An example of situational irony: the Gay Gene

So my wife was musing that if anyone ever found a gene or set of genes that led to homosexuality, parents would try to filter that gene out of there gametes. The irony here, though, is that the folks most likely to do that view genetic engineering as an affront to God.

Hee hee.

I don't know what else to add. Anyone?

Enemy of the State

Well, well. It seems somebody at ABC has a sense of humor. Kudos to him or her who decided to show Enemy of the State this evening. Just a reminder to anyone out there that once somebody is labelled an enemy of the state -- or a suspected terrorist -- the rest of the "machine" of the state -- that is, the men and women who are just "doing their jobs" -- kicks into gear to utterly screw said somebody. Anybody. And when there's no oversight by folks up for reelection every two to six years, that label can be applied on the basis of the right person's error or animosity, without remedy for the wrongly targetted.

I hope ABC shows Brazil next week.

Incidentally, my post on the NSA scandal was a bit off-base. The folks that handle threats to the President are the Secret Service, not the NSA; so instead of "Death to Bush", we should start or end every email, phone call, etc. with "in the bomb name of hijacking Allah, the just nuclear and chemical merciful, bomb".

Of course, the reality is more sinister. I have some Kyrgyz and Russian names in my address book, relics from my days in the 'Stan. None of the email addresses I used in '94 and '96 are active anymore, so I don't have to worry about my address showing up in some list because of anybody I knew over there. But can anyone else say the same of their foreign associations? Any Islamic studies majors on a mailing list of the local mosque, which may or may not have suspicious characters in attendance? Anybody take any trips to, say, Iran -- and maintain contact with some of the folks you met?

My good buddy in grad school, Don Max, did his MA thesis work in Venezuela. Another friend left Bratislava just before the referendum disintegrating Czechoslovakia, left Chiapas just before the riots there, and left Bishkek not long before Akaev dissolved the Parliament -- all very suspicious.

Beware, fellow citizens: it is not your own actions that draw suspicion to you now, but presumed association with a suspected terrorist, drug dealer, illegal immigrant, pornographer -- or a critic of the Bush administration. Think I'm being pranoid? Does the name Edgar J. Hoover mean anything to anyone? How about Richard M. Nixon? The point is that nobody outside the administration is actuallly aware of just who is being surveilled, or why. Which means that you can get screwed, and nobody -- nobody -- will have to answer for said screwage.

Thanks, all you morons who voted not once, but twice, for Bush and his team. We may all be potential enemies of the state, but it is y'all who are enemies of the Constitution.

A prediction on John G. Roberts, updated

Several months ago, I made a prediction on the occasion of John G. Roberts' nomination to the Supreme Court. That was before Roberts was named Chief Justice, and before Alito's nomination to the Court. Needless to say, I stand by my prediction.

So maybe what we should do is start a pool: which state'll be first to outlaw abortion?

My gut tells me Kansas, because I just saw Brancaccio interviewing the head of Kansans for Life. There's also Kansas' strong commitment to strong instruction in science.

But some of y'all may favor Alabama, or South Carolina. So whaddy'all think?

The peculiar arrogance of ignorance

I was watching Paul Bremer on Charlie Rose last night, and Rose asked if Bremer would have had an easier time of administering Iraq if he'd been an expert on Iraq, or an Arabist. To quote Bremer's response as accurately as I can, "Sure, it would have made it easier. But it would've made it harder in some ways, too: a lot of the experts were skeptical about our ability to succeed [in establishing a stable democracy] over there."

That, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly what's wrong with Bush, his administration, the Republican Party, and the persons who vote for its candidates: a profound, almost pathological anti-intellectualism.

I mean, if experts are warning you against a given action in a field in which they are expert, shouldn't you listen to them? You can read my thoughts on the probability of success in our current efforts in Iraq here. With all due respect to Mr. Bremer, with my MA in History, I know a hell of a lot more about the history of foreign interventions in West Asia than he or, it would seem, just about anybody making actual decisions about our policy in Iraq. And I'm hardly an expert.

Pick any complex issue, and you'll find that the Republicans (of whom I have a frighteningly representative microcosm in my parents) are likely rejecting the word of academicians and other denizens of the Ivory Tower in favor of "common sense" or some other rubbish. Iraq? Case in point. Intelligent Design? Well, how could somebody who is knowledgeable about the world's organisms be objective about creationism? Global Warming? Climatologists are all biased.

Hey, does anybody remember V, when the aliens took steps to discredit scientists, who then would not be believed when they presented evidence of the aliens' true form and plans? I'm just sayin'.

Knowledge creates an inherent bias against actions or opinions that knowledge demonstrates to be wrong. I personally am biased against divine intervention, spontaneous generation, Lamarckian evolution, phrenology, and, of course, having faith in those in power. No wonder Bush doesn't like academicians.

Yes, all you academicians who voted to reelect Bush are fools. Go ahead, comment on this post; you know you want to.