (but still interesting) than he makes it out to be. There are really two issues: first, has science established beyond reasonable doubt that humans evolved purely through natural selection, and second, if it has, does it matter whether a presidential candidate rejects that particular scientific understanding? Yes, and yes. But the intriguing follow-up is: what about other untrue beliefs that candidates might have?

In case you haven’t heard: yes, science has established beyond reasonable doubt that humans evolved via natural selection. Volokh confuses the issue by asking whether Brownback’s beliefs are “provably false,” and (correctly) concluding that they are not. But scientific propositions are never provably true or false; that’s not how science works. We accumulate more and more evidence in favor of one theory and against all competitors, until we reach a point where the only people left who refuse to accept the theory are cranks. Natural selection is firmly in that category; there is no scientific controversy about its truth. To draw a somewhat subtle distinction: I personally do not think that belief in an ineffable touchy-feely Aristotelian Unmoved Mover kind of God is in the crank domain. I think it’s wrong, and based on a set of deep philosophical and scientific mistakes, but not crackpottery in the same way that attributing crucial aspects of human evolution to a meddlesome anthropomorphic Designer would be.

Which brings us to the second and more interesting question, of whether this particular kind of mistaken belief should bear on one’s fitness as a presidential candidate. I think it does, for a reason that our experience with the Bush administration has made especially relevant. Denial of the standard scientific explanation for the origin of human beings is a particularly dangerous kind of mistake: one based on a decision to put aside evidence and deduction in favor of wishful thinking, and an insistence on a picture of the universe that flatters ourselves. The kind of reasoning that leads one to conclude that we can’t explain human evolution without invoking a meddlesome God is the same kind of reasoning that makes people think that cutting taxes will decrease the federal deficit, or that the people of Iraq would throw candy and greet us as liberators. (I’m sure that liberals are just as susceptible to such a fallacy, but it’s the conservative versions that are currently getting us in such a mess.) It’s a refusal to take reality at face value, in favor of a picture that conforms to what we want to be true.

The interesting part of Volokh’s question is, what about the Virgin Birth? By ordinary scientific standards, belief that Jesus had a mother but not a father is at least as unlikely as belief in a divine role in human evolution. Should we hold such a belief against presidential candidates?

That’s actually a realy tough question, and I’m going to weasel out of it a bit myself. On the one hand, everything I just said about human origins applies just as well to the Virgin Birth — belief in it is dramatically non-scientific, and prompted largely by exactly the kind of mythological self-flattery that leads to skepticism about the efficacy of natural selection. In other words, belief in the Virgin Birth is exactly as “wrong” as belief in creationism. So I can certainly appreciate the argument for holding such beliefs against presidential candidates.

On the other hand, I think the status of these two questions are different, in at least two important ways. First is the role of each question as a foundational part of modern science. Evolution is a crucial ingredient in how we understand Nature and our place in it; to deny it is to deny a bedrock principle of science. The birth of Jesus, on the other hand, is a localized miracle that nominally happened a long time ago. If someone wants to believe in that particular isolated violation of the laws of nature, I won’t go along with them, but it doesn’t bother me nearly as much as denying natural selection as the correct explanation for the origin of human beings.

Second, the status of evolution has taken on a unique political role in our culture. Evolution is the particular part of science which has come under the most concerted attack by the forces of irrationality, who have attempted to undermine science by calling into question the teaching of evolution in public schools. This is now a political and cultural question, not just a scientific one; it’s no accident that debates over creationism and intelligent design are essentially confined to the United States (although sadly spreading). For a presidential candidate to take a public stance against evolution by raising his hand at a televised debate is a profoundly political act, allying that candidate with the forces of superstition against the forces of science. The question of the Virgin Birth just doesn’t have that status.

Happily, I was not really hesistating over whether to throw my support to Brownback, Huckabee, or Tancredo, so the question is somewhat academic for me. But I do believe, in the face of all the contrary evidence provided by the current Administration and its die-hard supporters, in the existence of intelligent and principled conservatives who might be in favor of limited government and perhaps an aggressive foreign policy, but would like to try to base their decisions on evidence and reason. Those people are going to have to make some tough choices; the modern Republican party has chosen to ally itself with people who don’t believe in the real world, and that choice is going to have consequences.

I keep hearing that one shouldn’t, so soon afterwards, speak of the implications of the Virginia Tech tragedy for certain political positions. But shouldn’t we be outraged by this horrific event? And if there’s an elephant in the room, why should we ignore it?

Now, I have no problem with hunting, and don’t want to ban guns entirely. But there is plenty to agree with in Elayne Boosler’s furious rant over at The Huffington Post. You don’t have to buy it all - I don’t - to feel that there is something right about this kind of outrage. Why isn’t the mainstream media, instead of repeating the same grisly facts over and over, exploring the implications of

The number of children under the age of 17 shot by guns in America every year is greater than the gun-related deaths of children in all the industrialized nations of the world COMBINED.

and

3,300 Americans have died in Iraq and Afghanistan in the last four years. 120,000 Americans have been shot to death in America in the last four years. Where is the outrage? If we can elect a new congress based on its commitment to end the war overseas, we can elect a congress committed to end the war here at home. End both wars.

Boosler ties her piece up by anticipating the associated hypocrisy we might see when the President responds to today’s Supreme Court decision that refuses women a medical procedure even in the case that it may be life-saving.

“Today’s decision affirms that the Constitution does not stand in the way of the people’s representatives enacting laws reflecting the compassion and humanity of America. This affirms the progress my administration has made to defend the “sanctity of life”.

Thanks for the outrage Ms. Boosler - you’re not alone.

John Edwards wants to simplify the way some people pay taxes. In particular, he has noticed that about 50 million Americans have very simple tax returns — so simple, that the IRS already has all of the necessary information to just go ahead and calculate their taxes for them. Obviously this won’t work for self-employed people or anyone with an interesting set of deductions, but there are plenty of people not in that category.

So Edwards is proposing Form 1, a short form that the IRS will fill out and send to those who qualify, so that they can look over it and make sure it all seems correct. (Via Neil the Ethical Werewolf.) If so, just sign and return it and you’re done. Not only will it greatly decrease the burden both on taxpayers and the IRS, it will also benefit the millions of low-income workers who are eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit but might not realize it.

It is, in other words, one of the most obviously good ideas to come out of a Presidential candidate in a long time. But wouldn’t you know it, readers of the National Review don’t agree.

Basically they have a single objection, phrased in multiple ways: if we decrease the pain involved in paying taxes, people won’t mind as much. And then they won’t agitate as vociferously for tax cuts. That’s basically it. Some get overly enthusiastic and start griping about employer withholding more generally, suggesting that every taxpayer should be forced to save up money and file quarterly tax reports. That would truly drive home the pain.

And all I want to say is: I really hope this becomes a major talking point among Republican candidates. More pain at tax time! I’m sure voters will appreciate the shrewd calculation underlying this enlightened policy. And as a benefit, since Republican voters are unenthusiastic about the current Presidential field and have already begun to long for a novelty candidate to swoop in and shake up the race, this opens the door for the perfect nominee!

If the Terminator can become governor of California, I don’t see why Clubber Lang can’t run for President. The Mr. T Doctrine is as well-thought-out as what we currently have.

Apparently wine vs. beer is the story of the upcoming Democratic primary. Obama is wine, Clinton is beer. (Via MR.) And beer always wins! Glad that’s been settled.

I have nothing to say about this, I’m only posting to mock my lazy cobloggers. Do they have jobs or something? Feel free to join the mocking in the comments! And as a bonus, a cute kitten. (Via Chrononautic Log.)

Tyler Cowen, following Dan Drezner, offers his thoughts on who is likely to be elected President in 2008. (A completely different question, of course, than who you think should be President.) Unusually, I not only disagree with all of Tyler’s conclusions, but also his reasoning. But it did remind me that all the internets are waiting on tenterhooks for my own handicapping of the race. So, without further ado, the Democrats:

• Hillary Clinton. The presumptive front-runner, although with obvious baggage. And no, her husband doesn’t count as a liability; he’s a masterful political strategist, a great campaigner, and extremely well-liked, as Al Gore would have realized in 2000 if his own political instincts were more highly developed than those of a mole rat. But Hillary herself is not a great strategist, is only a competent campaigner, and isn’t all that well-liked. Republicans would unite against her in a general election to an unprecedented degree. Overall, her skill set is much better attuned to being a Senator than a President, or a Presidential candidate. And she is a woman; overt sexism might not be the issue, but in the general election the Republicans will make sure that every misogynist stereotype is in constant media rotation. But she might win; she has the money, a great team, and the real Hillary-haters are a vocal minority, not a true majority. Tyler says that Americans are tired of dynasties, which I would find more persuasive if they stopped electing them.
• Barack Obama. Longtime readers know that I am down with Obama. He is the real deal: smart, committed, charismatic, and sincere. He doesn’t have much experience in national politics, but that’s not nearly the liability in a Presidential campaign that many make it out to be. He was unambiguously against the war in Iraq, which — contrary to the stale wisdom that foreign policy always favors Republicans — will be a big vote-getter. People really don’t like the war, and they will vote on the issue, and it will favor any Democrat who has the wit to take advantage. On the other hand, he is black. We live in a racist country, and there are plenty of people who will vote on that basis, even if they don’t tell pollsters. And his middle name is “Hussein,” which Fox news will never ever let you forget. The only reason why these aren’t deal-breakers is the hope that they only apply to people who would never vote for a Democrat in the first place; but that might be wishful thinking.
• John Edwards. A very plausible sleeper candidate, who would be a comfortable front-runner in an ordinary year without the Clinton/Obama celebrity factor to deal with. Gained invaluable experience during the Kerry campaign — hopefully, learning some difficult lessons about what not to do. Accrued serious points among primary voters by admitting he was wrong about the Iraq war (in stark contrast to Hillary), and has an actual substantive message about poverty. Comes across as too artificial and slick, which can be a big disadvantage, especially to Democratic candidates; also, a relatively weak debater, as was evident in his matchup against Voldemort Cheney. Originally, the primary calendar was tuned almost precisely to his advantage; now, with California and other big states moving up, money will be more important, which won’t help him. Definitely in third right now, but a come-from-behind victory isn’t out of the question.
• Someone else. None of the people actually running has a chance, although Bill Richardson is intriguing. Wesley Clark might have been an interesting possibility, but the top three are already sucking up all the oxygen, and it’s basically too late to jump in at this point (less than 20 months before the election!).

And the Republicans:

• John McCain. The formerly-presumptive frontrunner who has somehow frittered away his status. The McCain aura was always a bit of a mystery; despite being reliably conservative on most issues, he was able to pick and choose a public stance here and there to burnish his image as a “maverick.” So much so that some (crazy) Democrats wanted him on their ticket in 2000. But it’s no mystery why he isn’t running away with the primary race; over the last few years he has embarked on a single-minded campaign to completely undermine his hard-earned reputation as an independent-minded straight shooter. Where he used to stand up to the religious right, now he curries their favor, although he does so with such awkwardness that nobody is really fooled. And he has become the biggest supporter of the Iraq war outside the White House and the Connecticut for Lieberman party. McCain has managed to transform himself from a figure who was widely respected, even by people who didn’t agree with him, into someone who nobody trusts. Nevertheless, given the weakness of the rest of the Republican field, he still might back into the nomination.
• Rudy Giuliani. The fact that Rudy Giuliani is currently leading in Republican polls, and that smart people occasionally opine that he could win the election or even be a good President, is a source of unlimited amazement to me. Yes, he gave a couple of stirring speeches after 9/11. Something tells me that this will not be enough to overcome his penchant for dressing in drag, his support for funding abortions for poor women (always a winner among Republican primary voters), and the fact that he is hated by firefighters, by New Yorkers, and by his own kids. He’s already lost his own campaign book, and is weighed down by his association with Bernard Kerik. Personality-wise, he’s a thin-skinned autocrat who can’t handle criticism — something that, I’m taken to understand, occasionally comes your way during a Presidential campaign. If Rudy Giuliani wins the 2008 general election, I promise to never again make a political prediction in public for the rest of my life.
• Mitt Romney. Oh yeah, a pro-choice pro-gay-rights pro-gun-control Mormon from Massachusetts is exactly what Republican primary voters in South Carolina are looking for. His chances look good in the Utah primary, though. Why are we even talking about this? Of course, Romney has conveniently changed his positions on nearly every hot-button social issue since he shifted his sights from the Massachusetts governor’s mansion to the White House. It won’t help.
• Someone else. Unlike on the Democratic side, it seems completely plausible that a latecomer could swoop in to change the complexion of the Republican race. The names being bandied about thus far, however — Fred Thompson? Newt Gingrich? — aren’t inspiring anyone. But this field is not yet set in stone, and there’s plenty of room for intrigue to come.

And the winner is: I don’t know. The Democratic primary race is too close to call, but I’ll be happy to predict that whoever wins it will waltz into the White House. On the Democratic side: three solid contenders. On the Republican side: a cross-dressing autocrat, a New England Mormon, and an old guy whose entire schtick is sincerity but who has abandoned all pretence of having any. All of whom are running on the legacy of one of the least popular Presidents in history. Are you kidding me? Not since 1976 (post-Watergate) have Democratic chances looked this good this far before the election.

But, since there’s no accountability in this game, I’ll go ahead and translate my gut feelings into a quantitative prediction for the chances to become President in 2008: Obama 35%, Clinton 30%, Edwards 15%, McCain 10%, any other Republican 10%. Subject to change without notice. It’s early, but I’m happy to think that there’s a better than even chance that our next President will either be a woman or an African-American. Either would be a watershed moment in our history, something of which we could (quite belatedly) be proud.

Everyone is having their fun with Conservapedia, a rightward-tilting alternative to Wikipedia that aims to ensure that future generations of conservatives grow up really dumb. A mildly-close look reveals that the major biases of Wikipedia that made this new project worth launching are (1) their insistence in using “CE” (Common Era) rather than “AD” (Anno Domini) in giving dates, and (2) the occasional Anglicized spelling. For some great examples of the way self-professed conservatives view the world, see Jon Swift, or a roundup of sciencey responses by Mark Chu-Carroll.

Here are my personal favorites, after five minutes of clicking around. Links to specific versions, as they keep changing, of course. But these look sincere, not the result of vandalism by naughty liberals!

• Atheism
  Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of any supernatural deity. This disbelief can take a number of forms, such as the assertion that deities do not exist, or the absence of any belief in any deity.

  Stalin and Richard Dawkins are prominent atheists. Dawkins wrote a book, called “The God Delusion”. Stalin is now dead, having killed millions of people in the name of Marxis-Leninism (which is predicated on atheism).

  Since atheists have no God, as a philosophical framework atheism simply provides no logical basis for any moral standard. They live their lives according to the rule that “anything goes”. In recent years, this has led to a large rise in crime[1], drug use, pre-marital sex, teenage pregnancy,[2] pedophilia[3] and bestiality.

The road from atheism to bestiality is shorter than you think!

• Stalin
  
  Josef Stalin was an atheist communist Russian dictator during World War II. He was defeated by Adolf Hitler, despite Hitler also being an atheist.

That’s the entire entry. I can’t decide which is more amusing — the amazement that one atheist could defeat another in battle, or the judgment that Hitler defeated Stalin.

• Albert Einstein
  Einstein’s work had nothing to do with the development of the atomic bomb. Nothing useful has even been built based on the theory of relativity. Only one Nobel Prize (in 1993 and not to Einstein) has ever been given that even remotely relates to the theory of relativity. Many things predicted by the theory of relativity, such as gravitons, have never been found despite much searching for them. Many observed phenomenon, such as the bending of light passing near the sun or the advance of the perihelion in the orbit of Mercury, can be also predicted by Newton’s theory.

Can’t make this stuff up.

• Anything Goes
  “Anything Goes” is the title of a 1934 musical production written by Cole Porter. Popular songs from the musical include “You’re the Top,” “I Get a Kick Out of You,” and “Anything Goes.”

  Because Porter was a homosexual, we can conclude that ‘anything goes’ was also his philosophy of life. Many atheists have adopted the song as a description of their “moral” code.

Getting the message yet?

• Sex
  1. The process by which offspring are conceived.
  2. Another term for gender.

Again, that’s the entire entry. But it says so much, don’t you think?

The usual joke about the Vice-Presidency is that it doesn’t come with any real powers or responsibilities, beyond attending the occasional state funeral. Dick Cheney has long aimed to change all that. But Talking Points Memo has stumbled on evidence of a more far-reaching strategy than most of us had discerned. In the ultimate “take lemons and make lemonade” jujutsu move, Cheney has re-interpreted the Constitutional vagueness of the powers of his office as evidence that he is an entirely distinct branch of government. (Via Majikthise.) Those past couple hundred years, in which we thought there were only three branches of government in the United States? Just a bad dream.

You think this is some humorous exaggeration, but no. Something called the “Plum Book” is supposed to be a directory of all appointed government officials, but the Office of the Vice-President has declared that it doesn’t have to participate. Instead, it submitted this paragraph:

The Vice Presidency is a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch, but is attached by the Constitution to the latter. The Vice Presidency performs functions in both the legislative branch (see article I, section 3 of the Constitution) and in the executive branch (see article II, and amendments XII and XXV, of the Constitution, and section 106 of title 3 of the United States Code).

Perhaps it’s for the best. He wouldn’t be very good at attending funerals, that’s for sure.

I just found out that Molly Ivins died. I have been a huge fan of her books and columns, and enjoyed the perspective she brought to the worst administration in American history.

Ivins was known for her incisive wit and her strong liberal views, which stood out all the more given her Texas roots. If you want to understand our president’s ignominious background, the range of his business failures and bailouts, and his callous record as governor of Texas, you need do little more than read her wonderful book Shrub : The Short but Happy Political Life of George W. Bush.

In an epoch when good journalism is hard to find and much of our most honest news comes from humorous sources, Ivins was a national treasure and will be sorely missed.

For the first time in years, Hillary Clinton says something honest and funny that made me smile. Is it surprising that the media don’t know how to react, and run around in rapidly shrinking hermeneutic circles in attempt to make sense of this phenomenon? No, it is not surprising.

It’s a joke, people! A pretty good joke, actually. Good for her.

You know how George Bush is constantly admitting that he’s made grave mistakes, and apologizing, and hoping to do better in the future? Hmm, no, I guess you don’t. Meanwhile, Barack Obama is leading by example, as this excerpt from Wait Wait, Don’t Tell Me demonstrates. (Via Unfogged.)

The phone rings.

Lovelady: Lovelady. Newsroom.

Obama: Nicholas?

Lovelady: This is he.

Obama: Nicholas, this is Barack Obama.

Lovelady: Hey, how’s it going?

Obama: Man, I am calling to publicly apologize for messin’ up your game. I felt terrible. I didn’t know there were any ladies around. I just wanted to let you know that I’m deeply sorry. But if she was that superficial, then she wasn’t for you.

Lovelady: (chuckles) Well, I really appreciate it.

Obama: Well okay, man. Bye bye.

The call ends.

For context … read the whole thing. Audio here.

I would definitely vote for Obama if I hadn’t already pledged my support to The Editors.

How often do you get to vote for a dinosaur?

I don’t read many conservative blogs. I enjoy some quasi-conservative libertarian-types — Marginal Revolution, Daniel Drezner, Balloon Juice, The Volokh Conspiracy. (Even if libertarian policy principles are kind of crazy, they are often smart and provocative.) But the hard-core rightosphere, places like Little Green Footballs and Powerline and Michelle Malkin, I just find creepy. (But I must point out that I’m box office at The Free Republic: see here, here, here, and here. Freepers find me fascinating.)

It’s truly a different world, and worth an occasional glance, just to be reminded that the set of “important news stories” can be entirely distinct from what I might think. For example, I’d been completely ignorant of the menace of the flying imams, the subject of literally hundreds of breathless blog posts. Not being an aficionado of modern religions myself, at first I thought they had something to do with yogic flying, but it turns out that’s something else entirely.

The story is that six Muslim clerics were removed from a US Airways flight from Minnesota to Phoenix a couple of weeks ago, accused of acting suspiciously. They were led away in handcuffs before being questioned and released, while their flight left without them. US Airways refused to let them travel on a different flight the next day; they eventually flew home on other airlines.

As far as I can tell, the suspicious behavior consisted of the following:

• Praying.
• Speaking Arabic.
• Saying “Allah” out loud, several times.
• Remarking unfavorably about US policy in Iraq.
• Sitting in seats “reminiscent of a 9/11 hijackers seating configuration.” I think that means they weren’t all sitting together — some were even in first class!
• Requesting seat-belt extenders, even though they weren’t really all that overweight.
• Moving about the airplane, before takeoff, to talk with each other.

That’s about it.

To me, it sounds like the US Airways flight crew overreacted a bit. The seat-belt extender business is apparently suspicious because they could potentially be used as weapons. Picture in your mind’s eye, six imams (one of whom was blind) swinging their seat-belt extenders like nunchucks, overpowering a planeload of pasty Midwesterners. The “moving around” also has a relatively prosaic explanation — one of the imams who had upgraded to first-class decided to offer his seat to his blind colleague, who declined the offer. See, if they had been cold-hearted atheists who didn’t have religion to tell them to be nice to each other, all of this could have been avoided.

But, ultimately, I don’t place too much blame on the flight crew for reacting as they did. A situation unfolding in real time is always unclear, and caution is warranted; better to inconvenience a few people than put an entire flight at risk. Although I don’t think the situation was handled well, it was an understandable overreaction, and should be something we can put behind us. Mistakes were made, sorry about that, can’t be too careful, etc.

The bloggers who jumped all over the original reports, though — they don’t think that way. They can’t think that way. It must have been a real threat, or their entire worldview is in jeopardy.

Debbie Schlussel is outraged that the imams haven’t been banned from flying on airplanes for all eternity. (For what, exactly?) Instapundit thinks that anti-Muslim sentiment is their fault. Michelle Malkin claims that one of the imams admitted supporting Osama Bin Laden! Okay, the alleged support was against the Russians in the early 1990’s, and was encouraged by the CIA at the time. But still! Pajamas Media thinks it must have been a “dry run.” Apparently, it eventually dawned on some people that praying loudly and shouting “Allah” would probably not be recommended doctrine if you actually did want to sneak onto an airplane and stage a surprise mid-air coup, so all that praying and talking in Arabic must have been part of a coordinated campaign to soften up security personnel before the next actual attack. Or something like that; I can’t keep all the theories straight.

The entire incident is reminiscent of the time in June 2004 when journalist Annie Jacobsen freaked out at the presence of a group of Middle Eastern men on a plane. Not only were the men completely harmless Syrian musicians, but it turns out that Jacobsen’s own behavior had potentially put the flight in danger, in the opinion of air marshals.

What would you do, if you were Annie Jacobsen? Realize that you had overreacted just a tad, and examine how deep-seated fears can lead to unwarranted conclusions? No, if you were Annie Jacobsen you would write a book about how we’re not nearly afraid enough of dark-skinned people on our airplanes.

We’re very proud, in this country, of our commitment to equality, liberty, and the rule of law. But a lot of Americans are living in fear right now, and are willing to sacrifice much of the freedom that makes this country what it is in order to combat that fear. How far are they willing to go? Newt Gingrich is campaigning against the First Amendment. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to the U.S. Congress (and the guest of honor at the conference the flying imams were attending), is accused by Dennis Prager of undermining American civilization because he will take the oath of office on a Koran instead of a Bible. When radio host Jerry Klein suggested — as a spoof — that American Muslims should be forced to wear identifying tattoos or armbands, reminiscent of Nazi measures against Jews, he was disgusted to hear many audience members call in to express their full-throated support for the idea.

This fear is real, and politicians will take advantage of it, shamelessly and unapologetically. I’m not worried that the U.S. will descend into actual authoritarian rule, as these things are understood worldwide. But encroachments on liberty in the name of security can be pernicious and severe even if they come very gradually. That’s a much bigger threat to our society than terrorism will ever be.

Want to elaborate on the great science at the Frontiers of Science symposium, but since Mark beat me to it, first just a few things on this week’s election results.

First of all, I am delighted to have cast an historic vote for the first woman Speaker of the House, this fabulous woman with San Francisco values (who is now second in line for the presidency!)

Second, among many other positive outcomes of the election results, I am really looking forward to the tenure of what I hope will be our new chair of the Committee on Government Reform, Henry Waxman. He is currently the ranking minority member of this committee, which has authority to investigate any federal program and anything with federal policy implications, and will likely take the reigns in January when the house leadership changes unless there’s some shakeup. In addition to lots of other great stuff he’s done, Waxman is responsible for leading investigations on the state of science under the Bush administration. You can see some of this work on the office’s Politics & Science webpage. He’s also been all over Halliburton and other corruption scandals, so that should make things interesting.

On a semi-related note, Andrew Baker suggested to me today that the new democratic leadership might take this opportunity to reinstate the congressional Office of Technology Assessment. For 23 years, this nonpartisan agency provided congress with “objective and authoritative analysis of the complex scientific and technical issues of the late 20th century” — until funding for the agency was abolished by Newt Gingrich’s 104th congress.

The Office of Technology Assessment occupied a unique role among the Congressional information agencies. Unlike the General Accounting Office, which is primarily concerned with evaluation of ongoing programs, and the Congressional Research Service, which provides rapid information on legislative topics, OTA provided a deeper, more comprehensive, and more technical level of analysis. Through eleven Congressional sessions, OTA became a key resource for Congressional members and staff confronting technological issues in crafting public policy.

As Andrew suggested, “this might be a good moment for scientists to push this: making sure that Congress operates with the highest standard of information dovetails nicely with the push to make sure Congress operates with the highest standard of ethics.” Since I’m sure a lot of CV readers would support congress thinking more deeply about issues in science and policy, and I’d be curious to know what the sentiment is on this.

In other science-related election news, Science has an update on what the election has done for intelligent design (in their words, it “received a drubbing”).

The only downside of the recent news about the Secretary of Defense resignation is that I fear jokes based on Rumsfeld-isms will become less funny (I, too, have used the known knowns and unknown unknowns in talks).

From the Scientists and Engineers for America commercial contest, two great reminders to vote for science:

If you are interested in a little Election Day reflection on the state of voting in this fair democracy, I’d recommend checking out this HBO documentory on hacking the vote.

By the way, this won’t work for tomorrow if you don’t know already, but if you are in California, you may be interested to know that you can now become a permanent absentee voter. Makes life easier for those of us who travel all the time, and even better news, it avoids whatever newfangled vote-eating computer game your precinct might have cooked up for you.

And from SEED magazine, a bit of election-day science on what entices us to vote:

In a study conducted online the night before the 2004 election, 146 Ohio State University undergraduates were told to imagine themselves voting from one of two perspectives. Some saw themselves as a third party would—as if they were watching a movie of themselves going to the polls. Others were told to use a first-person perspective—as if they were experiencing voting through their own eyes…The study found that 90 percent of those who had visualized themselves from an outsider’s perspective reported voting, while only 72 percent of those who imagined voting from a first-person perspective did.

Anyways, Happy Election Day! Via Pharynglia, a bit of extra motivation to cast your ballot. If you’ve got a few more minutes, watch Keith Olberman’s special comment — “This country was founded to prevent anybody from making it up as they went along.” And then get yourself to a ballot box.
Here’s hoping for a real balance of power change this week.

After almost six years of living under the worst president in U.S. history, and facing, on a daily basis, the ignorance and bigotry that arises in part from the pact that Republicans have made with the religious right, it is easy to blame all our ills on the excuses for leaders who run this country.

However, I’m reminded today that disgusting retrograde policies are not solely the domain of the Republicans. As reported in The Washington Post;

The federal government has refused to pay death benefits to the spouse of former congressman Gerry E. Studds (D-Mass.), the first openly gay member of Congress.

Studds married Dean Hara in 2004 after same-sex marriage was legalized in Massachusetts. But Hara will not be eligible to receive any portion of Studds’s estimated $114,337 annual pension …

And why won’t this man’s life partner be able to receive benefits?

because the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act bars the federal government from recognizing Studds’s marriage.

[...]

Under federal law, pensions can be denied only to lawmakers’ same-sex partners and to people convicted of espionage or treason, Graves said.

That’s right - thanks to the Clinton administration, this basic right of partnership can be denied only if the person involved is a spy, a traitor or, that equally heinous threat to the American way of life, gay!

So if I interpret this correctly, a member of Congress could be shot dead by police while stabbing a baby, and his opposite-sex partner would be eligible for the pension, but if he dies while on a quiet walk, his same sex partner isn’t eligible. Ain’t it great?

It should make us all sick.