Jeff Soyer (God bless him!) has sounded the alarm about a horrendous new piece of proposed legislation which would require ten year mandatory minimum sentences for anyone who so much as passes a joint to someone under eighteen:

As the Republicans continue to self-destruct and also continue the "war on drugs", along comes Wisconsin Congressman James Sensenbrenner who introduced a bill on April 6th that would impose mandatory federal sentences for even the most minor crimes. I heard about this tonight on the Rolley James show and actually dragged myself out of bed to blog about it.

It's called "Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act of 2005". Thomas.loc.gov moves things around a lot so do a search for HR 1528 here. Please read it. It drastically increases the penalties for violating the federal controlled-substances act.

Here's what could happen. A bunch of folks are at a party and someone 21-years-old passes a joint to a person under 18. Mandatory 10-years in federal prison, no parole. Second offense: Life in prison, no parole. (Mandatory 5 years if they are 18-20 years old.)

In a way sentencing guidelines cannot, mandatory minimum statutes provide a level of uniformity and predictability in sentencing. They deter certain types of criminal behavior determined by Congress to be sufficiently egregious as to merit harsh penalties by clearly forewarning the potential offender and the public at large of the minimum potential consequences of committing such an offense. And mandatory minimum sentences can also incapacitate dangerous offenders for long periods of time, thereby increasing public safety. Equally important, mandatory minimum sentences provide an indispensable tool for prosecutors, because they provide the strongest incentive to defendants to cooperate against the others who were involved in their criminal activity.

In drug cases, where the ultimate goal is to rid society of the entire trafficking enterprise, mandatory minimum statutes are especially significant. Unlike a bank robbery, for which a bank teller or an ordinary citizen could be a critical witness, often in drug cases the critical witnesses are drug users and/or other drug traffickers. The offer of relief from a mandatory minimum sentence in exchange for truthful testimony allows the Government to move steadily and effectively up the chain of supply, using the lesser distributors to prosecute the more serious dealers and their leaders and suppliers. Mandatory minimum sentences are needed in appropriate circumstances, such as trafficking involving minors and trafficking in and around drug treatment centers.

I realize that the hysteria surrounding what we call "children" is so impenetrable that some will continue to believe that any and all government abuses are justified, and I understand what a pain in the ass it is to read through mind-numbing legislation like this.

But please! Read on a moment more! (Especially those of you who "never get involved," and who think that because you'd never pass a joint to a teenager at a party that you're not affected.)

Kindly Congressman Sensenbrenner has not forgotten about you, the ordinary person, who might mistakenly attend a party where someone passes a joint to a teenager.

He's added a bonus!

If you see or even learn that someone handed the joint to a teenager, why, you'd now be required to become a rat! That's right, under this law, you'd have an affirmative duty to become an active government informant, or face a federal prison term of 2-10 years!

(m) FURTHER PROTECTION FOR CHILDREN.--

(1) IN GENERAL.--Part D of the Controlled Substances Act is amended by adding at the end the following:
"FAILURE TO PROTECT CHILDREN FROM DRUG TRAFFICKING ACTIVITIES

"SEC. 425. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person who witnesses or learns of a violation of sections 416(b)(2), 417, 418, 419, 420, 424, or 426 to fail to report the offense to law enforcement officials within 24 hours of witnessing or learning of the violation and thereafter provide full assistance in the investigation, apprehension, and prosecution of the person violating paragraph (a).

"(b) Any person who violates subsection (a) of this section shall be sentenced to not less than two years or more than 10 years. If the person who witnesses or learns of the violation is the parent or guardian, or otherwise responsible for the care or supervision of the person under the age of 18 or the incompetent person, such person shall be sentenced to not less than three years or more than 20 years.''.

Comrades! All hail Pavlik Morosov, Hero of the Culture War!

(Hey, maybe the legislation is just Congressman Sensenbrenner's way of engaging in satire . . . Gee, d'ya think so? I do so wish this could be comedy.)

Out and about today, I found a curious old cemetery (obviously abandoned, but dating back to the Colonial period) abutting a school. The gravestones are mostly illegible with many of them broken, and a couple of the above-ground crypts have been vandalized and emptied by ghoulyard brats. The interplay between the school buses and the graves intrigued me, so I took a couple of photos.

Here's one side of a now-pointless wall, which no longer encloses the cemetery, but which no one has bothered to tear down:

And here's another view of the buses from the graves:

No one has any business being in such a place on a rainy Saturday . . .

My blogfather Jeff Soyer picked up on this story about the now notorious "burrito lockdown" incident:

CLOVIS, N.M. - A call about a possible weapon at a middle school prompted police to put armed officers on rooftops, close nearby streets and lock down the school. All over a giant burrito.

Someone called authorities Thursday after seeing a boy carrying something long and wrapped into Marshall Junior High.

The drama ended two hours later when the suspicious item was identified as a 30-inch burrito filled with steak, guacamole, lettuce, salsa and jalapenos and wrapped inside tin foil and a white T-shirt.

It is beyond scientific dispute that burritos, which consist of copious amounts of beans, are a precursor ingredient to not just one, but TWO deadly gases: Methane gas and Hydrogen sulfide gas. Not only have both types of gas proved fatal to humans, but it has been documented that the type of gas emitted after consumption of such precursors as the burrito in question has been used as fuel for vicious improvised human flame throwers!

"The only notable fact about methane is that it burns with a blue flame," says Van Thiel, "and that's why crazy college kids who like to, uh, ignite their flatus have to be methane producers. And those who make more methane are more like flamethrowers than those who don't."

Flatulence ignition is the practice of setting fire to the gases produced by flatulence. It is practised primarily among young men, but discouraged for its potential for causing injury. Lighting such gas can result in burns or explosions. Clothing or hair may catch fire and sensitive tissues can be damaged.

Such experiments may occur among young men on camping trips or in single-sex group residences such as dormitories or fraternity houses, but the flammability of bodily gases has caused serious problems in the operating room and also in slaughterhouses.

Moreover, the same gases are so deadly to the environment that they'd most likely violate the Kyoto Accord.

Furthermore, Spanish artist Salvador Dali associated beans with the rise of fascism, and the Spanish Civil War!

What's so funny about death and destruction caused by poison gas? Might it be time to start asking what's really behind such thinking? Wasn't this particular laugh-at-deadly-precursors meme started by Glenn Reynolds?

Yes! And the latter even joked about the deadly nature of this poison gas precursor!

Dare we call it eliminationist rhetoric?

I finally went and saw the Dali exhibit at the Philadelphia Museum of Art. It's very, very impressive, and I am glad to see this much maligned artist finally getting the appreciation he deserves. There are as many views of Dali's life and politics as there are critics, and he remains a very puzzling, very contradictory man. Here's a sharply critical view of Dali, while here's one more favorable.

Personally, I love the guy's art, and it doesn't bother me in the least that he failed to take sides during the Spanish Civil War. Either outcome would have been awful, and the guy was an artist who hated war. He's been unfairly tarred as a fascist, and this caused his art to be disrespected and downgraded professionally for many years. And even assuming for the sake of argument that he was a fascist (which I don't think he was), why should this have been any more fatal to his art than was Pablo Picasso's Communism to his?

Dali's "Soft Construction with Boiled Beans: Premonition of Civil War" (1936) is simply fantastic, and it's been hanging in the Philadelphia Art Museum since I was a boy. When I first saw it, I was so fascinated that I bought a small print, and I still have a print of it hanging on my wall.

The horror and revulsion are there along with the fascination. While surreal, the surrealism is oddly real, because civil war is grotesque, twisted, and unresolvable, yet it springs from man's nature (which is all of the above). It's his unflinching view of horror, of human evil versus human evil, and it's horrible despite the wishes of partisans who each wanted their human evil side declared "good."

Here's a painting which wasn't in the exhibit, unfortunately:

It's "Visage of War" (1940), and Dali had this to say about it:

"I was entering a period of rigor and asceticism which was going to dominate my style, my thoughts, and my tormented life. Spain on fire would light up this drama of the renaissance of aesthetics. Spain would serve as a holocaust to that post-war Europe tortured by ideological dramas, by moral and artistic anxieties…. At one feel swoop, from the middle of the Spanish cadaver, springs up. Half-devoured by vermin and ideological worms, the Iberian penis in erection, huge like a cathedral filled with the white dynamite of hatred. Bury and Unbury ! Disinter and Inter ! In order to unbury again ! Such was the charnel desire of the Civil War in that impatient Spain. One would see how she was capable of suffering; of making others suffer, of burying and unburying, of killing and resurrecting. In was necessary to scratch the earth to exhume tradition and to profane everything in order to be dazzled anew by all the treasures that the land was hiding in its entrails."

That's "Raphaelesque Head Exploding" (1951), and reflects Dali's fascination with the ancients (that's the Pantheon of Rome inside the head) and with the modern atomic age:

Dali imagines that protons and neutrons (and consequently the atom) are angelic elements because in the celestial bodies, he explains, "there are residues of substances; it is for this reason that certain beings appear to me so close to angels such as Raphael. Raphael's temperature is like that almost chilly air of spring, which in turn is exactly that of the Virgin and of the rose." And he adds solemnly, "I need an ideal of hyperaesthetic purity. More and more I am preoccupied by a idea of chastity. For me, it is an essential condition of the spiritual life."

UPDATE: My head is still spinning!

Short video of Dali speaking.

MORE: I've often seen that even when artists have huge political differences (as did Dali and Picasso) they nonetheless get along as friends. I think the following portrait Dali painted of his friend Picasso lends support to this theory:

Can we all get along? Como say llama Dali llama?

Oh se can you si?

I've always enjoyed Andrew Sullivan, and in many ways I consider him an inspiration. He's always embodied non-conformity, and while I haven't always agreed with him, I've always respected him. (I've only been blogging two years, so I guess I can't always expect "always" to be that way always.)

The other day, Andrew Sullivan crossed a line when he insinuated that Glenn Reynolds was an enabler of the "theocratic impulses" of the religious right:

I'd like to think that bringing the evangelical right along was part of building a coalition to fight the war. I'm certainly not impugning Glenn's good reasons for voting for Bush on those grounds. But in my darker moments, I wonder whether the war wasn't a cover to persuade good, open-minded folk like Glenn to enable the theocratic impulses of the Republican base. Of course, Glenn can wait and see.

IN THE GRIP OF A "THEOCRACY"? Pace Glenn Reynolds, I don't think and have never said that we're in the grips of a "theocracy." We live in a constitutional democracy. Iranians live in a theocracy, and I am aware of the difference. But one element of our politics - one that happens to have a veto on Republican social policy - does hold that religion should dictate politics, and that opposition to a certain politics is tantamount to anti-religious bigotry.

But shortly after the "apology," Sullivan issued an even more unfair outburst:

DOES GLENN KNOW ABOUT THIS? Banning new books in public libraries that feature any gay characters or are written by gay authors? There are no theocratic tendencies among the Republicans, are there? My favorite quote from the bigot behind this: "I don't look at it as censorship," says Alabama State Representative Gerald Allen. "I look at it as protecting the hearts and souls and minds of our children." The guy wanted to ban some Shakespeare. But Capote, Wilde, Auden, Proust and who knows who else will be barred. Government as the protector of souls. What are these "hysterics" worrying about "theocratic impulses" going on about?

Since when is Glenn Reynolds responsible every time a bigoted hick legislator acts up somewhere in the South?

It's not as if Glenn Reynolds hasn't made it clear where he stands. He's repeatedly slammed Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell as idiotarians, and likened Randall Terry to Ward Churchill, supported gay marriage, legalization of drugs, opposed criminalization of dildos in the South, and I don't even see why I should have to list these things or defend Glenn Reynolds. What do I have to do? Cite his entire blog? It is as undignified as it is unnecessary.

Then this morning, I saw a long review of the president's press conference titled "INSTAPUNDIT."

What the hell is this nonsense about?

Screw this attempt (by Sullivan, anyway) to instigate a feud or whatever it is -- and screw this damnably PC inquisitorial mindset! Glenn Reynolds does not have to answer to Andrew Sullivan at all, much less be held accountable for antigay prejudice or bigotry -- least of all in the South. He has done and said nothing to deserve Sullivan's clear, repeated attempts at shame. I'd expect something like this from the moralistic scolds (of left and right) that Sullivan and Reynolds both condemn.

I just never, ever expected to see it coming from Andrew Sullivan.

It borders on outright political correctness, and it really bothers me. I didn't want to write about it at all, but I hate politically correct scolding and shaming and I know it when I see it. This recent theme of Andrew Sullivan's is not going away. Maybe I shouldn't be reading Andrew Sullivan. But I am, and while I hope I am misreading this, I don't like what I'm seeing.

If I said nothing, then I'd be enabling shame.

(Even by Andrew Sullivan's much higher standards.)

MORE: Regarding the bigoted legislator referred to above, there seems to be a meme going around that "the south" and "the Republicans" share collective responsibility for the actions of a few individuals (or for that matter, even a particular individual). Here's John Aravosis:

I'm sorry, but the south really needs to clean up its act, along with the Republican party. This man should be thrown out of the party and out of the Alabama state house. This is reprehensible.

Gay groups, PLEASE pick this up and make it an issue. This is your chance, grab it, use it, run with it, and force the GOP, the religious right, and the south to grow the hell up once and for all and take some responsibility for themselves.

It goes without saying that bigotry can take many forms. Not allowing libraries to buy books by gay authors is one form. I think attacking sexual freedom by means of that noxious practice called "outing" is another.

AND MORE: I hasten to add that Andrew Sullivan is not a practitioner of "outing." Actually he's been more like a victim of the people who do such things.

(Regular readers know this already, but I wouldn't want new readers making unwarranted assumptions about Sullivan.)

UPDATE (05/01/05): Andrew Sullivan links to this post by PolySciFi Blog highlighting an important fact: the Alabama ban on gay authors would prohibit advocacy of most heterosexual conduct as well! (As I keep saying, most sodomy is heterosexual. Why can't they get it, um, straight?)

High time we got all those Harlequin romance novels, and then (to quote Gerald Allen, the bill's sponsor), "Dig a hole, and dump them in it!"

Does Mrs. Allen know about the bill?

Are iPods causing crime? Some people think so.

.....[I]f thefts of iPods and cellphones are excluded, serious crime has actually fallen 3 percent so far this year, compared with last year, according to Michael J. Farrell, the deputy commissioner for strategic initiatives, who gave a presentation to the transportation authority's board yesterday.

Of the various inanities sputtered in the article, my favorite was this remark by an M.I.T. professor:

Henry Jenkins, the director of the Comparative Media Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, described the thefts as a consequence of unequal access to technology. "The participation gap creates techno-envy, where the kids who are locked out of participation in the culture covet those tools and devices that are considered essential to being a young person," he said.

New York officials were reluctant to discourage iPod use. "I would never tell someone to listen to music or not listen to music," Chief Scagnelli said. Apple Computer, which makes the iPod, did not respond to requests for comment.

I guess I should be glad they're not contemplating a total ban on what the criminals want -- as a crime prevention measure! (Don't laugh, they're already attempting it with guns.)

The fact is, lots of people in lots of places hate iPods. They're are being banned in schools in Australia, in British corporate environments (although the UK military denies a ban in the armed forces), and of all things, they're apparently being targeted by Microsoft's next version of Windows!

(I wonder what "gap" the latter outfit is really worrying about...)

MORE: Getting his foot in the door, Justin points out that sneakers these days can cost a lot more than iPods! These Nike Air Jordans retail for around $279.00. The shoes are black, and look like an athetic shoe influenced by Science Fiction and LSD. (Note the moon-crater-like indentations, and psychedelic sole patterns....)

Hell, I know no one bothers to click on these links.

Here's a picture:

Steal enough iPods, and maybe you could afford to buy, maybe, a left shoe...

Obviously, shoes cause crime.

A noted libertarian blogger has linked to this infinitely painful, absolutely shocking group of pictures. His comment?

Whatever turns you on, I always say.

I say "Ouch!"

Via Jeff Jarvis, I see that Air America is not doing well in Washington DC's talk radio ratings:

WRC, which turned to a liberal talk format in January by adding Al Franken and some of his "Air America" crew, was nowhere to be found. It captured less than 0.1 percent of the audience, too low to be counted.

Now I see that Randi Rhodes has offered an apology (of sorts) to the Secret Service.

Considering the despair which low ratings can cause, I'd have advised her to say that this was all a big misunderstanding. The shots were intended to be a parody of Air America committing suicide.

Baghdad Bob would disagree, of course. (But he was never a champion of despair.)

MORE: Speaking of despair, what's up with Mr. Kos? There's nothing there about the big league astroturf war!

DailyKos is undergoing some maintenance right now.
It'll be back up just as soon as possible.
Thanks for your patience.

Interesting story here about man's best friend:

(WBZ) A Revere woman landed in the hospital Wednesday night, protecting her dog.

63 year-old Helen Lovell walks her purebred pug every night on Walnut Avenue. Around 8 p.m. Wednesday night, a man with a knife approached Lovell and her dog, Benjamin. The armed man demanded she turn over her pet. But Lovell refused.

That's when the suspect slashed her in the hand and chest.

Lovell was taken to Widden Memorial Hospital in Everett and treated for superficial wounds. Now police are searching for the man who slashed her.

By the way, the dog, 10 month-old Benjamin, is just fine.

But I have to say that, much as I believe that humans should be allowed to keep whatever animals we might want as pets, it strikes me that a primary purpose of the dog is as a protector. And I love pug dogs. They are incredibly cute animals.

But....

I'm inclined to agree with my blogfather Jeff Soyer that overly frivolous animals just aren't, well, the original idea of what a dog is all about.

Folks, dogs aren't meant to be washed and Vasolined and trimmed and blown-dry. They should be chasing a Frisbee or running a mole to ground or sitting by and keeping comfort for your child when they think the world is against them.

Years ago, a friend and roommate had a fussy, fluffy little white dog, which somehow came equipped with a very effeminate looking red collar. The dog was a male, and the neighborhood was bad. My friend endured taunts from young thugs, who'd say things like "Isn't he cuuuute?!" Fortunately, he was never attacked. I had another roommate whose appearance invited similar attention -- except when he'd walk with the pit bull I had at the time instead of the fluffy little white dog. On one occasion the catcalls started from a distance. But when he got closer, the young thugs made menacing gestures and eye contact -- as if to test him and the dog. All she had to do was bare her teeth and snarl. They got off the sidewalk fast.

In an ideal world, people and dogs would mind their own business. But I like dogs who take care of business when others don't mind theirs.

Nick Packwood (the great Ghost of a Flea) has told me I'm "it" -- by passing along the following challenge:

"Following this is a list of different occupations. You must select at least five of them. You may add more if you like to your list before you pass it on (after you select five of the items as it was passed to you). Of the five you selected, you are to finish each phrase with what you would do as a member of that profession. Then pass it on to three other bloggers. OF COURSE you all without blogs are welcome to play along in comments!"

What would I do? In a comment the other day, I speculated about what the Flea would do, so I guess I was asking for something like this.

Sigh.

Here are my five choices (and the extended list follows):

Here's the list as forwarded to Nick:

If I could be a scientist...
If I could be a farmer...
If I could be a musician...
If I could be a doctor...
If I could be a painter...
If I could be a gardener...
If I could be a missionary...
If I could be a chef...
If I could be an architect...
If I could be a linguist...
If I could be a psychologist...
If I could be a librarian...
If I could be an athlete...
If I could be a lawyer...
If I could be an innkeeper...
If I could be a professor...
If I could be a writer...
If I could be a backup dancer...
If I could be a llama-rider...
If I could be a bonnie pirate...
If I could be a midget stripper...
If I could be a proctologist...
IIf I could be a TV-Chat Show host...
If I could be an actor...
If I could be a judge...
If I could be a Jedi...

I have to add five more? OK, butcher, baker, candlestick maker, and, er, IRS Commissioner. Oh, and Indian Chief.

Done.

Now who gets to be "it"? (Do I have to do this? I'm no good at games....)

I don't like to make anyone feel obligated, but if I absolutely have to tag five bloggers, I guess I'll tag John Beck, Sean Kinsell, and Persnickety. And Harkonnendog should stand by at least as a backup...

(Whew! Glad that responsibility is over.)

UPDATE: It is my fervent hope that the serious traffic coming this way from Lord Vader means that my appeasement plan is being considered carefully. If history shows anything, it is that peace can be used to the advantage of the dark side. It is always in the interest of those who love peace to do whatever is necessary to avoid forcing Lord Vader to station a garrison nearby!

AND MORE: The idea of Peace In Our Time is really starting to ignite old memories and spark my imagination!

Is not politics the art of the possible?

UPDATE: I now see that I'm extremely close to my one-millionth page view -- a magic and miraculous milestone I will most likely pass before tonight is over. My special thanks to Lord Vader's many minions for making this happen.

(I'm afraid I'm now indebted to the Dark Side!)

CORRECTION: Persnickety just emailed me and pointed out that I misspoke above -- saying five bloggers when I meant three! (It's five occupations and three bloggers.)

UPDATE (05/05/05): As a few Darth Vader fans might still be trickling in, I thought they might enjoy this report from Jim Geraghty, a reluctant Palpatine/Vader 2005 campaign correspondent. (Via Glenn Reynolds, who still doesn't have an ewok in this fight.)

I was out all day today but I just got back to discover that the Carnival of the Vanities has been posted. This week's host, John C. A. Bambenek, living up to the best traditions of the Carnival, reviews more posts than I can count, and does this in spite of the fact that his blog has just moved. John's a really good writer, and I am sorry he's only made twelve dollars blogging so far. (If it's any consolation, John, I've lost hundreds already, so you're way ahead of me!)

Maybe it's because Spring has finally sprung, but the posts are particularly good this week, and I thought I should mention a few:

See? It pays to read the Carnival!

Speaking of dirt digging and background checks, this lesson in morality occupied three-quarters of the Philadelphia Inquirer's front page yesterday.

Stanford A. Douglas Jr. told police that, for seven years, he thought about killing William L. Berkeyheiser over a perceived racial slur when the two men worked together at a care facility in Philadelphia.

On March 27, he finally did so, riddling Berkeyheiser with bullets from a semiautomatic handgun on the porch of Berkeyheiser's Upper Makefield Township home, Bucks County District Attorney Diane Gibbons said yesterday.

"That's the reason he gave us for it, that he was offended by a seven-year-old joke," Gibbons said. She called it the strangest murder motive she could recall.

The Northeast Philadelphia truck driver was charged yesterday with killing his former coworker, a retired health-care executive, outside his upscale Bucks County home on Easter Sunday.

Douglas, 29, of the 3800 block of Woodhaven Road, was being held without bail on first-degree murder and firearms charges. He was arrested late Sunday night after a tense standoff at his residence, Gibbons said.

Douglas would not repeat the 1998 joke, Gibbons said. At the time, both men worked at Baptist Home in Philadelphia, now known as Deer Meadows Retirement Community.

Nor did Douglas say why, after seven years, he allegedly decided to act on his ire. "There is absolutely no justification for his conduct," Gibbons said.

On March 23, court records say, Douglas hired a private investigation firm to produce a report on Berkeyheiser, which included his home address.

Four days later, Berkeyheiser, 62, had just finished Easter dinner when Douglas appeared at his door, authorities say. Berkeyheiser's wife, Viola, heard her husband invite the man inside.

"I heard my husband talking to him, and it was kind of like, 'How do I know you?' " Viola Berkeyheiser said yesterday.

William Berkeyheiser stepped outside, and a series of shots were fired. Felled by six bullets, Berkeyheiser died moments later.

At A-Plus Investigations in Levittown, president Philip Olshevski expressed "shock and amazement" yesterday that Douglas had used his agency to help track down the victim.

Gibbons said the firm had charged Douglas $150 for its work. Olshevski declined to discuss particulars. He said there was nothing illegal or improper about the work done for Douglas.

"Our thoughts and prayers go out to the family," Olshevski said. "It sickens us that this sort of thing could happen."

The remarkable thing about this case is the plaintive way the family has been forced to defend the victim of a murder:

Gibbons and family members belittled the notion that the victim was racist. They pointed out that Viola Berkeyheiser is of part-Asian descent.

"My dad was known for making jokes - not racist jokes - stupid jokes," his daughter, Jennifer, said. "But nothing that would offend someone for, like, seven years."

A racist would not have invited Douglas inside his home, Jennifer Berkeyheiser said.

...The lack of a clear motive, she said, did not surprise her.

"I knew that there wasn't a real motive," she said, "because my husband would never do anything to anybody that would warrant getting murdered, or get someone that angry."

To stir up speculation about the relevance of a racist joke as a defense to murder is one thing. There's the old "fighting words" doctrine, but I don't think there's a "killing words" doctrine. In the heat of passion, might reduce a first degree murder to second, I suppose. But seven years later is a stretch, by any standard. However, I recall a case involving a child molester who was murdered many years after his crime, and the jury refused to convict. These are ultimately questions for the jury, and juries have been known to disregard instructions. I don't like the idea of being murdered because of an old joke, no matter how "offensive" it might have been. I guess Howard Stern needs bodyguards, for some people take comedy very seriously.

But how could Berkeyheiser have known that he needed a bodyguard? For that matter, how is anyone supposed to know whether the man ever told a racist joke? He's dead, and his murderer is alive. So, while the murderer has the media advantage, the victim must content himself with a hole in the ground. They worked together for ten months, and it all comes down to a single joke? What if Berkeyheiser was a nice guy who never told this or any other racist joke, and his killer is a psychopath who hated him for reasons known only to him?

Is there a morality lesson here? We will never, ever know. It isn't even one man's word against another.

The only moral lesson I can see is that there's a distinct advantage to being alive. Wars of words are won by the living.

It's an old moral lesson many people forget. A lesson Josef Stalin knew better than most people.

Whether in politics or in life, you'll win the debate if your opponent is dead.

Are Republicans digging up irrelevant dirt on Melody Townsel? According to Ms. Townsel (who wrote a letter to Amy at Daily Kos) post, they are:

Hello, Daily Kos-ers:
Tonight, my deepest fears regarding my pending testimony in the John Bolton nomination process have come true: Republicans have dredged up un unfortunate chapter of my life and, clearly, are about to announce it to the world. When you read this, you may decide either that I was stupid to step forward, or that I no longer deserve your trust. I want, however, to be the one to announce this to you all since you've been so unbelievably supportive.

When I was in college, 22 years ago, I plagiarized some columns while working for my college newspaper, and I was removed from staff. Months later, while working for another college newspaper, I wrote a review for a local play that tracked closely in format to another writer's review -- and, although it was not plagiarized, it made my editors, who had become aware of my recent past, very uncomfortable, and we mutually agreed that I would no longer submit stories to them.

As you can imagine, I'm deeply ashamed to be forced to revisit these events so publicly -- and, while I was under tremendous academic, financial and family pressure at the time, there is absolutely NO excuse for what I did so long ago. I knew it was wrong then, and I remain deeply ashamed and embarrassed.

I wish to stress that Amy, my friend who has been such a staunch supporter and has been keeping you posted on things happening with my pending testimony, was completely unaware of these events. There are some things you don't tell even your best friend.

As you judge me, please keep in mind that I was 21 years old when this happened. Today, at 42, I can state emphatically that I've worked hard my entire professional and personal life to put my incredibly poor decisions and actions behind me -- and I believe my professional and personal life since that time speaks for itself.

More than 10 years had passed from those college events when I had my brutal, ugly and unfortunate contact with Mr. Bolton. In that decade, I worked professionally as a copyeditor, a business writer, and a business analyst for major publications. I also worked as a senior planning analyst for a major airport project -- and, thereafter, I accepted a one-year posting with Black Manafort Stone & Kelly to Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. There, as you know, I met Mr. Bolton.

I want to tell you all this story, first and personally, before the Bush camp works its special brand of magic -- and I would deeply appreciate your help in posting this letter as many places as you can in advance of my testimony. Even as I write this, the Bush team is working overtime to destroy my life and business, telling and retelling the things I'm writing here. I just received a phone call from a Christian newspaper reporter.

I know they'll tell you that my pending statement to the Senate cannot be trusted because I did some stupid things as a 20-year-old kid two decades ago -- even as they try to tell you that Mr. Bolton's bahavior toward me in Moscow and Kyrgyzstan 11 years ago just doesn't matter. They'll try to make my actions of two decades ago the story -- setting aside the forgiveness Mr. Bush grants himself about his own history of questionable behavior by stating, "When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible."

As of tonight, it's clear that I've truly risked everything to tell you -- and the U.S. Senate -- about Mr. Bolton. I've already told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee counsel about this episode in my life, and I remain committed to to going through with my testimony tomorrow. They still want to depose me.

Since Amy first posted my letter, you may have read that former colleagues have stepped forward to verify its contents to the Senate regarding Mr. Bolton -- and other, similar tales of his abuse appear to be surfacing daily. The fact that they're working so hard to discredit me tells me they know that I'm right.

That's my story. If you can still offer it, I would appreciate your continued support. I would appreciate your empathy. I would appreciate your thoughts and prayers as I try to rebuild my life and my business.

Perhaps most important, I would also appreciate your sharing my story, as quickly as possible, with anybody you can. Please help me get this out there first.

Sincerely,

Melody Townsel

Little Green Footballs notes that she has written her close friends at the Daily Kos to alert them to a history of plagiarism which she says will be used against her by Republicans. I haven't seen any sign of that yet, but it's certainly fair to say that if a Republican made an otherwise-unsupported charge against a Democrat, and turned out to have a documented history as a plagiarist, that fact would be considered relevant. What's more significant to me, though, is her close self-identification with the nutjobs at the Daily Kos.

I didn't care about the DUI allegations about George W. Bush either. But lots of leftists sure as hell did.

If the evil Republican dirt digging machine is at it again, then why is it that the only place the dirt has appeared was at Daily Kos and the blogs linking the piece? The commenters have gone absolutely ballistic over this latest Republican "attack" -- to the point that many of them are baring their souls, and sharing details:

"smoking pot, taking LSD, mushrooms and playing in a texas-psychedelic band."

"21 years ago I was a born again christian.
-I got better though."

"i had just finished taking the MCATs while at the same time my fiancee (yes, fiancee) and i broke off our engagement, i was about to turn 21, and in honor of the milestone out at the campus bars for the celebration drank 21 beers and 18 shots. why do i rememer the amount? i was po'd that i didn't make an even 21/21. oh yeah, that's the same night i tried to jump out of a moving camaro because i thought the driver was making a pass at me, made him pull ver, got out of the car and then proceeded to fall asleep under a tree by our campus library, and as dawn was breaking staggered back to my dorm room (waking all 3 room mates), and then did a few lines of coke -- using the album cover for heaven 17's "how men are" as my flat surface, and was as good to go again for another day and night of my birthday week's celebrations."

"i don't know whether to laugh or HELL YEAH LAUGH -- what else is there to do?!?!

WHAT A JOKE. LET THEM BRING THIS SHIT OUT. They'll be laughed out of the damn press conference!

god, i don't think i went to enough classes to plagarize!

GOD DAMN JOKE! & i'm talking about the people -- not this stunt.

Did you roll through a stop sign when you were 24?"

"Realistically, I think we all knew there would be a Herculean effort to drag this womans name through the mud. If this is the worst thing they can get on you, Melody, you are a far better person than I."

"I wasn't respectable 30 years ago and I'm still not. Thank God."

I have dirt in my past, and so do many of my closest friends. As I said, I don't consider this plagiarism stuff at all relevant. But my question remains, did the Republicans bring this up?

I see no evidence that they did. We have only Melody Townsel's word that "Republicans have dredged [it] up" and "clearly, are about to announce it to the world." Then there's this curious statement:

Even as I write this, the Bush team is working overtime to destroy my life and business, telling and retelling the things I'm writing here. I just received a phone call from a Christian newspaper reporter.

And why the call from the "Christian" newspaper reporter? Obviously, she thinks "Christian" is a dirty word, but did she ever stop to imagine how it would have looked had she said "Jewish?" Who would call her and say he was a "Christian newspaper reporter," anyway? What was asked? Who was this caller?

How do we know that this is the handiwork of the Republican attack machine? Because Daily Kos readers are incensed? It's looking a bit too convenient for comfort.

I'm very skeptical.

I think it's quite possible that the "victim" dug up (more properly, presented to Daily Kos) the dirt against herself to set herself up to complain about the dirt digging. This both makes the Republicans look bad, and controls the damage in advance. Neat trick if you can pull it off, Melody.

(And if that turned out to be what happened, no, I still wouldn't care about twenty year old plagiarism. I'd be caring about something far worse -- and far more recent.)

UPDATE: This reminds me more and more of Philadelphia Mayor Street "discovering" the FBI bug (and harnessing hatred of the evil Republicans) just in time to transform defeat into victory.

ADDITIONAL THOUGHT: If assume for the sake of argument that sneaky, evil Republicans dug up the plagiarism dirt on Melody Townsel, then I have a couple of questions:

I have no way of knowing whether people might be digging up dirt on me, or the nature of the dirt, and dirt diggers, by their nature, don't tend to broadcast to their targets what they're doing behind their backs.

I don't know why, but my dog Coco does not like my nice new document shredder. In fact, she hates it with a passion. Whenever I shred anything, as soon as she hears the noise, she charges in from wherever she is -- apparently in the hope of putting an end to the shredding process. This is the sort of thing which has to be seen to be believed, so I thought I'd try to take some pictures. Bear in mind that the camera's three second delay makes it tough, because the shredder moves fast. And so does Coco.

In this first photo, Coco was quick, but arrived too late to actually stop the shredding, so she bit the edge of the evil machine:

Next, she grabbed a sheet on its way in, violently tearing one piece off, then grabbing at it a second time before it too disappeared into the meanspirited maws of document oblivion:

Finally, a more mellow-looking Coco tries again, this time pulling more gently (without tearing the document), as if she might yet save it from the terrible fate.

I don't know whether Coco is against coverups or actually feels sorry for these documents. I have tried to explain that I'm only trying to keep them away from bad people, but she's not interested in explanations. She's just fanatically anti-shredding, and obviously blinded by her passions.

TECH NOTE: My apologies for Coco's red eyes, but the anti-red-eye feature of the camera is too slow to use in action shots.

On August 20, 1994, a white buffalo was born on a farm in Janesville, Wisconsin, fulfilling ancient predictions of many Native Americans tribes that peace will come to men of all colors when the white buffalo returns. As a white buffalo matures, it's hair changes colors, becoming yellow, brown and black - the colors of all human races - before becoming white again.

-- Lynne D. Finney, J.D., M.S.W., writing in NewsMax

Finney, whose anti-Bolton charges have been the subject of stories in the Los Angeles Times, USA Today and other papers, also claims to have been taught by "Tibetan monks and Master Nome in Santa Cruz, California." Master Nome is a Hindu religious teacher. Finney was described by The New York Times as "a leading practitioner of recovered-memory therapy, including the use of self-hypnosis, a practice that some studies have shown can result in the creation of false memories."

"In this new millennium, we entered an era of human evolution where we can reinvent ourselves and create new realities," the Finney website declares. "We all have the ability to clear out our limiting beliefs and behaviors and tap into the infinite power of Consciousness." The website describes her "many realities," including as "diplomat" and "United Nations policy advisor to the Agency for International Development." The latter is apparently a reference to the position in which Finney claims to have been yelled at by Bolton, then the top lawyer at USAID.

Reached by telephone, Finney refused to comment, saying, "I'm not going to talk to the press until after the [Senate Foreign Relations] committee interviews me, which I understand is going to be sometime this week…I've just been advised to do that."

Stories say that Finney emailed her comments about Bolton to liberal Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer, a strong opponent of Bolton and member of the committee, who passed them on to the press.

Anyway, while we were enjoying the new-age loopiness at lynnefinney.com (see sidebar), we didn't have time to call Sen. Boxer and ask her whether she even believes this kooky story. Somebody ought to do that.

Whatever her answer, it is easy to come to the conclusion that Democrats don't care. This isn't about facts. If Democrats cared about those, they'd debate the Bolton nomination on the merits. Bolton has said controversial things about the United Nations that assure he won't be welcomed with open arms by the international diplomats in Manhattan, N.Y.

The problem for Democrats is that most Americans agree with Bolton. The United Nations is a corrupt dictators club badly in need of reform. The scandals of oil-for-food and sexual abuse have tarnished an image already suffering from inaction in Iraq, Rwanda and Darfur.

So since Democrats can't fight about the U.N., they have to debate something else. That leaves only Bolton's character as a lever to keep him out of the United Nations and deal a blow to the Bush Administration's aggressive foreign policy.

Here's what she said on Friday, via a letter to Senator Boxer:

On Friday, Lynne Finney, a former legal adviser to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), sent a letter to Sen. Barbara Boxer (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif. Finney wrote that Bolton "screamed that I was fired" when she refused to lobby for a weakening of restrictions on the sale of infant formula in the developing world.

State Department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli said "no one at USAID at the time has any recollection" of such an incident. Ereli denied that the Reagan administration tried to weaken a 1981 U.N. recommendation against the use of formula in poor countries. "People who are opposed to the nomination are using vague memories and personal charges to attack what is substantively a strong nomination," Ereli said.

According to the letter, a copy of which Boxer‘s office e-mailed to USA TODAY, the incident took place in late 1982 or early 1983, when Bolton, as the top lawyer at USAID, outranked Finney. She was on the staff as a legal adviser. Boxer‘s office verified that Finney sent the letter.

Finney, who is now a motivational speaker, said in the letter that she cared about world peace and wanted to help defeat Bolton‘s nomination. She did not return phone messages left at her home.

Obviously, further medication meditation is needed to make the requisite connection. ("Creating realities," as another blogger put it.)

Formula? Peace? Formula for Peace? Peace. On. Earth? Purity Of Essence?

How about creating the reality of satanic ritual abuse? Yes, the latter is discussed at Ms. Finney's website. [Specifically, she claims to have "worked with" "victims of satanic ritual abuse victims "as a therapist."] According to ReligiousTolerance.org, it has never been demostrated that "Satanic Ritual Abuse" even exists. However, it's closely associated with "Recovered Memory Therapy."

Might there be a hidden reason why John Bolton has such a bushy head of hair? Has anyone actually inspected his head to see whether he has the 666 tattoo? Has he been examined carefully for signs of horns? He may keep them filed down. Not a new idea among Satanists.

Isn't it time to at least take a look?

AFTERTHOUGHT: I realize this is my third post (see infra here and here) about a serious situation and I should probably apologize for the buffoonery in this one. I do try to take these things seriously. Sometimes I just get carried away with newly recovered realities I've created.

This week's Bonfire of the Vanities is burning brightly at Boxing Alcibiades, whose blogname alone qualifies him for a blogroll link. His threat to deploy Diazanon against Classical Values is being taken most seriously, and is being submitted to our panel of resident scientists for further study, after which it will be referred to committee for further reflection.

The posts are all quite funny, but I think I most enjoyed Kevin Aylward's true and accurate reporting of Drew Barrymore's rustic poo:

"I took a poo in the woods hunched over like an animal. It was awesome,"

Hey is Diazanon flammable?

UPDATE: Match anyone?

"The battle over pharmacists' consciences has been building for some time...".

That's how the Christian Post spins the Illinois governor's order that pharmacists comply with requests for emergency contraception.

You see, it's a little abortion everytime. In cases of rape, broken condoms -- what have you. The law, we're meant to believe, forces Christian pharmacists to murder babies.

But selling condoms and birth control makes pharmacists complicit in the spilling of vain seed, in the promotion of sex for purposes other than procreation. And we know that sin is sin.

How do I spin the story?

A pharmacist has a job to do: dispense drugs. That job has no ethical or moral component. The governor's order is not meant to fight for the conscience of pharmacist's but rather to ensure that those members of a free society who, for whatever reason, have need of a particular drug receive that drug without the morality of a self-righteous pharmacist standing in the way.

The Virgina Pilot anticipated the Christian Post and had this to say about the moral conflict between pharamacist and patient:

When the two conflict, then professional responsibility tilts toward serving a medical need. Those who cannot live with that standard ought to arrange for someone else to provide the service.

As Darleen Click points out, semantics are being used to cloud the debate over illegal immigration -- with ordinary words being much misused:

Read almost any story on illegal aliens and the MSM almost without fail refers to illegal aliens as "migrants" or "undocumented workers." The supporters and advocates of open borders engage in the war of words in an effort to reduce the public awareness that illegal aliens are breaking the law. The recent coverage of the Minuteman Project is a prime example of how semantics is used in attempts to give sympathy to criminals and criminalize law-abiding citizens.

.... people opposed to a illegal alien hotline are accusing it of encouraging a "vigilante mentality." Hmmmm... I guess it's only vigilantes that call 911, or neighborhood watch, or drug-tips hotlines to report crimes in process, eh?

"Where's the gun?" "Where's the gun?" was the only thing that mattered. The burglar was irrelevant, and it struck me that their primary purpose was not to arrest the burglar (or protect me), but to protect the burglar from me.

(Next time, I might wait a little longer before dialing 911.)

I find it interesting that Americans who are trying to turn illegal immigrants back are called "vigilantes," while their counterparts (groups like Grupo Beta) are seen as humanitarians:

Agua Prieta, Mexico , Apr 20 - For the past eleven years, Enrique Enriquez Palafox has worked on the Mexican border, rescuing migrants in need of food and water. As an employee with Grupo Beta, a Mexican government-sponsored agency whose mission, "Protección a Migrantes," is stamped across the back of his jacket, Palafox is accustomed to the constant search for men, women and children lost in the 23 mile-long stretch of desert between the Mexican border towns of Agua Prieta and Naco.

Palafox was carrying out his humanitarian labor as he had for over a decade -- without fanfare -- when earlier this month a group of American vigilantes calling themselves the Minutemen began setting up lawn chairs along the north side of the border, bringing binoculars, pistols and countless reporters with them.

Since then, with armed border-watchers planted on the US side of the border with the express intent to disrupt illegal immigration and report undocumented immigrants to US authorities, Palafox and other service providers have seen a drop in the number of migrants crossing in the area, but the true impact of the Minuteman Project on migration remains to be seen.

The Spanish-language press has frequently run stories about the Minutemen, complete with footage of armed American civilians patrolling the border. In addition, Grupo Beta has posted flyers along the border and in Agua Prieta, warning potential border-crossers to avoid the area during the month of April.

But Bertha de la Rosa, the coordinator for Grupo Beta in Agua Prieta, thinks the Minuteman presence will have no long-term effect on the status quo. Aa short woman whose friendly smile belies her no-nonsense attitude, she said she believed that for the most part, migrants were not deciding to abandon their journey entirely. She suspected they were merely moving farther west towards the border city of Nogales, or perhaps simply waiting for the Minutemen to go home.

....For Palafox, it was heartening to see the vigilantes wasting their time. "Let them sit there staring at us," he said. "If you ask me, they are just ignorant racists."

What is being lost in this heated debate is that the people crossing the border illegally are by definition engaged in crime. The people trying to stop them may not ultimately be acting in the best interests of their own cause, but they are not criminals. (I don't mean to belittle anyone or sound overly cynical, but I know from experience that groups like the Minutemen attract agents provocateur like rotten meat draws flies. This "Mexican Family Values" portrayal might amuse my more cynical readership.)

Whether they are in fact "vigilantes" is quite another matter. The term is not easy to define.

Vigilantes regard the criminals and people they target as living outside the social bonds and communal ties that hold our society together. It's not so much that they dehumanize their target, but that the target represents an alien enemy that must be defended against. The target must also be punished, and punished outside the law. Any and all legal matters on the subject are seen as unnecessary intrusions on the basic freedom that all communities enjoy to protect themselves. Zimring (2004) says that the vigilante mindset is the opposite of the due process mindset. Vigilante thinking is precisely the opposite of any notion of fairness, fair play, or a chance for acquittal. Vigilantes do not care to wait for the police to finish their investigation, and they care less about any court's determination of proof. What they do care about is justice -- quick, final, cost-effective justice. To a vigilante, punishment should be inflicted upon those deserving of it at the first opportunity -- no waiting, and the more severe the punishment, the better. These are all romantic notions that feed an appetite for punishment more than an appetite for vengeance.

What bothers me is that the real problem -- an unpoliced border, with criminals crossing at will -- is being lost in a debate over "vigilantism."

I mean, why have the border at all if it doesn't mean anything? And if it doesn't mean anything, it's fair for people to ask whether the laws of the United States apply. And where.

UPDATE: La Shawn Barber reports vigilante-like talk from ultraliberal Maxine Waters:

“Why isn’t anyone talking about the Mexican Mafia (a gang of illegal Mexicans that controls the California prison system)?” she thundered. ‘I don’t care if you’re pink or purple or white or black or brown, I want you out if you’re committing crimes.’ There is no excuse not to control the border, she said. ‘I’m a liberal with a capital ‘L’,’ she said, ‘but I’m sick of it.

The point is that no matter how liberal people may be, everyone has a limit to what they’ll tolerate, and foreign criminals fighting in her district must be hers.

Waters had better be careful with all that “control the border” talk, though. Her liberal friends might accuse her of being a “hate-mongering, right-wing anarchist who will stop at nothing to destroy” America’s wide open borders.

MORE: According to the Washington Times, the Minutemen are rallying this week in Washington. No word yet on whether Maxine Waters plans to address them.

MORE: Glenn Reynolds, speculating about immigration as the Achilles Heel of the Republican Party, links to this:

The party's base hates the president's stance on immigration, and this threatens to sunder the Republican coalition. I remain amazed that the instinct for self-preservation among the big-business and libertarian elements within the party is still so weak that don't understand their stake in controlling and reducing immigration.

In a recent discussion of Pope Benedict XVI, John Aravosis asks a "fair" question:

When is it fair to call a Nazi a Nazi?

So, in answer to the question of when is it fair to call a Nazi a Nazi. . .

I'd have to answer, um . . .

Hmmmm.........

When it's fair to call a Communist a Communist, that's when!

UPDATE (04/28/05): Anyone who thinks it's fair to call a Communist a Communist should read this (via InstaPundit).

Well, Earth Day has come and gone. I suppose some sort of ecologically relevant sermon is in order, and I may actually have just the ticket. I’ve been idly musing about the impending Peak Oil crisis, a crisis that may eventuate this year, or fifteen years from now, or perhaps never.

I won’t deny that such a thing is possible. Hell, it could even be probable, and this very year could be the year it happens. More knowledgeable men than I have spent decades acquiring expertise in these matters, and who am I to challenge them? On the other hand, equally erudite oil mages say that we have years, decades even, before the dark time arrives. As regards these dueling eminences, I can offer you no tie-breaking insight, only the humble observation that it’s hard to know where to place your trust. What I can offer you is certainty about one key fact, and the warm comfort to be derived from that certainty, the rock-ribbed and copper-bottomed key fact that James Howard Kunstler is a freaking loon. More on this later.

Let me be clear with you from the beginning that my contribution to the ongoing dialogue will be relatively fact-free. I’m working off of my intuition here, and it’s telling me that this is probably just another false alarm. I’m not a petroleum geologist. I have no hard evidence to back me up, no special experience in the trade. What I do have is my memory, and I vividly remember hearing the same things (and far worse) over thirty-five years ago. Back then I was worried. I was a gullible kid. But over the years I’ve learned my lessons, and these days I’m sleeping like a baby. Yes, just like a big old baby.

So I’m doing fine, but I do worry about today’s young people. Apparently, this Kunstler character is a popular speaker on college campuses.

Kunstler got a rock-star reception last week at Middlebury College, where he entertained a standing-room-only audience with provocative predications about where our unbridled consumption is likely to land us. An eloquent, funny speaker who is not afraid to use the f-word, Kunstler agreed to a follow-up email interview with Seven Days.

Students hear his message and it resonates with them. Small wonder. He’s glib, sarcastic, funny, and idealistic. Just like them. When I was a callow undergrad I could believe “twelve impossible things before breakfast” and never spot their contradictions. I doubt that young people have changed all that much in the interim. Perhaps they also think (he being such a good talker and all) that he must be really, really smart.

Funny isn’t it, how so many people equate verbal facility with intelligence? Fluency in your native tongue is no guarantee that you’ll perceive reality any more accurately than the next citizen. Some of the smartest people I’ve met were downright laconic. Conversely, some of the best talkers were deeply, consistently idiotic. It took me awhile to figure that one out. Once you do, you’re a bit less vulnerable to the demagogic con jobs that seem so abundant these days, but it’s hard. Until you’ve actually been out in the world, making your own way, your mental immune system is weak and wobbly. At any rate, mine was.

Bad enough that he’s a mind parasite, feeding off of youthful ignorance and idealism. Worse, is that I actually agree with him, a little. The sad fact is that he and I share a few opinions about the American way of life. Yeah sure, it could stand some improvement. Hey, what couldn’t? But then, I also like America enough to excuse the flaws and blemishes. I get the feeling that he can't.

Beyond even that, I despise his tactics. He’s attempting to influence public opinion through fear, conjuring up the good old scary dreams of yesteryear. Stampede the ignorant sheeple into right thought and right action, oh yeah. Anything that contradicts his argument is summarily rejected, with little or no consideration. His arrogant condescension toward lifestyles (the suburbs, automobiles) that he finds distasteful leaves little room for honest disagreement. He seems unwilling to give the other side a fair hearing. Most of which would be tolerable if he were obviously correct. But he isn’t correct.

He’s just another goofy zealot, longing for the social breakdown that will make his dreams come true. I hope he lives long enough for a rude awakening. Society might actually manage to cope and then where would he be? But even if luck falls his way and the bottom drops out on schedule, it won’t lead us to the small scale, appropriate-technology renaissance he envisions. Oh, no. Sadly for him, there will be a recovery. It may be preceded by a nasty, brutish interval of indeterminate duration, but a recovery there will be. None of our resource shortages are immutable. All of them have workable solutions, given enough time. New techniques will be developed and implemented. Unless you plan to force people, some will rush back to their old habits, given half a chance.

Those would be the same people who miss their big fine homes, their fast comfortable cars, and their freedom from small town conformity and big city crime. They will not lightly abandon their old lives and will work hard to get them back. Remember, after the thirties and forties came the fifties and sixties. From breadlines and soup kitchens to jumbo jets and chrome trimmed tailfins. Kunstler simply doesn’t address this seemingly obvious observation, which makes me think he’s deluding himself. Well, of course he is.

His Y2K essay is a perfect example. He really had himself convinced that it was all going down five years ago. This was the big one, baby! Do you think he was terribly disappointed when nothing bad happened? Did he have a sinking feeling when 01/01/2000 cycled through and all the machines kept working? That’s a fairly twisted outlook, to pin your hopes on a global calamity. It’s creepy and unseemly and I suppose it’s the thing that I like least about him. You can practically hear him licking his chops, as he describes all the Bad Things Coming. Making bank by scaring the children.

Predictions of calamity were a staple of my tender years. For our younger readers, hearing the siren song of apocalypse for the first time, it may come as a surprise, but the world has been coming to an end for quite some time now.

Allow me to dish up some nostalgia for you. I am indebted to Ron Bailey for collecting so many of these wonderful old squallings in one excellent essay. I've shamelessly swiped "the good parts" but please check out what else he had to say. It was written back in 2000 but holds up very well.

Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that "civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind."

"We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation," wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.

"We have about five more years at the outside to do something," ecologist Kenneth Watt declared to a Swarthmore College audience on April 19, 1970.

Dubbed "ecology's angry lobbyist" by Life magazine, the gloomy Ehrlich was quoted everywhere. "Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make," he confidently declared in an interview with then-radical journalist Peter Collier in the April 1970 Mademoiselle. "The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years."

"By...[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s."

Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the "Great Die-Off."

Peter Gunter, a professor at North Texas State University, wrote, "Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions....By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine".

In January 1970, Life reported, "Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support...the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution...by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half...."

Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, "At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it's only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable."

Barry Commoner cited a National Research Council report that had estimated "that by 1980 the oxygen demand due to municipal wastes will equal the oxygen content of the total flow of all the U.S. river systems in the summer months." Translation: Decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America's rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.

In his "Eco-Catastrophe!" scenario, Ehrlich put a finer point on these fears by envisioning a 1973 Department of Health, Education, and Welfare study which would find "that Americans born since 1946...now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out."

Keying off of Rachel Carson's claims about the dangers of synthetic chemicals in Silent Spring (1962), Look claimed that many scientists believed that residual DDT would lead to an increase in liver and other cancers.

"We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones," warned Sierra Club director Martin Litton in Time's February 2, 1970, special "environmental report."

Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.

Kenneth Watt was less equivocal in his Swarthmore speech about Earth's temperature. "The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years," he declared. "If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age."

Ah, the good old days! Back then, people really knew how to panic. Kids today have had to scrimp and make do with the pale and tepid pressings left over from Earth Day’s glory years. Those were fiery times, filled with passion, brimming with confident lunatic certainty. Apocalypse Ho!

After a good dosing with the above quotes, striving for optimism seems almost tasteless doesn’t it? Nevertheless, we shall venture the attempt. But in honor of Earth Day, let’s do it in a relaxed, scattershot manner. We can check out a few things of an Earth Day type nature. Like wind power.

Just between you and me, I love wind turbines. When I drive to Palm Springs, I always feel my spirits lift, watching the wind machines merrily spinning. I think they’re adorably cute. I gather that places me in a minority. Apparently, most people think they’re ugly as sin. Some folks even get a little nauseous from the whirly motions. Well, if you thought they were ugly before, get an eyeful of these babies.

They remind me of old-fashioned tv antennas, or (speaking strictly hypothetically) Klingon erotic toys. Not that there's anything wrong with that. To the contrary, for a zero-pollution kilowatt or six, I’m willing to overlook a great deal. Think of these wind turbines as the plain jane wall-flowers at the alternate-energy barn dance. You know, the ones with personality? I wonder if that Kunstler yoinker would find them aesthetically objectionable. Wouldn’t that just red-line the old irony meter? Super efficient, appropriate scale wind power that looks at home in the worst parts of New Jersey.

What impresses me here is the sheer ingenuity involved. Something like that windmill would never occur to me in a million years, but it and things like it are popping up all over. Of course most of them will never amount to much, but a few of them will, and even that tiny fraction will make all the difference. I came of age in a time when “progress” was deemed by many to be illusory, or outright evil. I very much prefer the naive optimism of my earliest childhood. Buying into hopelessness gets you nothing.

Let me throw you a few more items of a generally positive nature…

A spiffy new fuel-cell motorbike from England The power plant is detachable. For easy upgrades, maybe?

A Scandinavian concept ship that will never be built. Intended for glum chiding, it’s still pretty cool. Sails that function as solar cell arrays. Sweet.

A German kite-ship. I wonder what they do when the wind dies too quickly?

Toshiba’s fast new lithium-ion battery. Eighty percent recharge in sixty seconds.

Homebrew desktop fusion generators. Here’s how to build your own. My favorite two lines would have to be…

You will need to borrow, buy, or build some vacuum equipment, obtain a small supply of deuterium, and figure out some instruments so you can tell if it is working...

The real danger is in the potentially lethal high voltages used, and some lesser concerns for safe handling of compressed flammable gas...

Kids, don't try this at home.

Via Randall Parker, a demonstration in favor of nuclear power.