untitled (someone help us)

my subway ride this morning was wretched. and it wasn't due to a smelly person, as is so often the case. or someone invading my bubble of personal space. i even got a seat. alas, not the ordinary woes of nyc transit at all. although what bothered me so is unfortunately becoming more and more of the norm in itself. the source of my angst? the new york times. not the times' fault of course. but man, nothing can do me in these days more effectively than merely opening to the national report section of the new york times.

"expert witness sees evidence in nature for intelligent design:"
it would seem that a mr. behe has been travelling the country for the last eight years making a case for intelligent design, therefore challenging the theory of evolution. he is now testifying in the trial that will determine whether this should be taught in biology in a public school district of pennsylvania. "asked whether intelligent design is religion or 'based on any religious beliefs,' mr. behe said, 'no, it isn't. ...it's based entirely on observable, physical evidence from nature." ok. so what would that be then? example please? and he has an answer: apparently the bacterial flagellum is so expertly designed that it's "impossible to avoid concluding that the mechanism was 'a purposeful arrangement of parts.'" well phew. that takes care of that one. totally testable, very scientific. with such definitive evidence, why then, might mr. behe comment that his "'ideas on intelligent design have been subjected to a thousand times more scrutiny than anything i've ever written before.'" one is only left to conjecture that mr. behe's oeuvre must consist of papers arguing against what one might call some scientific "givens:" indeed, newton was actually mistaken, copernicus just a moron, oh, and galileo? well he was a drunk. that must explain it, right? mr. behe, by the way, is a roman catholic. had i not mentioned that? and now to the juicy part. when asked if he had concluded that this aforementioned intelligent designer was -- you guessed it -- god (!), he said yes. BUT he was careful to say that that conclusion was based on "theological, philosophical, and historical facts." facts, of course. good thing he cleared that one up for me. i got nervous for a second. and i'm sure glad that this is the kind of (i will NOT call him a scientist) right-wing, theological nutcase who is speaking on and promoting the "scientific theories" of our day on campuses nationwide.
which serves as a lovely segue to my next point.
(turn the page of the national report)

"nominee meets with committee democrats:"
the nominee, of course, being harriet ellan miers. so she has begun her meetings with the senate judiciary committee, and apparently met with one of my favorites as of late, charles schumer, yesterday afternoon. i thought he had a few interesting comments, as he often does, though none of them were of any comfort. everyone's heard the about that loony james dobson from focus on the family and his assertion that karl rove had personally assured him that ms. miers came from a specifically pro-life church, basically saying that miers would vote to overturn roe v wade. well that's causing quite a stir. and for good reason. and more interestingly, on both sides of the political spectrum. the left is terrified she's a crazy right-wing idealogical (she is a born-again evangelical christian, after all) wolf in crossdresser's -- oops, i totally meant sheep's -- clothing (but she is really weird looking, no?). the right is terrifed that she'll prove to be a souter repeat; that she's not cut out for the task of returning america to its jolly 18th century roots. well, looks like no one wins. according to schumer, when he questioned miers about all the press on her abortion beliefs, she simply said, "no one knows how i would rule on roe v. wade." well, again, that takes care of that. ok. it's not like it's the right of the american people or anything to know what she might be thinking on crucial issues -- issues, mind you, that by every definition of the word are legal precedent; issues that contribute to our status as a developed nation (though give bush a little more time and check back); issues that threaten our fundamental rights to privacy, our fundamental rights as americans. but miers doesn't need to go there. in fact, she doesn't seem to feel the need to reveal much of anything. or there's also the possibility that there really isn't much to reveal. maybe likely, even. schumer: "on many [questions] she wouldn't give answers, and many others she deferred, saying 'i need to sort of bone up on this a little more,' 'i need to come to conclusions.'" bone up? ummm, ok. well it looks as though it may behoove ms. miers if this mysterious process of "boning up" includes some plain old studying of (here's a thought) THE LAW. schumer: "was i little surprised that she did not want to give her view on meyer, which has been established law for decades and you read about in law school? yes." meyers, fyi, was a 1923 -- in case you missed that it was the year NINETEEN HUNDRED TWENTY-THREE -- in which the court ruled that it should be legal for immigrant parents to teach their children their native german. i mean, yeah, i guess i see her point... it would really be going out on a limb to come right out and support something so crazy progressive as that! at least that ms. miers has a good head on her shoulders...

bush certainly seems to think so. especially recently, as there's been a very noticeable shift in his -- shall we call it -- selling of ms. miers to the country as a stellar addition to the high court. remember that whole "harriet's religion and strength of character will make her an extraordinary justice harriet" angle? wait a second. religion? hmmmm. well that might just present a little problem, mightn't it? put nicely by the times editorial page (an oasis these days, offering a moment or two of comfort before i remember who is actually running the country as opposed to who should be doing it):" mr. bush is all in favor of judges strictly interpreting the constitution, but he seemed to have forgotten about article vi. that's where the founders decreed that 'no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office.'" right. i knew that separation of church state thing sounded familiar! so when ms. miers' nomination came under fire from the right and "bush told reporters that 'people ask me why i picked harriet miers,' and then proceeded to talk about the importance of religion in her life," it would seem to be a conflict of interest, shall we say. it is no less than repulsive that something like that could be said of a nominee for the supreme court -- the highest form of the judicial branch, part of the system put in place to check the executive -- in 2005. it is inexcusable. the times editorial sites the 1960 election, in which jfk "struck an important blow for both the separation of church and state and the rights of people of all faiths to be considered for high office when he insisted that his catholicism should have no bearing on his fitness for the presidency." bush and crew wouldn't stand for something like that. regress, regress we must...but it's ok, because he's corrected all that. he is now marketing ms. miers purely on her merit, her great legal mind; a great legal mind which appears to be missing a few key file cabinets.

from intelligent design to a not-so-intelligent legal designer to the ultimate unintelligent designer of disaster. and all between bergen and 34 st. whew.