Unbearable Irony at Captain's Quarters

How Can He Write That With A Straight Face?

In an unbelievably hypocritical and painfully ironic post over at Captain's Quarters titled "A Bad Time To Pick A Fight", we are told that since the U.S. is in such a tense military situation throughout the globe, Washington should be careful in "picking fights":

"The US is in the middle of a fight to secure Iraq, drive the Taliban out of Afghanistan, and end Islamist terrorism. Iran won't stop developing nuclear weapons, Syria assists them in funding and supplying Hezbollah, and Lebanon can't keep control over the sub-Litani region to keep Iranian proxies from antagonizing Israel. We have few allies in the region that supplies most of the world's industrial energy.
[...]
Under those circumstances, one would presume that the US would choose its fights carefully..."

This certainly seems to be a wise stance to take in light of the current vulnerability of U.S. forces. Certainly such a repudiation of the White House's current aggressive brinkmanship with Iran should be applauded. Except for one thing... the "fight" we are being urged not to pick here has nothing to do with Iran. In fact, the folks at Captain's Quarters have been very consistent in urging a militant stance (including possible attacks) toward Iran -- in short, they have advocated "picking a fight".

The fight in question here -- which allegedly threatens to harm the U.S. much more than provoking military conflict with Iran -- is a vote by Congress to recognize the Armenian Genocide perpetrated by the Turkish government between 1915 and 1917. To this day, the government of Turkey denies that any systematic killing by Turks occurred, in spite of massive amounts of virtually incontrovertible evidence. What has the folks at Captain's Quarters all worked up is that U.S. relations with Turkey could be soured by this recognition.

The laughable position of these people is this -- Starting war with Iran: Good. Possibly pissing off Turkey over a well-established historical fact: Bad. While it would be unquestionably disastrous to make Turkey angry, we should continue to ignore the mass of evidence that provoking conflict with Iran would lead to hugely harmful economic disturbances, horrific bloodshed in Iraq, an increase of terrorist violence throughout the world, and the final and complete obliteration of America's reputation in the world. I don't even know how a person could think, let alone write such a backwards thing without exploding from cognitive dissonance or irony or sheer stupidity.

In addition to being stupid on an epic scale, this whole argument is morally indefensible and sickening. To recap, the same conservatives who constantly remind us of how evil it is for Iranian and other Arab leaders to deny the Holocaust are now saying that, in the name of convenience, we should effectively deny the horrific genocide committed by Turkey that, as the first systematic slaughter of its kind, paved the way for the Nazi atrocities of World War II. All this in order to curry favor with a regime that has consistently mocked and belittled the victims of this atrocity for almost a century by denying that it even happened.

Authoritarian Stupidity at Captain's Quarters

In a post titled Now They Complain of Overcrowding, the folks over at Captain's Quarters are stupidly claiming that war opponents are somehow being inconsistent in both opposing the surge and in opposing the detention of Iraqis -- many or most of whom are innocent -- in overcrowded jails.

Not only do they applaud cruelly packing 705 people (including women and children) in a room meant to hold 75, these willfully-blind types are also claiming that the new tactics being employed by American and Iraqi forces -- which amount to basically arresting everything that moves in targeted "troubled neighborhoods" -- automatically means that huge numbers of insurgents are being jailed. Never mind the fact that most of the insurgents have long-since departed these areas, since they were given ample warning of the targeted locations of the surge and the new tactics -- the pro-Bush crowd is sure that this absurd waste of time and resources is going to help America win the war.

What this tactic will actually accomplish will be turning many more innocent Iraqis against the coalition forces and the Iraqi government, since people tend to despise being treated like cattle, being held in extremely unhealthy and unsafe conditions (with their children, in some cases), and being detained for long periods of time when they did absolutely nothing wrong.

When people like the guys at Captain's Quarters applaud this kind of tactic, which should be recognized as obviously stupid by any reasonable person, it really makes one wonder if these mass roundups don't simply appeal to a latent authoritarian fetish in these people. Every time the Bush administration does something that radically violates freedom or shows a complete disregard for civil liberties or human rights, whether in Iraq or in the U.S., it seems like the same conservative sycophants are there to cheer on the totalitarian fun. I guess with their well-established love of militarism and penchant for solving every problem with massive, overwhelming military force, none of this should really be surprising, but it sure is disturbing.

Climate Change and The Right

It is long past due for rational proponents of limited government to start pointing out the silliness of so many arguments, arising from conservative distaste for government intervention, that anthropogenic climate change (ACC) is in some way "pseudoscience" or is not supported by facts. It is fairly obvious that the reason conservatives and free-market types reject the idea of climate change caused by man is because of a preconceived notion that admitting the existence of such would mean consenting to intrusive government regulations. This is not only totally unreasonable, it can be very counterproductive and result in free marketers seeming anti-science and out of touch with the truth.

The most popular recent "criticism" of anthropogenic climate change is that its reality is based only on "consensus" among scientists, and not on factual accuracy. It is alleged that, despite being dedicated to rationalism and the scientific method in every other pursuit, scientists eschew reason and subscribe to the theory of ACC out of "political correctness" or some similar political pressure. It is never explained why a vast majority of all specialists in the relevant scientific disciplines would go against their ethics and risk their reputations merely to "fit in".

Once the widespread support by experts of ACC is cast aside as merely an irrational popular movement, it is then reasonable to paint critics of the theory as brave proponents of truth fighting the corrupt establishment. This is an idea that has proved all too popular among those already skeptical of the established truth on many issues of the day.

On the right-wing Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid blog, this common sentiment is expressed in contrasting economics and ACC, saying that while "99 percent" of modern economists support free markets, this "consensus" is disregarded by many of those who tout the consensus on ACC. The key to this argument is presented when the writer says (speaking of economics): "Consensus and policy are both consequences of compelling evidence and experience. Policy is not derived from consensus."

The idea here is that, while support for free markets has empirical backing and is thus supported by a legitimate consensus, the consensus in support of ACC lacks such empirical evidence and is therefore illegitimate. This principle is sound enough in theory, except the problem arises when one considers that those claiming a lack of empirical evidence supporting ACC are almost invariably not experts in the field, and are often those who tout their lack of professional expertise as an asset, allowing them to "think outside the box" and question the "dogma" of "establishment science".

While an outside perspective can be valuable in certain situations, it is most certainly not appropriate to the study of extremely complex and scientifically precise ideas like climate change. Not only do these critics lack "indoctrination", they lack all relevant knowledge of the field that would allow them to make reasonable, logical inferences from the data at hand. People do not spend years and years studying climate change simply because they feel like wasting time; it is absolutely necessary to commit this time in order to understand the fundamentals that underlie the theory. Just as a plumber cannot read Einstein's theory of relativity once and, without any real knowledge of physics, prove it to be totally illegitimate, neither can these critics undermine real scientific evidence by throwing around misinterpreted data and pretending to be experts in a field of which they are totally ignorant.

The lesson of all this is that self-described critics lacking all relevant expertise in a field cannot (at least the vast majority of the time) legitimately jump into the discussion and make coherent arguments while lacking the training and knowledge necessary to understand the concepts at hand. Furthermore, proponents of free markets should not so easily let their preconceived notions -- that ACC equates with big government -- lead them to reject good science in favor of bad science. Even if the truth appears to be politically inconvenient, there is much more to gain by confronting it and seeking political alternatives than there is in denying it.

UPDATE: It should also be noted that the idea of consensus is not at all antithetical to science -- scientific theories gain prominence and legitimacy through the independent analysis and experimentation of many people. The verification of a theory by many scientists, which leads to an empirically-based consensus, is central to the scientific method. As noted above, the central criticism of ACC is that this consensus is not empirically-based, however the basis for this criticism is very questionable, since those who interpret the data to arrive at contradictory interpretations are rarely experts in the field. The consensus of the scientific community (of qualified scientists) should hold weight, since it indicates that the theory has survived much critical consideration. While consensus among experts does not guarantee the truth of any theory, it is the best method we have of determining truth -- much better than the alternate theorizing of those with a shallow, incomplete understanding of the theories in question.

VDH's World

In yet another article for National Review Online -- practically indistinguishable from all his past war-praising, grand sounding rhetoric -- Victor Davis Hanson informs us all that the war in Iraq is part of a larger, global war against radical Islam. Of course no one denies this -- not even the most anti-war of Americans. One would have to be in the deepest denial to not see the multitudinous terrorist incidents taking place throughout the world, and recognize the status of Iraq as a central hub for the development of terrorism. This, of course, does not mean that Iraq was a terrorist hot spot before the invasion in 2003, nor does it mean that fighting in Iraq is necessarily an effective means of waging the global conflict against terrorism.

Then again, Hanson does not persuasively argue that anything of consequence is being accomplished in Iraq, but rather relies on describing the fearful state of affairs that would result from a withdrawal of American forces. What Hanson does argue is that, since extremism existed in Iraq and the Middle East prior to the invasion (the radical mullahs in Iran, Hezbollah, Saudi-funded extremism, etc), American efforts there are somehow necessarily beneficial. Responding to the charge that America's presence is "bringing terrorists to Iraq", Hanson notes that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other extremists were in Iraq prior to the invasion. This name-dropping does nothing to justify the transformation -- which resulted from the initiation of war in Iraq -- of Zarqawi from a relatively minor extremist figure into a hugely influential terrorist leader responsible for massive slaughter in Iraq. As is usually the case among glorifiers of war like Hanson, the power of war to transform evil people into hugely powerful evil people is totally ignored.

Similarly, Hanson ignores the instability and escalating violence that have wracked the region since the initiation of war by the U.S. -- conditions that serve as catalysts to terrorist growth better than most anything else. The things that the war has brought us -- an increased determination by Iran to secure nuclear weapons, an increase in the number of terrorist attacks worldwide, new hordes of battle-hardened extremists and a perfect extremist 'sandbox' in which methods and technologies of terrorism are constantly perfected -- are hardly worth mentioning to Hanson. After all, these deadly serious consequences are little more than a bump on the road to glorious freedom, democracy, and moderation in the Middle East. One of these days, says Hanson, everything will be gloriously transformed and we will find peace and stability where violence has prevailed.

As the crowning point in his demonstration of the horrors that would follow an American pull-out in Iraq, Hanson says the following:

Should a peace candidate win the American presidency in 2008, prompting the U.S. to pull out of Iraq before the democracy there is stabilized, in the short term we will save lives and money. But as the larger war continues after we withdraw, jihadists will still flock to the Sunni Triangle. Hamas and Hezbollah will still rocket Israel. Syria will still kill Lebanese reformers. Iran will still try to cheat its way to a nuclear bomb. Ayman al- Zawahiri will still broadcast his al Qaeda threats from safety in nuclear Pakistan. The oil-rich, illegitimate Gulf sheikdoms will still make secret concessions and bribe increasingly confident terrorists to leave them alone. And jihadists will still try to sneak into the United States to kill us.

This "nightmare scenario" describes exactly how things are now, and fails to show how fighting it out in Iraq could bring even the most remote chance of righting all these wrongs. As we see here, Hanson's irrational faith that everything will somehow turn out great in Iraq if we just keep feeding it men and money combines with an equally absurd faith that success in Iraq will utterly transform the Middle East for the better, eliminating virtually all our problems in one fell swoop. Even if he took the time to explain how such miraculous things could arise from the establishment of a stable democracy in Iraq, we would likely be left in awe at the vast difference between our world and Hanson's.

In Hanson's world, glorious war is not only the solution to all problems, it blesses the faithful warmonger with a magical power to right all wrongs, with no regard for the complexities of reality. It is from this faith in war that arose the idea that Iraq would be easily democratized, that the Iraqi people would "greet us as liberators", that the war would pay for itself, that the insurgency was in its "last throes", and so on with the parade of laughable claims made by these modern priests of Mars in their glorification of bloodshed. Now, from these same self-styled prophets of progress comes the claim that success in Iraq is attainable and will bring about a glorious new age in the Middle East. Forgive me for my skepticism.

Lancet Study: 655,000 'Excess' Iraqi Deaths

Newly-released documents from the British government have added a new twist to the story of the previously-rejected Lancet study of Iraqi casualties since the invasion in 2003. The report, which was called "not credible" by President Bush and also rejected by British Prime Minister Tony Blair, used a "careful door-to-door methodology" and estimated that 655,000 Iraqis -- almost 3 percent of the country's population -- died as a result of the war between March of 2003 and June 2006.

It seems that the prior rejection of the study by Bush and Blair was purely political posturing, as British internal documents have revealed that numerous high-level British officials considered the study to be "robust", "close to best practice" and "a tried and tested method of measuring mortality in conflict zones". This means that the numbers suggested by the U.S. and British governments -- when they even acknowledge civilian casualties -- are absurdly low, and the Lancet estimate of 655,000 is probably very close to the actual number of civilian deaths caused by the war.

Now, in addition to the more than 3,200 American troops and 258 other coalition troops that have been killed, as well as the more than 23,000 American troops wounded, the war has resulted in a staggering number of more than half a million civilian deaths. It is hard to imagine how those who still support the war can justify this utterly shocking loss of life as "worth it". In a mere 3 years, the war that Bush started has managed to kill almost 2/3 the number that Saddam Hussein killed in 24 years of brutal dictatorship. The war has been more than five times as deadly as living under Saddam's rule, yet amazingly some Bush supporters still claim that Iraqis are "better off" than they were.

What Is Islamophobia?

The term "Islamophobia" has recently gained currency among bloggers, journalists and pundits, especially those on the left. Like all politically-charged terms, the term has been used in good faith, in attempts to identify an actual attitude toward Islam, and has also been used as a cheap political brick to be thrown at one's opponents. The key to understanding what exactly "Islamophobia" is lies in the difference between these two usages of the term.

Those who apply the term to anyone voicing criticism of Islam, the traditions surrounding Islam, or extremist versions of Islam are doing so merely to gain cheap political points. Such criticisms of Islam are entirely valid so long as they are reasonable and factually based. Those who assert that Islam and Muslim societies are not to be criticized (or those who label any such critics as "bigots") achieve nothing but the neutering of essential discourse that is very relevant to our times.

Christopher Hitchens, the prominent conservative-leaning (at least on foreign policy issues) writer, has repeatedly denigrated the term Islamophobia, calling it a "stupid neologism" and characterizing it as nothing but a cheap means of stifling debate. Based on his impression of the term, it seems that Hitchens has only encountered the above-described illegitimate use of the term, and has concluded that it serves only this illegitimate purpose.

If one delves into the vast space of internet discussion forums, blogs, and reader comments (both on blogs and news sites), however, it is disturbingly easy to identify instances of real Islamophobia. To identify such instances, we must determine, if reasonable criticism of Islam and Muslim society are legitimate, where does one draw the line? Where does such criticism turn into Islamophobia?

Despite the widespread confusion over the meaning of the term, Islamophobic remarks are remarkably easy to identify: they are simply statements that, ignoring established facts and utilizing hyperbole or outright fabrications, seek to portray all Muslims (or sometimes a majority of Muslims) as extremist, violent, dangerous, ignorant, or any number of other unsupported, hateful characterizations. What sets these statements apart from legitimate criticisms is that they are almost always meant to support a preconceived notion that is unsupported by fact and that serves only to denigrate Muslims.

An example of an Islamophobic argument, which I encountered in an online discussion forum, is the following: The claim was made that, since the Quran contains passages which appear to sanction violence against non-Muslims, one must conclude that Muslims are generally violent and dangerous.

It is perfectly legitimate for this person to point out that certain passages in the Quran could be taken by Muslims as a justification for violence against non-Muslims. However their comments became Islamophobic when they made the illogical, unsupported assertion that, because of this, all Muslims are violent and dangerous. The existence of violence-sanctioning passages in the Quran does not in any way lead to the conclusion that all Muslims are violent, just as the Old Testament passage which says to kill homosexuals does not mean that all Christians or Jews kill homosexuals. This person was unwavering in their certitude that the existence of these passages was irrefutable proof of the violence of all Muslims, even when the flawed logic of their argument was pointed out.

Similarly, it is relatively common for people to point to the widespread violence following the Danish cartoon controversy, and to claim that this supports the conclusion that all Muslims are violent and fanatical. This conclusion is Islamophobic because it ignores the fact that, even though the violence was widespread, only a small fraction of Muslims took part in any kind of violence. As in the above example, this argument serves only as a thin cover for the illogical, preconceived notion that Muslims are violent, which is based in an illogical fear and dislike of Muslims.

Sadly, it seems that many people willfully fail to distinguish between these two types of criticism, so as to legitimize their irrational, Islamophobic remarks or those of others. While it does not appear that this is the case with Hitchens, it is certainly the case with a number of prominent writers, especially among those who seek to justify belief in a global "clash of civilizations" or a concerted effort by Muslims to destroy Western society. If political writers, bloggers and readers can keep in mind the distinction between legitimate criticisms and bigoted Islamophobia, reasoned debate will progress greatly and all-too-prevalent bigotry can be rejected as it should be.

Bill of Rights? What Bill of Rights?

Since Jose Padilla, an American citizen, was first arrested in May of 2002 in a Chicago airport, I have been following his case, like many others, with a combination of astonishment, disgust and outrage. Those who have read my past writings about him will recall that he was detained in a military brig from 2002 until January 2006 and denied all of his constitutional rights (due process, habeas corpus, etc) without being charged with any crime. Government officials first claimed to have evidence that he was involved in a plot to detonate a "dirty bomb" on American soil, but to this day have presented no evidence supporting that charge.

After being illegally detained and interrogated for years, Padilla was transferred from military custody and charged with terrorism-related crimes unrelated to the initial alleged "dirty bomb" plot -- a tacit admission by the Bush administration that the initial charge was a total fabrication. Since Padilla was charged, his case has been progressing through the courts until March 23 of this year, when Judge Marcia Cooke denied a motion by Padilla to dismiss the case, a motion filed on the grounds that he had been denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial.

From the time when he was detained (May 2002) to the time his trial will begin (April 16 2007), Padilla was detained in blatant violation of numerous constitutional rights for almost 5 years, however Judge Cooke determined that Padilla had in fact not been denied his right to a speedy trial because that right did not exist until he was charged with a crime in January 2006. In the disgusting, outrageous reasoning of this feeble-minded judge, the illegal detention of an American citizen without charge for almost 4 years is not only acceptable, it actually excuses the further violation of that person's right to a speedy trial.

To help this pathetic atrocity of a human being and sad excuse for a judge understand the stupidity of her decision, I will remind her of the following excerpts from the highest law of the land, the constitution, which binds absolutely every action of the government:

First, there is the right, explicitly spelled out in the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, that anyone held by the government has an inviolable right "to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation." This means that the government is legally required to charge someone with a crime in order to detain them. There is no question that the Bush administration willfully failed to charge Padilla with a crime, and thus violated this right.

Also from the Sixth Amendment, there is explicitly stated the inviolable right that "the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial." This means, of course, that a person cannot be held without the presentation of evidence in a court of law for an unreasonable amount of time. There is absolutely no question that the years Padilla was held without trial amount to a grievous violation of this right.

Since both our tyrannical President and our utterly worthless courts seem not only unwilling to protect our fundamental rights but intent on actively violating them, one can only hope the American people will begin to awaken to the danger posed by such out-of-control government. For virtually every day this "War on Terror" continues there is a new assault on our basic freedoms, and it seems the American people are either too apathetic or too ignorant of what is happening to demand a halt to such tyranny. Sooner or later, people will realize what they have allowed to grow around them -- hopefully that realization will come before every freedom we hold dear has been wrenched from us.

This is Not "Your" Country

For those not caught up in the scared anti-immigration frenzy gripping a sizable segment of the population, the entire culture surrounding the anti-immigration movement (with its Minutemen, fears of Mexican conquest, and demonization of virtually all non-European immigrants) can be bewildering. Why is it, exactly, that so many people feel so threatened by anyone entering the country without the intent to completely abandon their heritage and cede the superiority of white, Christian, European traditions? Whether the immigrants in question are Hispanic, Arab, Muslim, or Asian, the fear seems to be the same -- that these people are intent on conquering and subverting white Western civilization in one way or another.

With Muslims and Arabs, the alleged plot always involves the establishment of a totalitarian Muslim theocracy, most likely using terrorism; with Hispanics, it is the (re)conquest of the Southwest and the imposition of the Spanish language on all Americans. In addition to these large-scale conspiracy theories, there are always a handful of more mundane libels: Mexicans are criminally-inclined, they leech off social programs, or they steal American jobs; Muslims are hostile to democracy and/or sympathetic to America's enemies abroad. That there is no evidence supporting these grand accusations is of no concern to those who are so obviously motivated by fear -- of the unknown, of change, or of any number of other things.

Although we can understand the hysteria of these people (on some level) in the context of this fear, we should not make the mistake of excusing the absurd ideas that comprise their paranoid, irrational subculture. I have neither the time nor the will to debunk every silly, ignorant stereotype or theory put forth by the anti-immigration community, however there is one subject -- one central to the community's thinking -- that can and should be addressed. This is the sentiment, expressed over and over again in hundreds of different ways, that immigrants are imposing on a culture, society, and nation that is "theirs."

It is hard to read a single page of anti-immigration (anti-immigrant?) writing without coming across the phrase "This is our country", "This is my country", or something similar. This idea constitutes the entire basis for the anti-immigration crowd's grievances against their imagined foes: it is the real Americans (Christian Americans of European descent) who have the right to determine what language should be spoken, what laws should be written, what should be taught in schools, and so on with every aspect of society. If this is not what they thought, there would be no objection to the influences of immigrants and their cultures. Of course they never say so in such a direct manner, but what else could they mean, when their stated goal is the defense of "their" America against the illegitimate influence of others?

Throughout America's history, it has in fact been the case that this majority group did dominate American society in all these ways. The anti-immigration community is simply claiming the right to continue this dominance. Because of this, in their minds, anyone who even indirectly challenges the power of their class of people over everyone else is trying to destroy America, plain and simple.

What scares these people is the idea that their beloved majoritarianism, which has served them so well throughout history in ensuring their privilege above all other groups in society, could be turned against them if they were somehow to become (gasp!) a minority. The cute fiction that their "American values" are about anything other than the rule of the largest group over and against all others is torn to shreds by the fear generated by even the possibility of such a change. Although the anti-immigration crowd is far from admitting it, it is this realization -- that they are vulnerable and could suffer the same fate as those they dominate -- that scares them.

Imagine the horrors, they think, of having some other group of a different race, a different religion, or a different culture ruling over you. Such a fate is unimaginable to the average white anti-immigration American -- hence the scramble for massive walls and mass deportations. Everything was fine and good as long as "we" were doing the imposing and dominating, but immigration threatens this arrangement. Beneath all the outlandish conspiracies and ignorant stereotyping, these Americans are deathly afraid of losing their hold on power. This is our country, they say, and we will keep it that way however we can, even if it means systematically dehumanizing, excluding and outlawing everyone who refuses to kowtow to "real" American values.

If this all sounds rather sad and disturbing, that's because it is. Luckily, there are more than a few Americans who want to see our country rise above this crude politics of domination. These people must realize the seriousness of the situation and see the threat to freedom that it represents. When the frantic cries of the anti-immigration movement are seen in this light, it becomes even more important to work against their xenophobia, and to affirm the value and dignity of every person, not just a favored few.

Deepak Chopra and New Age Nonsense

In response to noted atheist Richard Dawkins' new book "The God Delusion," Deepak Chopra has penned a series of responses at the Huffington Post, in an attempt to rebut Dawkins' main points regarding religion. In reading through some of these essays, I was once again reminded of exactly why I have come to loathe the kind of pseudo-scientific, mystical nonsense that characterizes virtually all writings on New Age "spirituality," especially Chopra's.

One of the central ideas in Chopra's writings is that human consciousness cannot be described or adequately quantified in material terms (i.e. by science), and that this leads to the realization that the universe itself is (or is permeated by) some sort of "God" -- although one that is decidedly different from those of the major religions. What annoys me about Chopra's ideas has nothing to do with the fact that he posits the existence of a God of some sort, but rather that he dresses up his beliefs, which are unquestionably not materialistic or rational, with catchy, scientific-sounding words in an attempt to sound like he's creating some great fusion between "arrogant" materialist "skeptics" on the one hand, and "fundamentalists" (meaning followers of the major religions) on the other.

As an introductory example of his style of pseudo-scientific blather that is, in the most literal sense, completely meaningless, take this gem of mystic insight:

"...why should God be what Dawkins imagines--a superhuman Creator making life the way a watchmaker makes a watch? Let's say God is closer to being a field of consciousness that pervades the universe. Let's say that this field keeps creating new forms within itself. These forms swirl and mix with each other, finding more combinations and complexities as time unfolds. Such a God couldn't be imagined because a field is infinite, and there's nowhere it isn't."

At first glance this may seem like a somewhat valid and interesting idea. Chopra seems to be proposing a "middle path" of sorts between hard materialism and traditional conceptions of God. The trouble arises if you actually think about what Chopra is saying, and attempt to extract some sort of real meaning from his words.

Chopra says, "God is closer to being a field of consciousness that pervades the universe." This invokes a mental image, most likely of some sort of ephemeral connective element that extends through space. Chopra's choice of words -- "a field" that "pervades the universe" -- is obviously meant to invoke the concept of a field (as in a magnetic field, a gravitational field) from mathematics and physics. The problem arises when you look at how Chopra tries to throw together completely unrelated concepts in a manner that quite simply cannot have any meaning.

On a basic level, a gravitational field is a representation of the distribution of forces throughout space caused by the presence of mass. Vector fields in general, of which gravitational fields are a type, associate a value in the form of a vector with every point in a given space. There are other types of fields, more basic and more complex, but they all work according to this same basic principle. Consciousness, on the other hand, is "a quality of the mind generally regarded to comprise qualities such as subjectivity, self-awareness, sentience, sapience, and the ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one's environment." (Wikipedia)

One of the most basic concepts of modern philosophy (and logic) is that words serve as references to objects (whether concrete or abstract) and that often these references can be combined in ways that sound and seem meaningful at first glance, yet have no possible meaning. An example of such a combination would be if someone talked of an "invisible apple." Since an apple is defined by a number of characteristics which include visibility and having some color (though an apple could be many different colors), the very idea of an "invisible apple" is nonsensical and logically absurd. While it may seem that one could imagine an apple that cannot be seen, if it was truly invisible there would be no way to identify it as an apple, since an apple cannot be identified without reference to its visual characteristics. Thus it would not truly be an apple at all.

Now, is there any conceivable way that these two concepts of "field" and "consciousness" could be combined to refer to something meaningful? It turns out that, just like the invisible apple, the idea of a "field of consciousness" is inherently contradictory since consciousness is not something that could possibly comprise a field, any more than you could fill a bucket with intelligence. The two concepts of "field" and "consciousness" simply cannot be combined to form anything meaningful.

So we are left with the conclusion that Chopra is simply using scientific-sounding terminology in order to construct "ideas" that are meaningless on the most basic level. Some may counter that Chopra was simply using those terms to suggest an idea, an did not mean the words literally. However, if this was the case, Chopra's beliefs would be essentially the same as anyone else who believes in God, except he would be guilty of attempting to legitimize his beliefs with pseudo-scientific jargon, while drawing false distinctions between his allegedly more advanced beliefs and those of other religious people.

Chopra contrasts himself and his beliefs with "fundamentalists" who believe that humans have spirits, that there is a creator God, etc. In reality, the only difference between Chopra's "God" and that of Christians, Jews and others is that, unlike Chopra, other believers honestly state that their belief in God is a matter of faith. Chopra, on the other hand, concocts fancy, scientific-sounding phrases -- about "swirling, mixing forms" of a "field of consciousness" -- that are completely devoid of meaning.

Essentially, Chopra's ideas, and his attempt to differentiate himself from traditional religion as if his beliefs were somehow more valid than them, are comparable to someone who mocks those who pray for healing while touting the "healing energies" of some New Age gem or trinket. A thin veil of nonsensical scientific-sounding jargon (and a need to deny that his beliefs are based on faith, not reason) are all that separates Chopra's beliefs from the traditional religions he seems to denigrate.

Feeding the Terrorist Machine

A new post by Tom Bowler at Libertarian Leanings points to the apparent "early success" of the new "surge" security plan in Iraq, and also recites a meme that has become very common among supporters of the war. Bowler first quotes a NY Post article, written by retired army officer Gordon Cucullu, which speaks of what seems to be newfound hope in Iraq. According to Cucullu, the recent decline in violence has been accompanied by a notable increase in faith in the Iraqi government, with more Iraqis joining police and army forces while dropping support for militias and insurgent groups.

While this is certainly good news, only time will tell if these developments can stand in the face of evolving insurgent tactics. After only 5 weeks of the new security plan, it is hard to tell if a new, stable atmosphere is emerging or if insurgents are merely transitioning and reacting to the new American tactics. Whatever the case, temporary gains -- in stability, in government legitimacy, in popular sentiment -- will only be truly valuable if they can be both expanded throughout the nation and sustained in the long term; these gains must survive the inevitable insurgent reactions and offensives not just in Baghdad, but throughout Iraq.

Moving on to the common meme among war supporters, Bowler says,

"It seems to be lost on the Democratic majority in congress that we are fighting al Qaeda in Iraq. We are in a war on terror, and our soldiers are fighting our terrorist enemies every day. Al Qaeda is the group responsible for bringing down the twin towers in lower Manhattan. Under the leadership of General David Petraeus our soldiers are fighting al Qaeda and they're fighting them in Iraq."

While what he says is certainly true (we are fighting elements of al Qaeda and similar organizations in Iraq), and there are without question certain benefits to fighting them "there" and not "here," Bowler fails to recognize (as many war-supporters do) that there are definite, serious negative consequences to this situation as well.

Students of the origins of al Qaeda will recall that the organization first emerged from the ashes of the failed Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. That is to say, the interpersonal connections, honing of skills and exchange of expertise necessary to effectively form a transnational terrorist organization were forged in the conflict with the USSR. This process drew individuals, skills, financial assets, and ideologies together in a way that made possible the formation of the unique beast that is al Qaeda.

In the same sense, the conflict in Iraq draws jihadis, along with their skills and assets, together in a way not possible outside the context of a massive asymmetric (guerrilla, insurgent) conflict. Thus we see that, although it is good that many of those willing to kill and die in the name of extremist ideologies are being "dealt with" by U.S. forces in Iraq, the conflict itself provides the context for extensive development and proliferation of jihadi ideology and guerrilla skills -- a development that has repercussions far beyond the borders of Iraq. This process has been seen in action throughout the world: the evolution of improvised explosive devices in Iraq from simple, primitive devices to advanced and more effective ones; the spread of violent extremist Islam into Western cultures, which has centered around the war in Iraq; sophisticated international networking between extremist "cells" based on ties going back to the conflict in Iraq.

Given all this, the pertinent question is whether the war in Iraq is making more terrorists than coalition forces can kill, and the answer seems to be yes. The spread of terrorist violence throughout the world since the invasion of Iraq -- in Europe, Southeast Asia and elsewhere -- as well as the seemingly endless supply of willing suicide bombers and insurgents, suggests that (as General Petraeus has said) there is no military solution to the situation in Iraq. If this is so, and only political reconciliation can pave the way for peace in the war-torn country, the same is true for the wider issue of how global terrorism is fed by the conflict in Iraq.

As long as Iraq remains a weak, divided nation and an exceptional training ground for terrorists, there will always be more terrorists. While many supporters of the war imagine Iraq becoming a terrorist haven if America were to pull out, in reality the continuing conflict may be even more effective in forging a strong terrorist movement, precisely because it is not safe, and because it provides a proving and development ground for terrorists and their tactics.

The war in Iraq, despite the opportunity it provides for eliminating some terrorists, remains an open sore which will fester and breed further global infection as long as violence prevails. Contrary to those who tout the importance of "fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here," the truth is that the violence overseas spreads into our backyards precisely because it is birthed and strengthened by America's presence in Iraq.

Surging in Iraq

As the new "surge" security plan in Baghdad and Anbar province continues, it remains unclear whether the additional forces are yet gaining significant ground. While death squad activity has dropped "dramatically" in Baghdad, the daily bombings continue unabated. Also, violence has increased in other areas, most significantly by 30 percent in the northeastern province of Diyala, where the American commander recently requested reinforcements to deal with the influx of insurgents who are relocating outside the area targeted by the "surge."

Coalition forces are also targeting Sadr City, the Baghdad slum and stronghold of Shiite militia leader Muqtada al-Sadr, who has apparently gone into hiding in Iran. The operations in Sadr City have thus far taken the form of limited raids -- which some have characterized as mere harassment -- and may be escalated in the future, although such an escalation in the Shiite neighborhood could further endanger the nation's fragile political processes. Coalition forces and the Iraqi government are also increasing efforts to divide Sadr's Madhi Army while he is away in Iran by holding talks with his top commanders.

While most observers insist it is too early to judge the success or failure of the new plan, Robert Kagan and Juan Cole have weighed in with their (opposite) interpretations of recent developments. Kagan, in an article for the Washington Post, cites the observations of Iraqi bloggers Mohammed and Omar Fadhil, who say that "early signs are encouraging," and that the new plan is having a positive psychological impact. Kagan also says that a compromise on oil revenue sharing appears to be "on its way to approval," and is hopeful that further political compromises will follow.

Juan Cole, in an article for Salon, asks, "Is the Bush surge already failing?" Cole says that Sunni insurgents are adapting their tactics, and points to the downing of 8 U.S. helicopters in the past 2 months as an indication. Cole also posits that the continued bombings in Tikrit, Ramadi, and the rest of Anbar province (as well as the spike in violence in previously-quiet areas such as Diyala and Ninevah) show that insurgents are not stepping down. Lastly, Cole thinks that, with the continued killings of Shiite pilgrims -- who had been protected by the now-suppressed Madhi Army in previous years -- recent attacks have, "shaken to the core the confidence of the Iraqi people in the new security plan."

General Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq and champion of the new surge, emphasized on Thursday that there is no military solution to the situation in Iraq. He is certainly right that the military measures will only be effective if they can spark significant political progress and sectarian reconciliation. Whether or not such reconciliation is possible at this point with all the blood that has been shed, and whether Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis can find enough common ground to forge a workable political consensus, will only be revealed with time.

Ultimately, the success or failure of the new plan depends on the Iraqi people and their reaction to the situation on the ground throughout the country. If the new plan can convince Iraqis that the government is worth supporting (and sacrificing for), things could begin to head in a different direction. If, on the other hand, Iraqis perceive the new effort as ineffective, or if the divisions that have plagued the government thus far continue to stand in the way, no number of dead insurgents can bring stability to Iraq.

Second Amendment Victory in D.C.

After decades of suppression by both legislatures and courts throughout the country, the Second Amendment finally appears to be on the rise. In a landmark ruling on Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia struck down portions of a D.C. law prohibiting citizens from possessing handguns. More importantly, the court embraced an individual-rights view of the Second Amendment, contesting the prevailing view that the Second Amendment applies only to militias.

The case, Parker v. District of Columbia, was decided by a 2-1 vote, upholding an interpretation of the Second Amendment that had been previously rejected by nine federal appeals courts. The decision will almost certainly be appealed, meaning the case is likely to end up in the Supreme Court, where a final decision would have nationwide repercussions. Likewise, if the Supreme Court denies appeal, the lower court's decision will be established as precedent much as if the Supreme Court had concurred.

As Eugene Volokh points out, the 2001 Fifth Circuit decision United States v. Emerson upheld this same interpretation, however despite asserting the individual right to bear arms, the decision actually upheld the contested gun-control law as an acceptable limitation on that right. In this sense, Friday's Parker decision has much further-reaching repercussions, as it could challenge gun control laws throughout the U.S. if upheld.

Interestingly, Parker was strongly opposed by the NRA, which mounted numerous attempts to co-opt and derail the case for fear that it would make it to the Supreme Court only to lose, thus establishing a strong precedent against individual gun rights.

The mayor of Washington D.C. has come out strongly against the ruling, saying that it would lead to an explosion of violence in the already crime-infested city. An editorial in the Washington Post similarly decried the ruling, which it called "radical" and "dangerous."

More from Volokh, (more), Radley Balko, and Reason's Hit & Run blog.

Ann Coulter: Still Worthless.

As you probably know by now, Ann Coulter dropped yet another bomb at the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) Conference (pretty much the most important conservative conference in the U.S.), calling Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards a "faggot." Although Coulter has been making a fool of herself like this for years, this may mark a new low.

Of course virtually every conservative at the event, in the media, and in the blogosphere has disowned her comments and assured everyone that her words were not indicative of average Republican/conservative views. It also goes without saying that none of these conservatives have addressed the fact that the comment was met with lots of laughter, applause and cheers at the conference. Defending herself, Coulter later said that, despite what we may think, the word faggot isn't offensive to gay people.

Most interestingly, after her appearance last year at the CPAC where she called Arabs "ragheads," she was actually invited back this year to spew ignorant bile yet again. But that wouldn't be because they like the kind of filth she spews or agree with her at all...

Among Coulter's greatest hits were her claim that "profiling Muslims is more like profiling the Klan" and her genius idea that (speaking about Arab Muslims), "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." It is literally impossible to overstate the total stupidity and worthlessness of this woman. If she died tomorrow, beautiful flowers would sprout and bloom all over the world, such would be the benefit to all existence.

In short: Ann Coulter is a completely worthless, idiotic bigot, and she looks like an emaciated man. Now lets stop paying attention to her.

"Sudden Jihad Syndrome"

While looking through the archives at the well-known conservative writer Daniel Pipes' website, I came across one of his more famous articles, in which he coins the phrase "Sudden Jihad Syndrome," which, he claims, motivates normal Muslims to quickly turn to violent, extremist Islam. This "syndrome" is characterized by a sudden change in which peaceful, law-abiding, reasonable Muslims spontaneously become inspired to perpetrate acts of horrific violence -- in short, they become terrorists overnight.

In support of this idea, Pipes cites descriptions of many 9/11 hijackers, as well as Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, the college student in North Carolina who went on a rampage with his SUV, injuring 9 people. In all these cases, neighbors and friends described the future terrorists as reasonable, quiet, and peaceful. Building on these descriptions, Pipes claims that it is often virtually impossible to distinguish between normal, moderate Muslims and violent extremist Muslims, since the latter usually appear as wolves in sheeps' clothing.

While Pipes' phrase is certainly catchy and seems at first glance to offer an insight into the nature of terrorism, upon further consideration one is left with the question: what exactly is his point? What would Pipes expect these people to act like, if they were not peaceful and quiet? Does he think they would parade around shouting "Death to America!," have a record of prior terrorist acts, or be notoriously irrational and violent to their friends and neighbors? Almost everyone in the world would be described by friends and neighbors in exactly the same terms -- can you imagine describing any of your friends as violent, irrational, or dangerous? There is nothing in this "theory" that is unique to Islam or even terrorism -- virtually every serial killer and other perpetrator of large-scale violence has been described similarly, as quiet and peaceful up to their discovery as sociopaths.

What this phrase and idea does do, however, is brand all Muslims as potentially violent terrorists. In Pipes' words: "It has the awful but legitimate consequence of casting suspicion on all Muslims." If Pipes' idea is therefore essentially empty except for its function as an excuse for discrimination against Muslims, then either Pipes' has expended substantial energy stating the obvious -- that violent sociopaths are often not seen as such until they commit a violent act -- or all his phrasing and psychological theorizing is there solely to justify the preconceived notion that Muslims are to be viewed as dangerous.

Rather than seeking to justify prejudice against Muslims, it would be more rational to draw from these stories the lesson that terrorism appears in the most unlikely places, among the most unlikely people. The idea that all Muslims are to be viewed with suspicion unavoidably results in discrimination against those seen as most "obviously Muslim," such as dark-skinned Arabs and other West Asian people. Oddly enough, the real lesson of these stories suggests that those most likely to be viewed as suspicious by Pipes and his ilk may not be the most likely suspects. The appearance of countless "home-grown" terrorist cells -- made up of "local-looking" types rather than "foreigners" -- throughout Europe and North America supports this conclusion, and shows that the simple prejudice proposed by Pipes is often not only ineffective, but counterproductive.

Even if the prejudice resulting from these ideas were constrained strictly to one's religion, the "Muslims are suspect" idea is plainly unhelpful. As we saw with the 9/11 hijackers and countless other terrorists, those most likely to commit terrorist acts are those who go out of their way to act as if they were not Muslim. Terrorists are very simply not stupid enough to act the part of the stereotypical radical Arab Muslim. Judging from real experience with terrorists, drinking, sexual exploits, and drug use would serve as better indicators of terrorist potential than Muslim piety.

Concluding Pipes' article is yet another plainly ridiculous conservative talking point which is encountered endlessly in political discussion. While Westerners can help by viewing Muslims with suspicion, Pipes says, Muslims can do their part "...by developing a moderate, modern, and good-neighborly version of Islam that rejects radical Islam, jihad, and the subordination of 'infidels.'" Despite the undeniable mass of evidence to the contrary, Pipes and numerous others continue to imply, through statements such as this, that Muslims have not developed a responsible, non-violent Islam that rejects radicalism and subordination of "infidels." In reality, on display for all who care to see, is the obvious truth that the vast majority of Muslims practice and preach exactly this kind of Islam, while explicitly rejecting violent extremism. Pipes and his ideological brethren are, for some reason, hell-bent on denying this truth and insisting that Muslims as a whole are responsible for the violence of a tiny minority of apostates. The only end this can possibly serve is to further demonize Muslims, a goal that seems to be somewhat of a recurring theme in Pipes' work.

Neoconservatives Share the Blame

The most hardcore supporters of the Bush administration -- hawkish, authoritarian, big-government conservatives, also known as neoconservatives -- seem to perceive that the war in Iraq is heading in the wrong direction, and while maintaining optimistic, they are unmistakably preparing themselves for the worst. How can we tell this? They are increasingly emphasizing the role of Democrats in supporting the war in Iraq during its conception in 2003, in an attempt to lighten the burden of failure likely to fall on Bush and the Republican party.

Articles like The Democrats' War, just published on National Review Online, are clearly not written with any sort of great victory in Iraq in mind. The day Republicans begin attributing any policy to Democrats is the day you know they have lost faith in success, or at least find victory to be very unlikely. Coming amidst the constant outpour of blind optimism from the same conservative outlets -- such as the new Victor Davis Hanson piece Anatomy of Iraq (pathetically subtitled "It All Could Change" on the NRO front page) -- this kind of hedging is telling.

In the face of such a horrific picture in Iraq, Bush's cheerleaders have apparently come up with a 2-pronged plan of political posturing: First, they must constantly emphasize the possibility of victory, so that if things do turn around they can thumb their noses at all who doubted them. This tactic also allows them to blame any failure on the lack of "resolve" or interference of the usual suspects -- the left, the media, etc. Second, they must spread the blame as widely as possible, just as they tried to do with the flawed WMD intelligence ("But everyone agreed that Saddam had WMDs..."), so that in the event of failure, their opponents can not only be pinned with responsibility for losing the war, but for starting it as well.

This is not to say that many Democrats do not deserve to share in the blame for gleefully marching off to war. It does, however, reveal that Republicans do not think that this war is winnable. If they thought that the chance of victory was even a mere 50/50 -- and statements by the Bush administration certainly suggest far more than that -- there would be no sense in giving Democrats credit for starting the war. Considering this, the constant accusations by hawkish conservatives that their opponents are "defeatist" and "giving up" are revealed as so much political posturing. It seems that opponents of the war are simply being more honest. No doubt there are some Republicans who still believe that victory is likely, but the fact that articles like The Democrats' War are not harshly received (imagine the reaction if such an article had been written by a conservative right after the fall of Baghdad) suggests that many Republicans are ready to start spreading the blame for a failure of epic proportions.