Saga of the Rainbow Flag: It all comes together tomorrow in Meade, Kansas

By Diane Silver

MTV television cameras, Fred Phelps, his funeral-picketing Westboro Church and Kansas' largest gay-rights group are all scheduled to come together in Meade on Sunday.

In case anyone hasn't been paying attention, Meade is the town of 1,600 in southwestern Kansas that made the news after the owners of the local Lakeway Hotel were harassed for flying the rainbow flag. A symbol of gay rights, the flag was first cut down and stolen and then a brick with the word "fag" on it was thrown through the hotel window. Another brick with the words "get the fuck out of town" was found outside the hotel.

Tomorrow may well mark the peak of the events in town.

The Wichita Eagle reports:

Meade Police Chief Loren Borger said several extra law enforcement officers, including 16 Kansas Highway Patrol troopers, will be on duty Sunday because of the protests.

The Hutchinson News explains Phelps' motivation as best as anyone can.

Members of the Topeka-based Westboro Church are targeting churches here because they say they are somehow culpable for allowing the rainbow flag to be flown in town.

Here is a schedule of tomorrow's events in Meade.

10 a.m - Phelps and group picket the five churches in Meade. As much as I hate to send anyone to Phelps' site, he does have a detailed schedule up of Westboro's planned picketing in Meade.

1 - 3 p.m. - Kansas Equality Coalition statewide board meets at the Lakeway Hotel. The Equality Coalition site has more details on the meeting.

In This Moment's past postings on what has most definitely become a saga, include:

What's really happening in Meade, Kansas

A small-town solution to Kansas vandalism & some revolutionary good news

"It's ruined the city of Meade," but then again, maybe not

Despite broken window and threats, hotel's flag is still flying

Kansas Equality Coalition condemns incident at Lakeway Hotel

Block hurled through window of Kansas hotel

Saga of the Rainbow Flag: Kansas Equality Coalition's state board to meet Sunday in Meade

Announced today by the Kansas Equality Coalition:

The Kansas Equality Coalition has selected as the site of its state board meeting on Sunday, August 27 the Lakeway Hotel in Meade, Kansas. The hotel has received national attention because owners continue to fly a flag that symbolizes gay pride in spite of local opposition. The flag has drawn increasingly hostile reactions from local residents, including theft of the original flag, and profanity and hate speech-scrawled bricks thrown through hotel windows.

Each of the Equality Coalition's seven chapters takes a turn hosting state board meetings, said Thomas Witt, chair of the state board.

"The Southwest chapter asked that we show our support for their members and community, and for the Lakeway owners, by holding this month's meeting at the hotel. This is another opportunity to show Kansans that discrimination is wrong, and that we take what's happened here very seriously," Witt said.

Anne Mitchell, chair of the Equality Coalition's Southwest Chapter, said they were happy to host the meeting.

"We are very pleased and proud to be hosting this month's meeting of the state board," she said. "Having the board meet here, with some members coming from as far as Kansas City, is a great show of support for our chapter and our community."

Members of Topeka's Westboro Baptist Church, known for picketing the funerals of AIDS victims and Iraq War casualties, have announced their intention to protest the Equality Coalition meeting. "It's a business meeting, and we plan to go about our business. Fred Phelps is free to protest where he wants, but we plan to ignore him," Witt said.

The three-hour meeting, scheduled to begin at 1:00 pm, will take place in the hotel ballroom. In keeping with Equality Coalition practice, the state board meeting is open to all Coalition members and invited guests.

Alabama Democrats defy democracy by moving to overturn lesbian's election victory

By Diane Silver

I want to write about my outrage over the effort to overturn the vote that should have put out-lesbian Patricia Todd in the Alabama Statehouse. This would have made her the first out gay person to serve in the that state's Legislature.

Saturday at 10 a.m. the Alabama State Democratic Executive Committee will meet to consider a party subcommittee's decision that took the first step to throw out that vote. The subcommittee said Todd's election should be overturned. It also decided to disqualify her challenger Gaynelle Hendricks.

As the national media like the New York Times, and the blogosphere enters the argument, I want to add my fury to the debate.

I want to write about my outrage over anti-gay bigotry, I want to scream about it, I want to get righteously angry. But that wouldn't be the right thing to do.

Anti-gay bigotry does appear to be part of the story, but not necessarily all of it.

I also want to write about how race entered into the effort to overturn the 59-vote victory of Todd, who is white, over her black opponent. I want to rail about how racial slurs may have entered the campaign in anonymously distributed fliers. I want to yell about how a variety of factors from legal to financial can keep blacks from facing a level playing field when they run for office.

But if I did that, it wouldn't be fair because that, apparently, isn't the whole story. It certainly doesn't take into account the anonymous fliers that called Todd a "confessed lesbian" -- as if being out is like being a murderer who confesses his crime.

What's really happening in Montgomery?

I think Pam over at Pam's House Blend may have put her finger on it today.

It's about party kingmakers, sore losers and race, with the added spice of gay demonization.

In a nutshell, she says the once predominantly black and poor district is undergoing gentrification, which is changing the demographics of the area. That is taking power away from folks like party vice chairman Joe Reed, who appears to be driving the challenge to Todd's victory.

I agree with Pam when she argues that gentrification and the displacement of the urban poor are vital issues to debate. However, I also agree that none of that is an excuse to overturn what is clearly a fair election.

The subcommittee spearheaded by Reed has trumped up charges against both Todd and her opponent. Reed allegedly did this despite the fact that the subcommittee's decision goes against state law. He allegedly did this the fact that subcommittee members making the decision have also violated the same rule.

Such a decision makes a joke of democracy. It makes a joke of the real issues concerning race, sexual orientation, poverty and gentrification. Most of all, such a decision is an insult to the voters of the district. This is the true outrage of this absurd situation.

I can only hope that tomorrow saner voices on the Democratic executive committee will prevail and throw out this ridiculous subcommittee decision.

For the best up to date coverage on the issue, see the Birmingham Blues blog.

If you don't live in Alabama and want to take action, see the Victory Fund.

Need a grant to finish college? You can't study evolutionary biology

The New York Times reports this morning that evolutionary biology has disappeared from the links of approved majors for low-income students applying for the National Smart Grant Program.

The National Smart Grant Program provides $4,000 grants to low-income juniors and seniors in sciences, engineering, and certain foreign languages. The application process requires students to use the code assigned to their major from a list (PDF) provided by the Department of Education. The list is drawn from a much larger list of academic subjects compiled by the department

According to The Times, evolutionary biology is coded as 26.1303 and should be on the list of science majors "between line 26.1302 (marine biology and biological oceanography) and line 26.1304 (aquatic biology/limnology)." Yet for some reason it is missing.

The Times quotes spokeswomen from the Department of Education as saying that the omission was "inadvertent" and will be corrected.

I certainly hope that this is an error, but given the influence of anti-science elements in the religious right over the Bush administration, I can't help but wonder if they took it out on purpose. I plan to check the list daily to see if they have corrected the error.

Saga of the Rainbow Flag: What's really happening in Meade, Kansas

By Diane Silver

This Sunday could be wild in Meade. Fred Phelps and his funeral-picketing minions and MTV's television cameras are scheduled to collide with an "in your face" party at the Lakeway Hotel.

As the controversy over a small-town hotel owner's rainbow flag possibly reaches its peak, I think it's time to think about the real meaning of what started in July and now threatens to turn into a circus.

Since that time, the symbol of gay rights that JR and Robin Knight flew at their Lakeway Hotel has been cut down and stolen, and a brick with the word "fag" has been thrown through their window. Another brick with the message "get the fuck out of town" was found outside their hotel. The Kansas and national media along with the blogosphere has provided extensive coverage of the controversy.

Meanwhile, defenders of Meade have spread out online to state their case. In a nutshell, they say that the villains of this incident are really the people flying the flag.

These folks argue that the Knights have antagonized their neighbors through arguments that have nothing to do with gay rights. Defenders argue that there is no anti-gay effort in Meade, only the frustration of local people who have found themselves at war with a couple from California who don't fit in.

For a good example of this argument see Brian's comment on my post about Small-Town solutions and revolutionary good news.

Personally, I think two things are getting lost in the uproar.

First, whether or not the hotel owners are good neighbors is irrelevant. Attacking a flag that symbolizes the struggle for equality and fairness of millions of Americans sends a political message.

That message is that the people of Meade condone hatred and support unfair laws that hurt the children and families of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered citizens.

I am a lesbian, and to put it much more bluntly ...those attacks on the rainbow flag say that the allegedly good people of Meade want to hurt my son and my family.

That's because the current laws in this country, and most particularly in Kansas, hurt us in a myriad of ways. These laws rip children away from their parents, keep spouses from visiting each other in the hospital, create financial havoc in the lives of law-abiding citizens.

These tragedies occur every day. This is why people are upset about attacks on the rainbow flag, and are uplifted by the fact that people in a small town in the middle of nowhere Kansas would fly it.

I can't judge whether the Knights, a heterosexual married couple, are good neighbors. I suspect they are. However, that's for the Knights and the people of Meade to sort out. If the folks of Meade have a problem with the Knights, though, then the solution is to protest the Knights, not their flag.

Second, I am personally distressed that the Knights are apparently planning to greet Phelps and the members of his Westboro Baptist Church with a party. The plan for the party was reported by The Wichita Eagle:

Protesters will picket the hotel at noon Aug. 27. Westboro Bapitist Church also will protest against five Meade churches from 9 a.m. to noon Aug. 27.

Bring it on, say the Knights.

"We're going to have a party -- kind of 'in your face,' you know," JR Knight said.

He plans to put up a DJ station on a balcony behind where the flag is flying and play loud music during the protest. The Knights also plan fun with bubbles and beach balls.

I heartily applaud the Knights for their courage and their pledge to keep the rainbow flag flying despite attacks on their property. However, if the article in The Eagle is accurate, then I fear that the struggles the rainbow flag symbolizes will be trivialized.

Our battle for equality is not a reason for a party. The pain that Phelps and the members of his church spread is not a joke. There is, in fact, no reason for anyone to be laughing, dancing or batting around beach balls.

If we lived in a world where people believed my family has as much right to exist as a heterosexual family, then none of this would matter.

If we lived in a world where people disagreed with Phelps message as much as they disagree with his methods, then I wouldn't even be writing about this. Whatever arguments may be occurring in Meade would be merely local.

If that were the case, I'd bring my own beach ball to the party.

We're asking the wrong questions about drug use in sports

By Nancy Jane Moore

There seems to be an epidemic of athletes failing drug tests these days. Reports about Tour de France winner Floyd Landis and track superstars Marion Jones and Justin Gatlin are taking up space on the sports pages usually reserved for baseball pennant races and pre-season football.

Tuesday's Washington Post was typical -- they ran a story suggesting that athletes had moved away from "designer" drugs and gone back to the old fashioned kind -- which are apparently easier to catch these days than they used to be.

And there is story after story about Barry Bonds and his chase for Hank Aaron's home run record, with many people opining that he should be disqualified because he's cheating.

But why is it cheating to take drugs?

Yes, yes, I know it's against the rules. But why?

I know of only one good reason, though it's a very good one: A lot of these drugs -- particularly the steroids -- are dangerous. They make people stronger fast, but often users get angry easily and suffer other side effects. Later on, use of these drugs can lead to serious health problems, including premature death, long after the athlete has stopped using them.

Most of the drugs weren't originally designed to improve athletic performance, after all; they were developed to treat health problems. Human growth hormone is for people who weren't born with enough of it to grow properly. Steroids in small doses can give real relief to those suffering from serious lung diseases.

But what if the drugs were safe? What if they were developed for the express purpose of improving athletic performance? What if they helped athletes develop muscle more quickly, gave them faster recovery rates from hard workouts or injury, made it easier for them to use every inch of their lung space to breathe -- and did all those things without causing serious side effects in most users?

Would we still want drug use to be against the rules? Would it still be cheating?

Back in June, The Post ran an article on "smart drugs" -- drugs young people are taking to help them concentrate while studying. Interestingly, though the article addressed the legality of the drugs -- they're available by prescription, but not everyone is obtaining them through legal channels -- and some of the health risks, no one mentioned cheating.

The article even mentioned that professional musicians have been taking beta blockers -- used to treat high blood pressure -- since the 1970s because the drugs help them control stage fright.

Why is it cheating to use drugs to improve athletic performance, but it's okay -- even if somewhat illegal -- to use them to get better grades or to win a symphony audition?

After all, the problem with the "smart drugs" is the same as the problem with the sports ones: They were designed to treat specific health problems and are being used for other purposes. Some of them probably have bad side effects that won't show up for a long time.

I'm a science fiction writer. I know we're going to develop drugs that are tailored to improve both athletic and academic performance -- in fact, we're going to get so sophisticated at this that we will have drugs designed specifically for individuals. These drugs will be safe -- or as safe as anything that monkeys with your body chemistry can be.

Will it still be cheating to take those drugs? Will it only be cheating to take them to win a world championship, but not to get into Harvard?

We need to think about this, because people are going to take them. They've proved it by taking the dangerous drugs now, in spite of all the warnings, all the testing, all the moral outrage.

I hope that the primary reason for banning these drugs right now is that they're dangerous. But as we develop safer drugs that do the same thing -- and I wish all that research now going into developing "designer steroids" that are undetectable by drug tests were actually going into developing safe drugs -- that reasoning disappears.

And then we come back to the question: Why is using drugs to improve athletic performance cheating?

Operation Rescue's Randall Terry trashes his family while campaigning for "family values"

By Diane Silver

Oh, the hypocrisy... This morning I'm not feeling very generous as we get yet another example of how "family values" for members of the Religious Right can mean anything except valuing their own families.

Today's illustration comes from Randall Terry, who became famous for founding the rabidly anti-abortion group Operation Rescue.

Terry is running for a state senate seat in Florida. As might be expected, he is running as a "family values" candidate. Yahoo News and PlanetOut report:

Among ... Terry's pledges are preserving traditional marriage and opposing adoptions by gay men and lesbians. He has touted efforts to stop abortions. His campaign mailers sum up the value he puts on family: They show a picture of him with his wife, a daughter, and three grinning young sons -- taken before a fourth was born this summer

But Jamiel, Terry's adopted son, says the picture is missing two people -- him and his sister, Tila, also adopted. Both have been estranged from Terry since Jamiel came out as a gay man and Tila had a child out of wedlock.

Jamiel and Tila are literally not in the picture, and they certainly don't fit Terry's political image. More than that, though, they are apparently not in Terry's life. Jamiel also says Terry even left Tila to fend for herself when she became pregnant.

Yahoo News and PlanetOut report:

"Both Tila and I have tried to revive or rekindle our relationship with my father, and we've been shut out," he said. "So maybe if we had been invited for Christmas, Thanksgiving, birthdays, etc., we would be in a family photo."

Terry denies it all, but he also seems to spend a fair amount of energy talking about how Jamiel has sent him "vicious" emails and about how to two now-grown children have problems. All the while, Terry defends himself as being a good father.

I can empathize with the pain it must cause to be attacked in public by your child. I can also understand how difficult it can be sometimes to keep families together.

At the same time, if the facts as presented in this news story are true then Terry is truly a hypocrite and liar. However, we don't have enough evidence to judge what has happened in that family, and I will leave the truth of it to the Terry family to unravel.

The most damning evidence, though, that Terry has only a passing acquaintance with the true value of a family is the way he talked to the news media. He responded as a politician, not as a father.

He said he did nothing wrong, of course. I'll let him get away with that. More than that, though, he talked about how his adopted son sent him "vicious" emails and how these two now-grown children were damaged before they were ever adopted.

A real parent values and protects family and his or her children above all else -- even above getting elected to the Florida Senate. A real parent doesn't attack his children in the news, no matter what that child has done. If the child has a problem, a real parent talks privately with the child, particularly an adult child. You don't tell the whole world you think your children are damaged goods.

A real parent with true family values would have a simple statement for reporters. Pay attention, oh ye so holy members of the Religious Right. Here are your talking points for future situations like this. Tell a reporter: "I love my family. I love all my children and value all of them. Any disagreements we may have are not a suitable topic for public debate."

That's the advice of a lesbian mother, but then again, I'm queer. What the heck can I possibly know about raising kids?

Barking up the wrong tree in Israel and Lebanon

By Pamela K. Taylor

In the more or less calm aftermath of the Hezbollah-Israel war, both Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrullah and Israeli President Ehud Olmert have declared victory. Pundits are scrambling to assess the physical, psychological, social and moral wins and losses, with each side lamenting the other's strengths and bemoaning their own weaknesses.

The real question, however, should not be who won or lost, but how do we keep this kind of war from happening again? We should not accept the notion that the conflict between Israel and its neighbors will go on forever until one side or the other is destroyed. We cannot accept the callous taking of civilian lives in pursuit of political ends -- be they Israeli, Lebanese, or Palestinians lives, although clearly the Arabs have always suffer far greater losses. Nor should the wholesale destruction of the Lebanese infrastructure, or the starvation siege of the West Bank, largely unnoticed in the public eye once the fighting in Lebanon began, be considered business as usual.

The war was, despite all claims to the contrary, remarkably inconclusive. Hizbollah was not destroyed. In fact, many more Lebanese have now embraced Hizbollah because of its resistance to the overwhelmingly disproportionate Israeli response. Israel did not suddenly decide that its objectives are costing too much in terms of Israeli lives or materiel. They did not decide that the Israeli state should be dismantled and everyone should pack their bags and go back to their homelands.

In the end, the only thing achieved was an angry stalemate -- one in which both sides are more hardened in their hatred, their anger, their sense of outraged injustice, and fear of destruction at the hands of their enemies. The Western/Israeli demonization of Arabs, and by extension all Muslims, continues apace, with countless depictions of them as mindless, uber-violent and inhuman mad dogs. The Arab demonization of Israelis, and by extension all Jews, as callous, fascist descendants of monkeys and swine has only intensified.

Given this state of affairs, a repeat war, after each side has retired to lick its wounds and recoup, is not only likely, it is a near certainty.

How, then, can the world act to change the situation? The first is to acknowledge the essential humanity of each side. Israelis are not demons, nor are the Hizbollah fighters or Palestinians. Until we accept the value of every human life, white or brown, Jew or Muslim, it will be far too easy to dismiss horrific collateral damage and civilian loss of life as sad but unavoidable.

The second is to acknowledge the legitimate desires of each side to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness on equal terms with their neighbors. Until a dignified, secure, life uncomplicated by excessive restrictions is assured for all in the region, conflict will continue.

The Arabs will have to compromise and accept the existence of Israel, and the Israelis will have to accept that the Palestinians have a legitimate right to their own existence, in their own lands, not as guests in someone else's state.

To this day, this proposition has not truly been accepted by either side. Until it is, we will have endless conflict. 60 years of open and simmering warfare should have taught us by now that neither side can be pounded into submission. As the US is learning in Iraq, subjugation of a people does not extinguish their innate drive to live a decent, self-determined life.

Third, it is time the global community said enough is enough. The UN needs to get involved. Individual countries should not be allowed to continue arming and financing one side or the other, and UN Peacekeepers should enforce a no-fire zone. Given the past 60 years of history, it is naive to think the two sides can come to amicable peace on their own, or even with peace brokers negotiating a deal. The international community will have to force a solution, much as a solution was forced upon the former Yugoslavia.

Until these things happen, it's going to be business as usual. Israel's demolition of Lebanon has not wiped out Hizbollah; it has strengthened support for the organization among the Lebanese people and created a cadre of new young wanna-be terrorists across the globe. Hizbollah's missile strikes have not weakened Isreal, but only maddened it like spurs egging on an enraged bronco. Nothing has changed, except attitudes, which have gotten worse. Until the rest of the world finds the spine to step in, there is no reason to believe things ever will change.

Flying while Muslim

By Pamela K. Taylor

With the horrors of war in Lebanon proceeding apace despite a cease fire and new terrorist threats emanating out of London and Toronto, two recent news items caught my eye.

One featured an American Muslim doctor who was required to deplane because his prayers frightened another passenger. The second was about two South Asian men who were speaking what some passengers thought to be Arabic and looking repeatedly at their watches (I know! No one without nefarious motives would look at their watch repeatedly as they waited to board a plane!) The passengers in this second case "mutinied" -- some refused to board or and others would not let the plane take off so long as the two men were among the passengers.

Eventually all three men had to get off their planes and wait for another flight the next day. To add insult to injury, the airlines did not simply reschedule them, as they normally do if you miss your flight; they had to pay extra airfare to take the next flight out of town.

It is really a sad day for us all, when government wartime rhetoric, media hysteria, and the actions of a few radicals make having dark skin and speaking a foreign language into a crime. We've seen it before (the Japanese and African Americans can tell us all about racial profiling), we've acknowledged before that it is wrong, and we know that this kind of racial profiling doesn't even work. Terrorists surely aren't going to call attention to themselves by praying or speaking in foreign languages, wearing distinctive clothing or large beards. The 9-11 bombers certainly didn't.

As Azhar Usman, a stand-up comedian who has a five inch beard, a swarthy complexion and does his routine in a kurta pajama outfit, says, "If I were a terrorist trying to sneak onto a plane, do you think I'd really be stupid enough to cultivate this look???"

We have to be vigilant, yes, but we also have to be smart. In fact, this kind of all-inclusive, knee jerk reaction to someone flying while Muslim is exactly the sort of fare that terrorist groups use to radicalize prospective members.

The war in Iraq, the callous disinterest in the loss of civilian lives and infrastructure in Lebanon, the demonization of Islam as a violent religion with irrational, violent adherents, all lay the foundations. The icing on the cake are incidents like the two mentioned in this article. You can almost hear the recruiter telling impressionable young men, "We can't even pray, or talk our own languages, in an airport, that's how much they want to strip our Islam from us!"

Terrorism presents challenges to us all -- to law enforcement who must track down and prevent incidents while maintaining civil rights, to Muslims, who must confront radicalism within the community while seeking justice for oppressed Muslims around the globe, and to non-Muslims, who must refrain from hysteria and learn how to distinguish the millions upon millions of peaceful muslims from the few who would resort to violence to attain their political ends.

It would behoove us to remember that there are approximately 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. If even 500,000 of them are inclined to terrorism, that still amounts to less than one half of 1 percent of the population. Chances are, any Muslim you meet, is going to be in the remaining 99.5 percent.

Kansas common sense and the Iraq War

By Diane Silver

Counterinsurgency specialist Terrance J. Daly writes today about what should be blindingly obvious: The Bush Administration's tactics in Iraq are the problem -- not the solution.

Writing in the New York Times (registration required, but no fee), Daly says:

There is a difference between killing insurgents and fighting an insurgency. [my emphasis] In three years, the Sunni insurgency has grown from nothing into a force that threatens our national objective of establishing and maintaining a free, independent and united Iraq. During that time, we have fought insurgents with airstrikes, artillery, the courage and tactical excellence of our forces, and new technology worth billions of dollars. We are further from our goal than we were when we started.

Counterinsurgency is about gaining control of the population, not killing or detaining enemy fighters. A properly planned counterinsurgency campaign moves the population, by stages, from reluctant acceptance of the counterinsurgent force to, ideally, full support.

Daly proposes that the U.S. create a professional police organization to work in places like Iraq.

I'm not certain I agree with all he says, but his proposal is worth examining. Most importantly, Daly does a good job of discussing why what we're doing in Iraq isn't working.

I find his arguments compelling for one reason. Let's call it the Common Sense Factor.

Common Sense leads me to wonder how I would feel if an Army from another country, oh, let's say Saudi Arabia, moved into my neighborhood out here in Kansas. How would my neighbors feel? What would we do?

If that Army overthrew a horrible dictator, we would probably be happy, at least at first. But what if my town was partically destroyed and never rebuilt? What if the electricity was never on, and the temperature was over 100 degrees as it has been many weeks out here on the parched Prairie.

What if some of my hot-headed neighbors -- and they do exist -- decided that they didn't like someone from another country marching down Lawrence's main street and started fighting back?

What if if became so dangerous my son couldn't go to school, I couldn't go to work, my mother couldn't walk her dog, and we risked death to go to church. Along with all that, throw in periodic torture by this invading army, constant searches of our homes, cultural insults and arrests of my relatives and friends, and how do you think we'd feel?

In this situation, what American wouldn't fight back or support those who do? Can you imagine that we wouldn't struggle to remove a foreign army from our soil? Maybe folks wouldn't fight in Boston, but we sure as heck would in Kansas.

Why do we have the crazy idea that Iraqis are different than we are? Why do we think we can win them to our side by hurting them? Most importantly, can you win the hearts and minds of a people you've brutalized?

Daly may have the whole solution to our dilemma or only part of it. He may be totally off base. I honestly don't know, but I do know that what Bush is doing isn't working. It's hurting Iraqis. It's hurting Americans. It's hurting our country.

"You break it, you bought it"

By Nancy Jane Moore

"The debate is over. By any definition, Iraq is in a state of civil war."

So begins an excellent overview of the current state of affairs in Iraq by Daniel L. Byman and Kenneth M. Pollack in Sunday's Washington Post.

Byman and Pollack provide a complex analysis of a complicated situation. They compare the possible effects of the Iraqi civil war to other recent examples of internal strife and point out how an increase in the flow of refugees can create not just immediate humanitarian problems but also political ones -- including terrorism -- down the road. And, given that the warring groups in Iraq have allies in other countries, the possibility that the fighting could spread is extremely high.

Among other things, the authors suggest that it might take 450,000 troops to stop this civil war -- a sobering figure.

They end with this advice:

How Iraq got to this point is now an issue for historians (and perhaps for voters in 2008); what matters today is how to move forward and prepare for the tremendous risks an Iraqi civil war poses for this critical region. The outbreak of a large-scale civil conflict would not relieve us of our responsibilities in Iraq; in fact, it could multiply them. Unfortunately, in the Middle East, one should never assume that the situation can't get worse. It always can -- and usually does.

I don't know if the authors are correct in their analysis, but they certainly provide substantial material for consideration in coming up with a sane foreign policy -- something that the US has lacked since 2000.

I can't quite put aside the causes of this civil war. Certainly the US has had its finger (for both good and ill) in many of the other wars the authors cite -- Afghanistan, Rwanda, Kosovo, Lebanon, etc. -- but Iraq is the only place where civil war is an outgrowth of a US invasion. The conflicts may have already existed, but we made things worse.

George Bush and his crew of incompetent hardliners broke Iraq. The US as a whole now has to pay for it.

Fiddling while Rome burns -- or New Orleans washes away

By Nancy Jane Moore

According to Sunday's Washington Post, scientists are squabbling about whether global warming is causing an increase in hurricanes.

But while this controversy is interesting -- there does appear to be a genuine scientific conflict here, unlike the made-up conflict about whether human beings are causing climate change (we are) -- The Post buried the most important point in the whole story in the last paragraph:

William Hooke, who directs the American Meteorological Society's policy program, said that whatever the answer turns out to be, "We ought not to lose sight of the fact that we're doing a poor job of protecting ourselves against the hurricanes we have now."

Even if we were not confronted by the frightening spectacle of climate change brought on by human actions, we would still need to improve how we deal with hurricanes. I grew up on the Gulf Coast, and based solely on my personal experience (a blip of time when you're looking at climate patterns), I can guarantee you that hurricanes are going to hit with regularity all along the coast, and that some of them are going to be very destructive.

And yet we still allow people to build on barrier islands, continue to drain protective wetlands, build inadequate levees, and generally let human desire for land trump settled scientific knowledge about how best to protect ourselves from the worst of the storms. With or without global warming, storms are going to be worse as long as we ignore the knowledge we already have.

Not only that, we have inadequate disaster relief plans in place, something that can affect not only those who live in hurricane country, but also victims of other tornadoes, fires, blizzards, floods and other disasters, not to mention what might happen if we had a significant terrorist attack.

You can count me among the people who are very concerned about global warming. I often fear that even if the US has a political change of heart and starts working to deal with the problem, and even if it can convince China to go along -- both very big "ifs" -- we may already have affected the climate so much that there will still be untold destruction and suffering in our lifetimes and in generations to come.

And there is plenty of scientific evidence to back up the human effect on climate change. Real Climate, "a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists," is an excellent source of information on the subject. Their most recent post -- which includes comments by some of the authors mentioned in The Washington Post article -- gives insight into the discussion over the effect of global warming on climate change.

It's time for the rest of us to become scientifically literate. We not only need to stop wasting time on fake controversies (like evolution), but also to learn to understand the difference between politically inspired controversies (such as whether global warming is a problem) and real scientific debates (such whether last year's hurricane season was the result of global warming).

Good science education -- with a thorough grounding in scientific methods and principles and some training in how to evaluate statistics and experimental results -- should no longer be left only to those who plan to become scientists. We all need to understand everything we can about the world and universe around us.