Right Wing Nut House

With the radioactive mullahs digging in their heels by refusing to abandon their uranium enrichment program - a program that could yield enough fissionable material to make 3-5 nuclear weapons in a matter of months - the likelihood of conflict with Israel and by extension the United States grows daily.

At bottom, the reason is simple, as simple as anything can get in international relations. The Iranian theocracy has pledged itself to wipe the State of Israel off the face of the planet. They see the Jewish state as an abomination before God. This isn’t bombast. It isn’t “rhetoric for domestic consumption” as some in the west would have you believe. For the Iranian theocrats, the goal of destroying Israel is its raison d’etre , its reason for being. They also see Israel as a military threat. And when you combine the real-world strategic calculation of threat with a theological justification for war, you have an extraordinarily explosive and dangerous mixture.

Their view of the United States seems to have come full circle since the mullahs seized power in 1980 from less radical, more nationalistic elements of the revolution. At that time, they viewed us as “The Great Satan” who manipulated Israel as a client state to do our bidding in the middle east. Now that view has changed in that they now see Israel controlling American politics for their own ends. Either way, an Iranian nuclear weapons program threatens Israel with an immediacy that the Jewish state cannot ignore.

WHO ARE THESE GUYS?

The radioactive mullahs who will make the decision for war or peace are not pragmatists or reformers. They are control freaks. From the “Supreme Leader” Ayatollah Ali Hoseini Khamenei who heads up the shadowy group of clerics that dictate policy and have virtually unlimited veto power over the legislative and executive branches of government to the equally clandestine network of intelligence and security people that include bully boys from Hezballah and the enforcers who make up the Revolutionary Guards, the Iranian government seeks to coerce its citizens through intimidation and outright terror. Woe betide the luckless Iranian who gets caught in this nexus of brutality.

It’s impossible to estimate the number of regime opponents who’ve been executed in the last 25 years. Most human rights groups put the number at “tens of thousands.” In addition to the executions and outright murders committed by Revolutionary Guards, additional thousands have been assassinated abroad for speaking out against the regime. Certainly the number is approaching 100,000. Iranian bloggers have recently reported the cold blooded murder of the leaders of student protests against the government which means that far from reforming, the bloodthirsty security services will act quickly and ruthlessly to put down any opposition to the cleric’s rule.

Here are some of the key players we’ll be hearing a lot of in the coming months as the showdown with Iran approaches its climax:

Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei

Supreme Leader and Chief of State, Khamenei was appointed for life in 1989 to head up the small group of clerics known as the “Assembly of Experts” who control Iran. Born in 1939, Khamenei was a close associate of the patron saint of the Revolution Ayatollah Khomeini. In 1977, he helped found the Islamic Republic Party which is the major political party that now heads up the coalition of ruling parties that have governed Iran since the revolution. In 1980 as the Iranian students held our diplomats hostage, Khomeini gave Khamenei the position of leader of Friday Congregational Prayers in Tehran. Using this influential position, he rallied the students every week to go into the streets and protest against “The Great Satan.” Perhaps more than any other cleric, Khamenei was responsible for keeping the spirit of anti-Americanism among the students at a fever pitch.

In 1981 he gave a speech denouncing President Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, who after being summarily dismissed was then executed. From 1981 to 1989, he was President of Iran, garnering 95% of the vote in both his elections and heading up various security committees including being named Commander of the Revolutionary Guards.

Pretty easy to win when voting for your opponent would get you arrested.

Mohammad Khatami

When Khatami was elected President in 1997 with 70% of the vote, high hopes for reforming the theocracy were expressed by both western analysts and Iranian democracy advocates. Alas, such was not the case. Khatami has proven to be a straw man for the clerics. His “reformist” agenda has been stymied at every turn by the mullahs with most of his supporters who dared take his reformist ideas seriously either dead or in jail.

Born in 1943, his father was a good friend of Ayatollah Khomeini. Holding a minor position in the cabinet of his predecessor Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Khatami ran a western style Presidential campaign, coming off as a man of the people and a reasonable theocrat. But despite some minor press reforms (since rolled back as the mullahs have cracked down on free speech in the last year) and the election of a pro-reform legislature, Khatami has failed to make a dent in the power wielded by the clerics behind Supreme Leader Khamenei. This is because he has no control over appointments to either the judiciary or the security services. In short, Khatami has a very short leash and has become very adept at not angering the mullahs. His term is up in August which could be right around the time the crisis between Iran and the US/Israel comes to a head.

Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani

Elections for President are scheduled for June 17, 2005 at which time it’s believed that Rafsanjani, who already served as President from 1989 to 1997, may once again hold that office. Elected with 95% of the vote (that same brave 5% keeps voting against these guys), Rafsanjani is an enigma.

A free market capitalist who sought to revive Iran’s ruined economy during his term in office, he was widely credited at the time with reopening Iran to investment, especially from Russia and Western Europe. A conservative, it appears that this time, he’ll be running on both a reformist and conservative ticket. Here’s how Forbes described him in an article from 2003:

Ironically, the man most adept at manipulating this hidden power structure is one of Iran’s best-known characters–Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who has been named an ayatollah, or religious leader. He was the speaker of parliament and Khomeini’s right-hand man in the 1980s, president of Iran from 1989 to 1997 and is now chairman of the powerful Expediency Council, which resolves disputes between the clerical establishment and parliament. Rafsanjani has more or less run the Islamic Republic for the past 24 years.

He played it smart, aligning himself in the 1960s with factions led by Ayatollah Khomeini, then becoming the go-to guy after the revolution. A hard-liner ideologically, Rafsanjani nonetheless has a pragmatic streak. He convinced Khomeini to end the Iran-Iraq war and broke Iran’s international isolation by establishing trade relations with the Soviet Union, China, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. In the 1990s he restarted Iran’s nuclear program. He is also the father of Iran’s “privatization” program. During his presidency the stock market was revived, some government companies were sold to insiders, foreign trade was liberalized and the oil sector was opened up to private companies. Most of the good properties and contracts, say dissident members of Iran’s Chamber of Commerce, ended up in the hands of mullahs, their associates and, not least, Rafsanjani’s own family, who rose from modest origins as small-scale pistachio farmers.

Is Rafsanjani enough of a pragmatist to avoid the coming conflict? That depends on how well he can manipulate events in Iran. If he has the confidence of the mullahs (he’s not their first choice at this point) he may be able to convince them that the isolation that Iran will experience if it continues its enriched urnanium program will be ruinous to the economy and set the Revolution back. It would help if, when we go to the United Nations and ask for sanctions (which we will surely do before any military action), that our ostensible allies in Europe and around the world support us in the effort. Unfortunately, at this point it looks as if Russia would veto any sanctions resolution as would the French.

Rafsanjani, who began the Iranian nuclear program in 1990 when he was President, will be reluctant to abandon bomb making unless he thinks the survival of the regime is at stake. Since the only credible threat to the regime comes from the United States military, its up to us to make it clear to Rafsanjani that a nuclear weapon in the hands of radical islamists is unacceptable. Only then will he and the radioactive mullahs consider withdrawing from the brink of catastrophe which would be the certain outcome of any military action taken by the US or Israel against Iran.

Cross Posted at Cao’s Blog and Blogger News Network

The Iranians appear to be keen on forcing a showdown with both Israel and the United States over its nuclear program:

In Tehran and here on the world stage, an emphatic Iran said Tuesday it will press on with its uranium-enrichment technology, a program that has drawn Washington’s fire and ratcheted up global nuclear tensions.

On the second day of a nonproliferation conference, Iran’s Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said his country is “determined to pursue all legal areas of nuclear technology, including enrichment, exclusively for peaceful purposes.”

In Iran’s capital, a government spokesman said nuclear activities suspended during talks with European negotiators would be resumed, but not enrichment itself - the processing of uranium gas through centrifuges to produce either fuel for nuclear power or the stuff of atom bombs.

Since both Israel and the United States will do whatever it takes to keep the radioactive mullahs from acquiring their own nuclear weapon, it seems clear that Tehran is ready to play out whatever strategy they’ve concocted to deal with the eventuality of an attack by either or both countries.

Is the Iranian leadership so insulated, so out of touch that they fail to realize the danger of an attack, especially by Israel? Not likely. One possibility is that they’re banking on any military action being unable to take out the guts of their nuclear infrastructure - a pretty good bet since they’ve been burying their facilities underground for the last five or more years. This means for any attack to be successful, there must be a follow-up ground assault to destroy any facilities that remain.

Israel has excellent special forces units that theoretically could be used in a series of commando raids to finish the job started by IDF bombers. The problem is that the Iranians have turned these facilities into almost impregnable fortresses so that any operations carried out against them would not only incur huge casualties but would probably fail.

The only military options then that would have a chance of being 100% successful would seem to be a bombing operation coupled with some kind of invasion. Given that the US is the only country that could carry out a large scale assault of this nature and that any military action of this kind would inflame passions in the middle east against us, the radioactive mullahs may think they’ve checkmated both the United States and Israel and forestalled any meaningful action against them.

They may be right. While carrying out a bombing raid using their brand new American made GBU-28 “Bunker Busting” bombs, the IDF would be unable to destroy Iran’s entire nuclear infrastructure as they did when they attacked Saddam’s Osirak Nuclear complex in 1981. This would put the onus on the United States to follow up with ground assault that could lead to an oil embargo, condemnation by NATO, and even the prospect of UN sanctions. While we could veto any sanctions in the Security Council, there’s a very real possibility that many countries would abide by them anyway. In short, we’d find ourselves more isolated internationally than we’ve ever been in our history.

And yet, both the US and Israel have decided that it would be unacceptable for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. What can be done?

Whatever is going to be done must be done soon. Perhaps some kind of blockade by US warships would bring Iran to its senses. While militarily a dead end, a blockade would serve as a wake up call to Europe that we’re absolutely dead serious about Iranian nukes. And it would be preferable to a bombing attack and/or invasion. But it wouldn’t do a thing about ridding the world of the Iranian nuclear threat. And the effect on politics in the middle east would probably be the same as an invasion.

The radioactive mullahs have thought this through carefully. The end game is in sight. It’s now up to the US and Israel to play their hands in this extremely dangerous and volatile situation.

It had to happen sooner or later. A major TV network is planning to produce a mini-series with the events surrounding September 11, 2001 as the backdrop.

Some may argue that it’s too soon, that to give 9/11 the Hollywood touch is cruel and unfeeling to the family members who lost loved ones both in the air and on the ground that horrible day.

These reasons haven’t stopped TV moguls in the past. The drama about Lacy Peterson’s murder was aired less than two years after the poor woman’s family went through a trauma no family should have to go through; the loss of a daughter, murdered at the hands of a formerly beloved son-in-law. And who could forget the “Long Island Lolita” Amy Fischer who had three made for TV movies in the can before poor little teenage Amy was sent to the pen for trying to murder her older lover’s wife.

One can imagine Mrs. Buttafucco’s distress at having to live that nightmare over and over again.

In this case, there should be a recognition that 9/11 is different. As much as we feel for the individuals and family members who lost loved ones, September 11, 2001 is a day that belongs to all of us. It was the single most transformational day in American history. Pearl Harbor, for all of its devastating surprise and outrage, was nonetheless carried out at a time when the rest of the world was already at war. The shock was tempered by the foreknowledge that sooner or later, we were going to be involved. FDR’s institution of the first peacetime draft in American history and other signposts like the passage of the Lend-Lease Act that placed the US firmly on the side of Great Britain and Russia against Hitler showed that America, however reluctantly, was moving to intervene.

And the day JFK was shot generated its own degree of shock and horror but was hardly as immediately transforming as that horrible September day. An argument can be made that the triple shocks of assassination/Viet Nam/Watergate demonstrated over a period of a decade or more that America would never be the same. Some say we lost” innocence” as a result of those events. Perhaps its more accurate to say we had our eyes opened to the perfidy and faithlessness of the people we elect to represent us.

But on September 11, 2001 the United States and the world were at peace - or what used to pass for peace in the post cold war pre 9/11 reality. We had troops in the Balkans trying to keep an uneasy peace. We were in a low level combat situation in Iraq trying to keep Saddam Hussein in his box. And there were the usual tribal conflicts, coup d’ etats, genocidal rampages, and border disputes that somehow never quite made it through the screen erected by the guardians of information in the mainstream media so as to penetrate our consciousness and cause us to lose any sleep.

This self-generated myopia disappeared in the clouds of fire and smoke that rose from the ruins of the twin towers. For some, September 11 was a call to arms, a sudden and transmogrifying episode that not only showed how vulnerable we were to our enemies, but that these same implacable foes were hell bent on killing all of us in a very real and very literal sense.

For others, 9/11 remains a tragedy but not much else. They resent measures we’ve taken to protect ourselves be it passage of internal security proposals or the implementation of new military strategies like pre-emptive war.

At bottom, the difference in these two views of the meaning of September 11 is what drives most our politics today. In that respect, there has never been a day before or since in American history that has had such a profound effect on either our domestic political alignments or our foreign policy. America is divided between 9/10 and 9/12 advocates.

The question for ABC is from what perspective will the miniseries approach the events surrounding that day? From the looks of this report on the casting calls, it could go either way at this point:

Here it comes, the miniseries no one wanted to see.

Nevertheless, ABC seems to be readying a major and secret “fictionalized” multi-parter about the history of terrorism, from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing to the disasters of Sept. 11, 2001.

From the looks of it, the story is going to be about how stupid the government was: If only they’d listened to one man, all would have been right!

The title offered on call sheets for actors is “The Untitled ABC History Project.”

Last week, the call went out for dozens of Arab actors. Today, ABC showed a little more of its effort by putting out requests for 16 characters.

The main one? Former FBI agent John O’Neill, who seems to be the lead figure in this ‘history.’

The use of O’Neill as a central character may give away more about the thrust of the story than ABC may have wished. For almost a decade, Agent O’Neill, who was something of a legend in the counter terrorism culture of our national security apparatus, tracked many of the 9/11 hijackers. The excellent Frontline documentary about his exploits and colorful personality gave tantalizing clues to just how close O’Neill came to unmasking al Queda and preventing the attacks on 9/11.

The problem from ABC’s perspective is how to show that the Clinton administration and especially FBI Director Louis Freeh tried to thwart O’Neil at almost every turn without making it seem as if the worst attack on American soil in history could have been prevented. Part of the problem was O’Neill’s personality. The way Frontline portrayed him, O’Neill was something of a roue who liked fast women, fast cars, and fast times. Part beefy Irish cop, part dandy, O’Neill was a bulldog when he got a hold of a case. His relentless pursuit of al Quaeda led him to accidentally stumble upon elements of Mohamed Atta’s 9/11 cell in the Philippines and Indonesia. Realizing that something was being planned, O’Neill haunted the locations of terrorist attacks throughout the 1990’s; in Africa at the site of our embassy bombings, in Saudi Arabia at the Khobar Towers bombing, and finally in Yemen where the USS Cole was struck by suicide bombers and where O’Neill could have just about cracked the 9/11 conspiracy wide open.

The conspiracy to bomb the USS Cole had the involvement of at least two of the 9/11 hijackers. But due to bureaucratic infighting between the FBI and the State Department, the connection was missed. Shortly after being rebuffed in continuing the investigation in Yemen and marginalized by Director Freeh back home, O’Neill resigned from the FBI.

And in one of the supreme and tragic ironies of 9/11, O’Neill took a job as Chief of Security at the World Trade Center. He started his new job in late August, 2001 and died a few days later in the attack.

Clearly the dramatic potential is there for a blockbuster series. The real problem appears to be in the creative staff hired to make the project:

Historians should have a field day with this version of the decade-long terrorist plot. But why not? Screenwriter Cyrus Nowrasteh got his start on another soap opera, “Falcon Crest.” He also wrote the upcoming miniseries “Into the West” and was cited for “The Day Reagan Was Shot.” Marc Platt is the producer, and David L. Cunningham — who helmed the recent miniseries revival of “Little House on the Prairie” and several B-movies — will direct.

“The Day Reagan was Shot” was an excreable effort that portrays President Reagan’s cabinet as a bunch of hapless buffoons with Richard Dreyfuss’s portrayal of Secretary of State Al Haig as some sort of megalomaniac intent on overthrowing the government a low point in “docu-drama” film making. The fact that this hack has been hired to write the script for a mini-series on 9/11 does not bode well either for history or entertainment for that matter.

Regardless of who writes or directs, the fact that such a series is even being contemplated is probably a good thing. Even the upcoming release of “The Great New Wonderful” which will track the lives of New Yorkers who lived through that awful day (and in which the star Maggie Gyllenhaal has said “America has done reprehensible things and is responsible in some way” for 9/11) will be a valuable contribution to our national dialog on the subject.

And given the impact of that day, perhaps its time to put the events of 9/11 into the pantheon of American myth as only Hollywood can do. Like movies about World War II that followed closely on the heels of the end of that conflict - “From Here to Eternity” comes to mind - sometimes a close perspective to a particular event can crystallize emotions and sharpen the senses about an incident that will haunt those of us who lived it until the day we die.

Cross-Posted at Blogger News Network and Cao’s Blog

The revelation that a Chinese national has been helping Marwan with the stolen nuclear weapon should not have come as much of a surprise. There’s some evidence that the notorious Pakistani nuclear scientist A. Q. Khan’s black market network of nuclear materials and expertise received significant contributions from the People’s Republic of China. In fact, both the Pakistani and North Korean bomb may be brought to us courtesy of Communist China.

Even though Jack dismissed the idea of Chinese government involvement with Marwan, in real life we may not be so lucky. The fact is, China has been gradually shifting its military strategy over the last decade to include “Unconventional Warfare” in its strategic calculations. This is in keeping with the age old Chinese strategy based on the ancient game of “Go” where stones are moved around a board presenting almost infinite permutations and options. Their assistance with the nascent nuclear programs of Pakistan and North Korea (as well as probably Iran and Libya) is part of their overall strategy of defense. As they see it, they cannot compete with the US technologically in the military sphere and won’t be able to for at least another 10 years (some analysts think 20 years is more accurate). Hence, by arming our potential enemies with nukes, they keep us too busy to bother much with them.

Meanwhile, they’re beginning to stalk Taiwan like a hungry cat. While a Communist Chinese invasion of the tiny island isn’t imminent, all signs point to Beijing wishing to solve its “Taiwan problem” sooner rather than later.

One more thing to chew on; the Chinese are the most patient people on the planet. With a civilization that goes back nearly 4000 years, they tend to take a really long view of things - much more so than we do in the West. With that in mind, here’s a quote from perhaps the most famous military strategist in history, Sun Tzu:

All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.

- Sun Tzu, the Art of War

SUMMARY

President Jellyfish nearly swoons in relief when President Palmer shows up to help him. The scene is stomach churning. I hope that’s the last we see of this spineless, miserable excuse for a President.

In contrast to Logan’s cowardice, Chloe proves she’s got some real geek cohones when she hacks Ardakani’s hard drive in the field immediately after gunning down an assassin. The information leads to a Chinese national, one Lee Jong. A former Chinese nuke scientist, Jack reassures us that he’s not working with the Chinese government (hope so…as we’ll see shortly, we already have enough trouble with the Chicoms). Lee has taken refuge in the Chinese Consulate

As predicted, Audrey wants to go with Paul back east for treatment on his spine and set up house with him. Poor Jack doesn’t know yet but probably suspects as much. When he comes into the CTU medical ward to thank Paul for saving his life, he sees how close Audrey and Paul are. Given Audrey’s attitude toward Jack over the last few hours, he can hardly be surprised.

Back in the Presidential bunker, the crisis machinery of government is humming along nicely as Palmer takes charge. In a conversation with the Chinese Consul Mr. Khu, he asks very politely if they can please take Mr. Lee into custody so that we can torture the little bugger and find out where the hell Marwan’s nuke is before our east coast is toast.

Understandably, Mr. Khu is reluctant to give up a Chinese national and place him at the mercy of these barbarians from such a young country as the United States. He must get permission from the Premier. Since the formal greetings to the Premier alone will take 1/2 an hour, it’s doubtful Mr. Khu will get back to us in time. Sure enough, when Bill informs Palmer that all signs point to the nuke being used before sunrise on the east coast - less than two hours away - Palmer needs to make other arrangements.

Those other arrangements include Jack, of course. Not content with breaking most of the laws on the books in the United States to get to Marwan before its too late, Jack now must violate the UN Charter, half a dozen formal and informal agreements with China, and probably the Law of the Sea Treaty to get Lee out of the Consulate and into the waiting hands of Richard at CTU and his little black bag of magic truth potions. But of course, Jack has got to do the job without involving the government. If any of his CTU force is caught or killed, the Secretary (and the President) will disavow any knowledge of his actions. All that was missing from Palmer was “Good luck, Mr. Bauer.”

With Tony’s off the books help with satellite coverage from CTU, Jack enters the Consulate and makes his way toward the room where Lee is waiting. With the skills of a catburglar, Jack reaches the room and with two punches in two seconds knocks out both Lee and his babysitter. Making his way out is a lot more difficult than trying to break in as the entire Consulate is roused into action and guards start shooting wildly, missing Jack but hitting both Lee and Mr. Khu. In addition, the CTU driver is unmasked briefly, allowing a guard to see his face. He also gets a cut on the face that bleeds.

Can you say “Positive ID with conclusive DNA match?”

When the Assistant Consul calls to complain about the raid, Palmer is shocked, shocked I tell you that such a thing could happen. The implications involving the death of the Chinese Consul are serious indeed which is why Palmer offers to help:

Palmer: Your government will have my complete cooperation.

Asst. Consul: Thank you Mr. President. I’m sure you will be hearing from us again…very soon.

Said quite ominously with a dash of oriental inscrutability. I don’t think we’ve heard the last from the Chinese, have you?

And back at CTU Chloe gets a little geek support from fat geek Edgar. All I can say about this exchange between the two is “typical Chloe:

Chloe: Edgar, I appreciate your concern. I really do. It’s just that when I shot that guy I thought I’d go all fetal position. But the truth is, I didn’t feel anything at al. I hope I’m not some kind of psychopath.

FGE: Well, he was trying to kill you…

Chloe: Yeah, but still…

FGE: Maybe it’s a delayed reaction kind of thing. Maybe you’ll freak out about it in a couple of days.

Chloe: I hope so.

We hope so too, darlin’.

Meanwhile, Bill has a hissy fit when he finds out Jack went into the Consulate without his knowledge and takes it out on poor Tony who was only trying help Jack. Bill lets the bureaucrat get the better of him on this issue. The whole point was to keep people out of the loop which he would have realized if he wasn’t so concerned about his “turf” being violated. Tony suspects ulterior motives for Bill’s blowup relating to his relationship with Michelle and how she and Tony have been getting friendlier and friendlier as the hours go by.

Part of that friendliness is the result of a phone call from Trailer Trash Jen, Tony’s live-in girlfriend who’s been supporting him since he got out of jail and was wondering where the heck he was. After Michelle gets almost weepy at the prospect of her beloved Tony in the arms of another woman, Tony assures Michelle that he doesn’t love Jen (Jeez! Who could?) which seems to settle her down some.

The two of them are moving for some kind of reconciliation…probably just as the bomb goes off.

The final scene has more drama in it than 3 soap operas, two episodes of Law and Order, and the movie Titanic all rolled into one. Just as she was getting flight information for their trip back east, Audrey watches helplessly as Paul relapses and is rushed into emergency surgery. Meanwhile, after obtaining immunity for Mr. Lee from the President, Jack is on the way to the same emergency surgery unit at CTU with the critically wounded scientist. Something’s got to give and, unfortunately for Paul, national security trumps all.

The Dr. about ready to operate on Paul is reluctant to leave his patient knowing he will die - that is, until Jack uses his persuasive powers (and his gun) to convince the Doctor otherwise. As the doc examines Mr. Lee, Paul goes into defib and Jack and Curtis try to revive him. The doc can do nothing. Curtis can do nothing. Jack can do nothing.

Paul is dead. An angry and upset Audrey makes it pretty clear that Jack is going to have to make other sleeping arrangements from here on out.

And with a look that can only be described as that of a little lost boy, Jack tries to push the entire episode out of his mind so that he can do his job and save us all.

BODY COUNT

Mr. Khu succumbs to friendly fire. Paul doesn’t have to worry anymore about being paralyzed.

Jack: 40

Show: 223

Chloe: 1

SPECULATION

Look for Secretary of Defense Heller to make an appearance next week to comfort his daughter and give Jack what for about the Chinese operation. Jack may be looking for another job too.

I’m leaning toward the idea that Tony will be killed before the final episode. Just a feeling but I think after the coming reconciliation with Michelle, his demise will come swiftly…probably saving Jack’s life.

We’re starting a new tradition here at the House.

Monday nights will be “Open House.” Anyone can post a trackback here on any subject just as long as your post includes a link to the House .

Might as well put my in line trackback function to good use! Have at it!

You’ve got to be completely clueless and totally out of touch not to know that the Public Broadcasting System has a decidedly liberal slant when it comes to programs that touch in any way on politics. Then again…there’s the New York Times:

The Republican chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is aggressively pressing public television to correct what he and other conservatives consider liberal bias, prompting some public broadcasting leaders - including the chief executive of PBS - to object that his actions pose a threat to editorial independence.

Without the knowledge of his board, the chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, contracted last year with an outside consultant to keep track of the guests’ political leanings on one program, “Now With Bill Moyers.”

PBS has been a liberal sacred cow almost since its inception. And while some of its non-political programming - including science shows like “Nova” and “Nature” - as well as its broadcast of the theater and music programs have made invaluable contributions to excellence in broadcasting, only the most willfully self-deluded would argue that its political programming is anything but a recitation of liberal themes and dogmas.

The Bill Moyers show was a perfect example. While Moyers occasionally had conservative guests on his interview show, the questions he asked were of the “How many times did you beat your wife today” variety. Conversely, liberal guests receive the gushy treatment with Moyers carrying on colloquies with guests where the guided conversation could have been lifted out whole and made into a Democratic Party campaign commercial.

The coordinated attack on Mr. Tomlinson by people inside the PBS family is to be expected. After all, these are the same people that sold lists of PBS financial contributors to the Democratic Party. And why not? Surveys show that PBS viewers are more supportive of Democratic positions on the environment, on education, and a whole litany of other liberal causes.

So it should come as no surprise that Mr. Thomlinson’s efforts to bring some balance to the network’s leftward tilt would meet fierce resistance:

Pat Mitchell, president and chief executive of PBS, who has sparred with Mr. Tomlinson privately but till now has not challenged him publicly, disputed the accusation of bias and was critical of some of his actions.

“I believe there has been no chilling effect, but I do think there have been instances of attempts to influence content from a political perspective that I do not consider appropriate,” Ms. Mitchell, who plans to step down when her contract expires next year, said Friday.

Why isn’t it appropriate when the PBS charter requires “balance?”

The corporation is a private, nonprofit entity financed by Congress to ensure the vitality of public television and radio. Tension is hardwired into its charter, where its mandate to ensure “objectivity and balance” is accompanied by an exhortation to maintain public broadcasting’s independence. Mr. Tomlinson said that in his view, objectivity and balance meant “a program schedule that’s not skewed in one direction or another.” Some corporation board members say that complaints about ideological pressure are premature.

Bill Moyers (who left “Now” earlier last year and now hosts another PBS show “Wide Angle”) is not the only blatantly leftist program on the network. The relentlessly liberal “POV” that highlights “independent” filmmakers almost uniformly deals with issues that highlight leftist causes. And the news documentary show “Frontline” has been shown to be as biased in reporting a story as any mainstream press organ.

The “Frontline Election Special” is just one example. The program gave what were supposed to be side by side bios of both Senator Kerry and President Bush. What emerged was a breathtaking model of bias so one sided that it’s a good thing hardly anyone watched it. Not only were the snippets of Kerry invariably accompanied by flattering pictures and worshipful commentary from friends and colleagues but the focus on issues and Kerry’s position on them were from a decidedly Democratic point of view. When the “documentary” for instance, focused on Iraq, the liberation wasn’t even mentioned. Instead, the “issues” were Abu Ghraib, rising casualties, and the futility expressed by commenter after commenter.

Contrasting that portrayal of Kerry and the issues, with images of the President in the most unflattering light imaginable along with backhanded compliments (even from friends!) is what made the piece so fascinating to me. I couldn’t tear my eyes away from it. It was exactly like watching a really bad movie. You just had to stick around and see how much worse it could get.

“Frontline Election Special” did not disappoint.

Recently, Tomlinson sought to have PBS stations live up to their charter in deeds as well as words by holding up the contract local stations sign with the Corporation:

Recently, PBS refused for months to sign its latest contract with the corporation governing federal financing of national programming, holding up the release of $26.5 million. For the first time, the corporation argued that PBS’s agreeing to abide by its own journalistic standards was not sufficient, but that it must adhere to the “objectivity and balance” language in the charter. In a January letter to the leaders of the three biggest producing stations, in New York, Boston and Washington, the deputy general counsel of PBS warned that this could give the corporation editorial control, infringing on its First Amendment rights and possibly leading to a demand for balance in each and every show.

As it stands now, Tomlinson can do little except fight a rear guard action on behalf of conservatives. He’s pushed to have Paul Gigot’s excellent “The Journal’s Editorial Report” featuring Wall Street Journal reporters and editors accepted going so far as assisting in lining up the private financing necessary to put it on the air. But such programming is a drop in the bucket compared to the implacable leftist slant that permeates programming on public TV.

I don’t support cutting off all funding for public television for the simple reason there are programs that simply would not find a home anywhere else in the increasingly dull uniformity of cable and satellite channels. But some reform is necessary. And Mr. Tomlinson appears to be doing the best he can.

Anytime you get liberals angry at you, you’ve got to be doing something right.

UPDATE

Jesse Taylor has some intelligent thoughts on relative bias:

PBS hosts/hosted Tucker Carlson and Paul Gigot, who just happen to also be conservative talking heads on 24-hour cable nets - the conservative presence at PBS in one fell swoop has far outstripped any liberal influence the channel might have…but it may still be infected with the dread liberalism.

MMMMM…I don’t know if I buy it. If you have 1 hour of Paul Gigot (Carlson’s show, now cancelled, was as quirky and boring as the host’s ridiculous bow ties) and 23 hours of POV, Moyers, etc. it seems like a stretch to say that the impact of someone as recognizable (?) as Paul Gigot outweighs everything else.

Then again, I’m not used to thinking like a liberal. Now, maybe if I put my tin foil hat on and adjust it like so…

UPDATE II

One more interesting note…A Technorati search reveals that out of 27 blogs posting on this NYT story, I seem to be the only conservative. C’mon guys help me out here!

When Italian communist and propagandist Giuliana Sgrena first began her rollercoaster ride to leftist stardom following the tragedy at the Bagdhad checkpoint, I thought that the most damage she could do with her crazy-quilt patchwork of lies and distortions of fact was in undermining the Italian government’s steadfast support for US policy in Iraq. After all, the Italians have 3000 troops assisting our military in trying to secure that country and Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi has had a tough time trying to maintain support for the mission while trying to stay in power himself.

It now appears that Sgrena’s lies have taken on a life of their own with devastating consequences for our military in Iraq as well as some innocent civilians here at home.

The fervor whipped up by Sgrena’s bloodcurdling tales of being targeted by the US military for her anti-war beliefs have roiled Italian politics. Not only has the Prime Minister agreed to start withdrawing Italian troops beginning in September, but the investigation into the checkpoint incident by the US government has been completely discredited by Italian investigators to the point where they will issue their own report later this week accusing the military of tampering with evidence:

The official Italian report on the incident expected to be published this week will accuse the American military of tampering with evidence at the scene of the shooting.

The Americans invited two Italians to join in their inquiry, but the Italian representatives protested at what they claimed was lack of objectivity in presenting the evidence and returned to Rome.

Relations between Rome and Washington remain tense.

In short, Berlusconi won’t touch the American report on the incident with a ten foot pole. Thanks to Sgrena’s propaganda campaign (with a great big wet kiss salute to the rabidly anti-American Italian media) and the fact that Berlusconi is in an impossible political position, Italian authorities are, in effect, forced to partially acknowledge Sgrena’s point, albeit in a roundabout sort of way. By accusing the American military of tampering with evidence, they concede American duplicity but not culpability. Sgrena’s claim she was targeted is allowed to die a quiet death while the Italian media rails against American falsity and a cover-up of trigger happy GI’s who shoot first and ask questions later.

It’s all Berlusconi’s got and it will probably work.

Meanwhile, the entire report absolving the soldiers at the checkpoint, including material that was orginally classified, was published over the weekend in Italian newspapers:

A Greek medical student at Bologna University who was surfing the web early on Sunday found that with two simple clicks of his computer mouse he could restore censored portions of the report.

He passed the details to Italian newspapers which immediately put out the full text on their own websites.

The missing text contains the names and ranks of all of the American military personnel involved in the killing of Nicola Calipari, the Italian agent who was given a state funeral and awarded Italy’s highest medal of valour.

Revealing the names and ranks of all the soldiers involved in the attack is flat out irresponsible. Not only does it place those soldiers at risk of retaliation by any number of loons and crackpots-including rogue elements in the Italian intelligence community who may seek revenge- it also places their families at risk here in the United States. As sure as night follows day there are already reporters hard at work trying to track down parents, spouses, siblings, and other family members of those soldiers who will just as surely reveal their location. These innocents will now live in fear for their lives as terrorists wishing to make a media splash or some domestic anti-war moonbat could target them.

At the very least, once their names are revealed, the families will suffer harassment at the hands of the anti-war crowd - a price no family with sons or daughters in a war zone should ever have to pay.

The classified sections of the report make pretty dry reading -unless you’re a terrorist or insurgent seeking to kill American soldiers. Here’s Austin Bay’s excellent analysis in which he points out an advantage to our enemies if they decide to target an armored vehicle called a “Rhino Bus.”

The “classified” sections on “Rhino Bus” (armored bus) convoy operations leave me cold, but for that matter, so do the unclassified sections. If I could erase anything from the posted document it would be this material– but I can’t. Once it’s on the Internet it’s out there. (The Rhino Bus schlepps US and coalition personnel between installations in Baghdad. It’s an impressive beast with bullet-proof glass and armor.)

That’s my gut reaction. Now a cooler caveat. Close observation of the freeway gives a clever enemy those details, and Route Irish passes hundreds of houses and apartment buildings– each one a p0tential observation post. The Rhino Bus material from the report (probably) confirms the details gleaned by enemy observers.

So how do we deal with it? The enemy knows what we want to do (move the Rhino Bus). He knows how we’ve done it in the past (based on his intelligence gathering and now this report).

Commanders will now change the routine– amend convoy times, vary routes, vary convoy vehicle mix, vary the lay-down of traffic control points. (The Sunni holdouts and Zarqawi’s klan change tactics and procedures– it’s a vicious dynamic of war.

Other operational details could, according to Mr. Bay, simply confirm information that the insurgents already had. While not as damaging, by confirming intel the insurgents can now reassign assets that would have been used in trying to validate the information. In other words, the release of classified material just made our enemies job a little easier.

The released report comes on the heels of some leaked information regarding satelite evidence that confirm the fact that Sgrena was lying through her teeth when she said that the car was going at a “normal” speed of about 30 MPH. The images show the Italian’s car was travelling closer to 60 MPH which probably means the driver was intent on running the checkpoint.

At the very least, Giuliana Sgrena’s lies set in motion a series of events that now lead to the probablity that Americans both here and in Iraq are in greater danger. For that alone, she should be held in the utmost contempt by decent people everywhere. Her actions following the tragedy at the checkpoint have proven her to be a small time bunko artist whose 15 minutes of infamy have now turned into an unending nightmare for our military and their families.

Others with Analysis and Updates:

Michelle Malkin does her usual great job with some prescient analysis and links to the best sources of information on the story.

Blackfive points out why Kevin Drum and the gloating left should keep their damned mouths shut.

Kevin at Wizbang questions the CBS story on satelite evidence regarding the Italian car and links it with the released report.

Rhiel World questions the docs themselves finding some interesting discrepancies.

Cross Posted at Blogger News Network

UPDATE

The Captain points to the Italians issuing their report today. He also pokes some pretty gigantic holes in their story if they’re going to contradict what they said a few weeks ago about not informing the Americans of the transfer:

Readers who have followed this story closely will already see the holes developing in the Italian rebuttal, if the BBC report is accurate. First, the three-second warning does not reflect on American action nearly as much as it indicates the rate of speed that Calipari’s car approached the checkpoint. By acknowledging the three-second time span, Italy admits that the car traveled at much faster speeds towards the checkpoint than Sgrena first claimed, making the reason for shooting the car plain. Second, it demonstrates that the Americans did try to warn the driver to slow down and did not simply open fire, either out of malice or incompetence.

As far as whether the Americans knew about Calipari’s mission at all, Italian newspapers answered that question in March, when two of them reported that not only did Italian commander not tell the Americans about the hostage release, he may not have known about it himself. General Mario Marioli sent his report to Rome, where presumably investigators still have access to it. The reason for the secrecy emerged within days of Sgrena’s release and subsequent wounding, when Italy’s ransom payment to the terrorists became public knowledge.

I think the Capn’ has nailed it. Any way you want to look at it, the Italian report will be for domestic consumption. They’ll probably ignore any contradictory statements made previously and stonewall when it comes to any explanations for the discrepancies.

Can’t we all just get along?

The rhetoric on both sides of the religious debate has plain and simple gone too far. Now, don’t get me wrong. I enjoy hyperbole as much as the next political hothead. But this idea that the religious right is about ready to establish a Taliban-like theocracy unless they’re stopped is not only absurd, it’s a slap in the face to those of us who are not religious in that they actually think we’re stupid enough to believe it.

This is what came out of a weekend conference of the loony left that met to discuss the “problem” of the coming theocracy:

“The religious right now has an unprecedented influence on American politics and policy,” said Ralph White, co-founder of the Open Center, a New York City institution focused on holistic learning. “It is incumbent upon all of us to understand as precisely as possible its aims, methods, beliefs, theology and psychology.”

Ah! The “psychology” of the religious right. This is a favorite tactic of the left going back to the election of 1964 when a dozen or so prominent psychiatrists signed a letter stating that in their opinion, Goldwater was nuttier than a fruitcake. By implying there’s a “psychology” to religious conservatism what they’re really saying is there’s a pathology at work - a disease factor - when someone believes in God; or at least with more fervor than they do.

Walking into this conference sounds like walking onto the set of some Hollywood movie, a hellish adaptation of some Stephen King novel where the monsters are on the loose and only a brave few are left to battle the evil stalking the land:

“This may be the darkest time in our history,” said Bob Edgar, general secretary of the left-leaning National Council of Churches and former six-term Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania. “The religious right have been systematically working at this for 40 years. The question is, where is the religious left?”

Speakers outlined such concepts — others would say conspiracy theories — as Christian reconstructionism and dominionism to a crowd that Mr. White said does “not understand the further reaches of religion.”

Notice that former Rep. Edgar wonders where the religious left is. I would say they’re right where they’ve been for the last 50 years - right in the thick of politics working like hell to have judges and politicians espousing their viewpoints elected and appointed. But you see, that’s perfectly alright if you’re a liberal. You can throw God in the face of conservatives for years, telling us we’re “immoral” for opposing any aspect of the welfare state. But when Christians stand up and timidly ask that you not put bare breasts or naked buttocks on prime time TV all of a sudden they’re the Taliban:

Tax cuts combined with increased funding for faith-based social programs and decreases in welfare spending, Ms. Bokaer said, were examples of “the theological right … zealously setting up to establish their beliefs in all aspects of our society.”

She compared the Federal Communications Commission’s threatened crackdown on indecency on television with the Taliban, the repressive Islamic rulers of Afghanistan who harbored Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network until toppled by a U.S.-led invasion.

“Indecency police are a major part of theocratic states,” Ms. Bokaer said, flashing a picture of Islamic women covered head to foot under the title, “Taliban: Ministry for the Protection of Virtue and Prevention of Vice.”

This is loony. This isn’t just over-the-top rhetoric. What’s truly frightening is that these moonbats actually think they’re battling evil. But then, liberals aren’t really happy unless they’re standing on the castle wall, outnumbered and besieged by a ruthless enemy, with the townsfolk looking up at them with a look of awe and worshipful admiration.

LOOK AT ME! I’M GOOD! I’M FIGHTING UNSELFISHLY TO PROTECT YOU FROM EVIL! LOVE ME!

At bottom, liberals have the emotional maturity of 12 year old girls - minus the cuteness.

There was one voice of sanity at this conference. It came from Chip Berlet of the human rights watchdog Political Research Associates:

“I’m uncomfortable when I hear people of sincere religious faith described as religious political extremists,” he said. “What does that term mean? It’s a term of derision that says we’re good and they’re bad. There is no content.”

Afterward, in an interview, Mr. Berlet added: “The Democrats do just as much name-calling as the right. It’s great for fund raising. [But] it’s a heck of a way of building a social progressive movement.”

But Mr. Berlet has been a lone voice tossed about on an ocean of hyperbole and intolerance.

The left is now in full-throated cry against religious conservatives. Politically, they think they’ve found a winning issue. Just as the left used to browbeat Republicans every two years over social security by scaring the beejeebees out of old folks, telling them Republicans wanted to steal their social security checks and put them out on the street so they could eat dog food, liberals are now excited at the prospect of hoodwinking their fellow citizens by raising the specter of “theocracy.” Aided and abetted by the usual suspects in the media who know a good story when they see it (especially if it hurts Republicans), the left, as Mr. Berlet points out, is raising gobs of money and attracting all sorts of attention by accusing Christians of…what?

The same thing they’ve been doing for 50 years: Participating in the democratic process as citizens of the United States of America.

The left is barking up the wrong tree if they think the American people are worried about stake burnings for heretics or Colosseum like spectacles involving hungry lions, tigers, and bears for network executives who put lewd or lascivious fare on TV.

Although… the prospect of seeing some network suit running around the arena in his own “reality TV show” just might prove to me that there is in fact a God.

UPDATE

The Captain knows exactly who to blame for this witch hunt:

This orgy of namecalling and paranoid conspiracies gets its impetus from such politicians as Howard Dean, Al Gore, and Ken Salazar, who have green-lighted a war on religion from the Left, especially during this debate over judicial filibusters. They have rationalized the unprecedented obstruction of qualified judicial nominees for their religious beliefs by creating out of whole cloth a threat to the Republic from Christianity, which managed to co-exist with democracy and promote it for over 200 years up to now.

McGehee at Yippee Yi Kay! is also blogging the story with some links to other thoughts on establishing state religions.

Zimbabwe’s dictator Robert Mugabe is probably enjoying this joke as much as anyone:

Zimbabwe, the human rights pariah accused of violence, intimidation and suppression of free speech against its people, has been re-elected to the United Nations Human Rights Commission for a three-year term over the strong protests of Australia, the US and Canada.

“How can we expect the Government of Zimbabwe to support international human rights standards at the Commission on Human Rights when it has blatantly disregarded the rights of its own people?” asked William Brencick, of the US.

Zimbabwe maintained repressive controls on political opposition and the media, and encouraged “a climate where the opposition fears for its safety”, Mr Brencick said.

President Mugabe, whose autocratic rule has been condemned around the world for its brutality, is nothing if not a wildly creative dictator. The elections last spring should be held up as an example to all would-be autocrats for the ingenious and innovative ways in which Mugabe and his thugs stole the contest:

“Thousands were turned away from the polling booths, there are serious, unexplained discrepancies between votes tallied and the official numbers later announced.

“Other abuse was rife. This included food aid being misused, ghost voters, a lack of equal access to the media, abuse of draconian security legislation and an election commission packed with Zanu-PF supporters,” he added.

He said even observers approved by Mr Mugabe had commented that at least 10% of voters were prevented from casting their vote, while independent observers put the figure closer to 30%.

Mugabe even went so far as to appear at a rally shortly after the polls closed congratulating himself on his “victory over imperialism.”

For all Mugabe’s shennanigans, the real comedy here is that the UN Human Rights Commission is slated by Kofi (”Talk to the hand. I’m not guilty”) Anan to be disbanded. The reason? Duh!

In a wide-ranging series of reforms unveiled earlier this year, Annan said he wanted to replace the rights commission with a permanent, smaller council composed of member states committed to tackle abuse throughout the world. “We have reached a point at which the commission’s declining credibility has cast a shadow on the reputation of the United Nations system as a whole,” Annan said earlier this month.

I’ll say this about the crook; he has a marvelously understated sense of irony and a keen eye for the absurd. After he’s finished at the UN - and if he’s not in jail somewhere - he may have a future as a stand-up comic or maybe a writer for “Comedy Central.”

Mark Noonan says “it’s like electing Al Capone Police Commissioner.” With past members like Cuba and Sudan, the Human Rights group may want to consider renaming itself the “UN Commission on Bovine Excrement.” That’s what they’ve been shoveling our way for years.

Cross-Posted at Blogger News Network

In Aldous Huxley’s “Brave new World,” the author posits a chilling future - a world of tomorrow in which capitalist civilization has been reconstituted through the most efficient scientific and psychological engineering, where the people are genetically designed to be passive and consistently useful to the ruling class.

I always tried to imagine what events and decisions led up to Huxley’s nightmare reality. Did the scientists know that the research they were doing would be used for the nefarious purpose of changing the essence of humanity? Did the people realize that the potential for this kind of mischief was present? What would the ethicists and guardians of faith and religion have had to say?

I bring this up because scientists are now initiating research projects using human stem cells injected into animal embryos with the dual goals of perhaps creating organs suitable for human transplant and the extraordinarily profitable enterprise of creating “cutting edge” lab animals for use in testing a wide variety of new drugs.

Both of these goals have exciting potential to yield benefits that would change the face of modern medicine and pharmacology. But at what price? And are there hidden dangers, unseen trap doors that scientists and ethicists either aren’t aware of or just not bothering to look for?

This project in Nevada, where sheep embryos were injected with human cells to create partially human organs, is not really a big deal. Scientists have been doing similar experiments with mice for more than a decade. What makes this experiment different is that the researcher, Jason Chamberlain, also injected human brain cells into the brain of the animal fetus:

As strange as his work may sound, it falls firmly within the new ethics guidelines the influential National Academies issued this past week for stem cell research.

In fact, the Academies’ report endorses research that co-mingles human and animal tissue as vital to ensuring that experimental drugs and new tissue replacement therapies are safe for people.

Particularly worrisome to some scientists are the nightmare scenarios that could arise from the mixing of brain cells: What if a human mind somehow got trapped inside a sheep’s head?

Such a possibility is extremely unlikely. But not so much out of the question that one ethics panel didn’t think carefully about a “what if” scenario:

In January, an informal ethics committee at Stanford University endorsed a proposal to create mice with brains nearly completely made of human brain cells. Stem cell scientist Irving Weissman said his experiment could provide unparalleled insight into how the human brain develops and how degenerative brain diseases like Parkinson’s progress.

Stanford law professor Hank Greely, who chaired the ethics committee, said the board was satisfied that the size and shape of the mouse brain would prevent the human cells from creating any traits of humanity. Just in case, Greely said, the committee recommended closely monitoring the mice’s behavior and immediately killing any that display human-like behavior.

At times, it seems scientists have never quite grown out of being the little boy or girl in the basement with a chemistry set who set out to mix two compounds together just to see what would happen and end up with either a toxic mess or a small explosion. This is not necessarily a bad thing as any good scientist will have that same insatiable curiosity as those children. The problem is, this attitude when carried into scientific undertakings with the most profound ramifications for humanity imaginable, should have the most stringent oversight imaginable. And at this point it’s not clear to me that this is the case:

Allegations about the proper treatment of lab animals may take on strange new meanings as scientists work their way up the evolutionary chart. First, human stem cells were injected into bacteria, then mice and now sheep. Such research blurs biological divisions between species that couldn’t until now be breached.

Drawing ethical boundaries that no research appears to have crossed yet, the Academies recommend a prohibition on mixing human stem cells with embryos from monkeys and other primates. But even that policy recommendation isn’t tough enough for some researchers.

“The boundary is going to push further into larger animals,” New York Medical College professor Stuart Newman said. “That’s just asking for trouble.”

Newman, along with bio technology gadfly Jeremy Rifkin, actually went so far as to patent a new life form - a combination human and chimpanzee they called a “humanzee” - that challenges the governments policy on both interspecies breeding and a corporation’s ability to patent life forms. The “humanzee” is theoretically possible so the patent office issued a ruling just this year denying their request on grounds that you cannot patent a human in that such a commercial venture would boil down to an issue of slavery.

I have nothing but admiration and respect for scientists like Chamberlain who are pushing the boundaries of human knowledge. My beef is that this is largely taking place below the radar of public discourse. As we seek to unlock the mysteries at the very heart of what it means to be human, are we in danger of redefining human life in ways that should be examined and agreed to by society in general?

Just recently, we got a taste of one kind of redefinition of human life in the Terri Schiavo matter. With little in the way of debate, scientists, ethicists, and proponents of euthanasia have quietly undermined the very concept of what it means to be human. The parameters regarding human life have been changed to include mythical criteria such as “quality of consciousness” and the medical costs associated with keeping someone like Terri alive. Despite almost total ignorance about what actually constitutes “consciousness,” we were told that Terri was less than human because her higher brain functions were disabled. Being less than human, she then became a piece of rotting meat, a sad sack of bones and water easily discarded by both the courts and her husband.

And now we’re faced with another ethical dilemma, this time regarding the very real possibility of human-animal hybrids being created so that we can harvest their body parts. While I’m not opposed in principle to the use of animals to save human lives, are we proceeding with all deliberate caution in this research effort? I’m heartened by the National Academies’ call for stringent oversight by sponsoring institutions of such projects. But the issue begs the age-old scientific question; just because we can do it, should it be done?

It used to be that an individual scientists’ ethics alone determined whether or not a scientific undertaking was moral. Reading about scientists like Robert Oppenheimer and Leo Szilard who wrestled mightily with their own consciences when it came to their work on the Manhattan Project and the building of the first atomic weapon, one is left with the impression that, in the end, the exciting science being done outweighed any moral ambiguity the project may have caused.

Today, ethics panels across the nation are empowered to examine scientific inquiry and determine whether or not moral guidelines are being violated. These panels are made up of people who’ve studied ethics for a living and can cite chapter and verse in subjects like metaphysics and moral philosophy. But is it enough? Or perhaps a better question, are the issues involved too complex, too morally ambiguous to be resolved in this manner?

I don’t know the answer, being a layman. I do know that I’m unsure if all the physical and ethical ramifications of this kind of research are under scrutiny as they should be.

We can only hope that there are people like Dr. Newman and yes, even the moonbat Jeremy Rifkin, who will be there to put the brakes on if we go too far too fast. Otherwise, when this Brave New World comes to pass, we’ll be cowering in the shadows afraid of whatever society we’ve created as a result of these truly wondrous advances in human understanding.