Drinking Their Troubles Away.

It's finally here! The moment we've all been waiting for in breathless anticipation!

The beer summit.

For two weeks, America has been enthralled by the epic racial drama that began with a 9-11 call, and ended with the arrest of a prominent black professor who just happened to be buddies with the prez.

Liberals decried the "racially motivated" actions of Jim Crowley, the police officer who put professor Henry Louis Gates in handcuffs. Conservatives pinned the blame on Gates, attempting to portray him as a racialist black-power nutcase.

Obama added fuel to the fire when he asserted that the police acted "stupidly." Later, the president tried to soften his statement. But it was too late -- commentators already had all the fodder they needed to create a delightful storm of made-for-cable-news controversy.

But now, it will all come to an end, as Obama The Uniter descends from his lofty throne to reconcile both sides of the conflict. Tonight, Crowley, Gates, and Obama will gather 'round a picnic table outside the White House, drink beer, and learn a valuable lesson about tolerance.

But there's another lesson that can be learned from the Gates-Crowley affair, and it has nothing to do with race-relations in America. It's a lesson about how the media can turn a meaningless series of unfortunate events into a public issue that everyone needs to care about.

Henry Louis Gates was an intellectual who lost his house key.

Jim Crowley was a police officer responding to a call about a break-in.

Gates was understandably upset that Crowley suspected him of breaking into his own home. He made a scene. Crowley was understandably upset about being chewed out by Gates. He arrested him for disorderly conduct.

Afterwards, Gates was promptly released.

The story was newsworthy, because Gates is a public figure. But it wasn't a story of all-consuming importance. At best, it was an odd story about a semi-famous person in a strange situation. It deserved a short blurb, and nothing more.

But Gates' racial interpretation of the event was too juicy to ignore, and two weeks later, a Rasmussen poll shows that 75% of Americans are still following the story "somewhat closely."

Oh well. Nothing washes away the flavor of legislative gridlock and plummeting approval ratings like knocking back a few cold ones with a cop and a seriously ticked-off academic.

King County: The Final Frontier.

He's a man with a plan for King County.

His plan involves sky homes. Tall, tall sky homes.

And please, don't call him Michael Nelson.

"It's Goodspaceguy," he reminds me, as he signs a release form.

"There are over 50,000 Michael Nelsons in the United States. But I googled a bunch of space-related names, and no one else was using Goodspaceguy."

Legally, only his middle name has been changed to Goodspaceguy. But who cares? He is Goodspaceguy, he's running for King County Executive -- and it's time for his close-up.

Goodspaceguy is now sitting in a studio at KCTS Channel 9, Seattle's PBS station. From my vantage point in the control room, he looks very pleased with himself. Three cameras are fixed on him. A man is applying powder to his almost-completely-bald head. It'll reduce the glare. His face breaks into an impish grin.

"I was in Los Angeles sitting in the audience for the making of an entertainment show, and during the breaks, people would pop up and put make-up on the people on stage. But now I'm the one getting powdered."

Triumph.

As a libertarian without any government experience -- and an outspoken advocate for a mass-exodus to orbiting space colonies -- Seattle hasn't always been so kind to Goodspaceguy. As he bitterly noted in a posting on his blog:

"This is the tenth time that I, Goodspaceguy, am a candidate for public office, but I am slammed back; I am censored; I am not allowed to speak."

But now, he is being allowed to speak. And he does.

He mainly speaks about economics. In fact, he makes it clear that he considers himself to be an economist, prefacing his statements with an authoritative, "as an economist, I..."

In Goodspaceguy's estimation, the economy has been sabotaged by everyone, including "the people." He compares King County planners to Soviet officials, and rails against the minimum wage.

The picture he paints has dire overtones: "Government is taking a sledgehammer and beating the people in this country," Goodspaceguy says.

Crime, he insists, is an economic problem. If a gang member got a job, his peers would follow his example, and become productive members of society. It's that simple.

Traffic congestion will soon be a thing of the past, thanks to "sky homes." You know, like the ones they have in Vancouver, Canada. If there are many sky homes, people can live near their work, and won't have to drive. Yes.

Goodspaceguy compares the citizens of King County to a big family; a part of the larger human family that currently inhabits "spaceship earth." He says that we should strive to increase our knowledge. And we should have more free parking.

Then, it's all over.

But I'm not satisfied. Goodspaceguy's signature issue -- man's galactic future -- wasn't even touched on. And there are so many questions left to ask. So many that must be asked.

So, I caught Goodspaceguy in the hallway, and asked him if he had time to answer a few more questions. He had time.

I began with a search for Goodspaceguy's philosophical roots.

"You refer to yourself as an economist. What other economists have influenced your thought -- which ones do you agree with?"

He couldn't think of any. He only reads introductory textbooks, because they give you a "broad perspective."

Disappointed, I changed the subject.

"In economics, it's assumed that people always pursue their own interests. Why would people want to go to live in orbiting space colonies?"

He acknowledged that there will be challenges. But the end-result will be inevitable.

"At first, few will come. Then more, and more, and more, as (the colonies) become nicer."

According to Goodspaceguy, the orbiting space colonies will be gigantic. But he doesn't plan on abandoning good ol' Earth:

"I want to make Earth into a paradise," he says in a reassuring voice.

So far, so good. But why orbiting space colonies? Couldn't we build space colonies the old fashioned way -- on the ground? On Mars, perhaps?

It all comes down to gravity. Because the orbiting space colonies will be able to spin at variable speeds, they'll also be able to generate the same level of gravity found on Earth.

In the world of Goodspaceguy, everyone is divided into two classes: the ground-huggers, and the enlightened few. Ground-huggers go about their daily lives, raising children, and working normal jobs. They aren't evil -- but they aren't able to grasp the higher truths of existence. And sometimes, their ignorance leads them astray.

"I think it was the ground-huggers that supported Hitler," Goodspaceguy says.

Goodspaceguy is not a ground-hugger.

But if mankind's future is in the stars, why was he silent about it during his interview in the studio?

"A lot of people aren't educated about it, so I don't talk as much about it as I could," Goodspaceguy says.

"If you were to tell people in the past about the way things are now, people would think you're crazy. They'd think it was lunacy," he quickly adds.

Fair enough.

A Family Affair.

When Mark Sanford vanished, it was a big story. When he reappeared, and confessed to an affair with a woman in Argentina, it became a once-in-a-lifetime feast of scandal and intrigue.

And it didn't take long for pundits to pull out the hypocrisy card.

You see, Mark Sanford's south-of-the-border infidelity was only a minor sin, on par with downloading the second season of ALF on Bittorent. And we've all been there, right? Yes, the real crime was that Sanford had the gall to promote "family values" while he indulged in private iniquity. Sanford was a hypocrite.

Senator John Ensign, another conservative Republican, had just admitted to an affair of his own a week earlier. Another hypocrite.

So, people started to connect the dots:

Sanford.
Ensign.
Vitter.
Craig.
Foley.

The already-triumphant left became jubulient. They finally had a dossier of evidence that discredited those religious-right loonies once and for all.

It was so simple: anyone who really cared about family values would have no choice but to migrate to the Democratic Party, led by shiny dad-in-chief Obama.

But wait -- what about all those Democratic sex scandals?

Like John Edwards, who fathered an illegitimate child while his wife was stricken with cancer?
Like Elliot Spitzer, who hired a prostitute?
And didn't his successor, David Patterson, have... marital problems.... of his own?
What about big-city mayors like Kwame Kilpatrick, Gavin Newsom, and Antonio Villaraigosa?
Or President Bill Clinton?

Gosh. It sure looks like this whole infidelity thing doesn't really respect party lines. But what about the hypocrisy thing? Democrats may cheat, but are they hypocrites?

To a certain extent, yes.

Politicians of all stripes try to paint themselves as model family men. It isn't a Republican thing. And generally, Republicans are no more judgmental than Democrats. It's worth noting that Ronald Reagan, a conservative Republican, was the first divorced President.

Sure, Republicans have a habit of attacking Democrats for their personal failings, but Democrats are all too happy to return the favor. Whenever a tawdry scandal is exposed, you can bet that people will exploit it for political gain.

And Republicans may tend to take conservative positions on issues like abortion and gay marriage, but frankly, neither of those issues have much to do with cheating on your spouse. Opponents of gay marriage may talk about the "sanctity" of marriage, and traditional values, but supporters of gay marriage appear to believe that marriage is pretty darn important as well, and I haven't heard of any Democrats (unless Woody Allen counts) who openly support infidelity.

But even if conservatives alone bore the stain of hypocrisy, would it matter?

Not really.

When someone fails to live up to the standards they preach, they discredit themselves -- not their standards. If Officer Bob tells a classroom full of kiddies to stay off drugs, and then goes home and overdoses on painkillers, it doesn't become okay to become a pill-popping fiend. And when a socially-conservative politician has a fling with a South American vixen, it doesn't mean that marriage is a sham. It means he is.

Thank goodness. If we tossed out ideals every time we failed to live up to them, we wouldn't have much left to believe in.

The idea that Republicans are losing their "values voter" cred is just as absurd. Socially conservative voters support Republicans because they agree with their policies. Voters in South Carolina may give Sanford the boot, but it's unlikely that they'll replace him with a liberal Democrat.

In the end, cheaters like Sanford, Ensign or Clinton are just people who did something bad. Sometimes their careers die, and sometimes they don't. Their actions don't -- and shouldn't -- herald the death of a party or an ideology. Anyone who pretends that adultery (or hypocrisy) is a Republican problem or a Democratic problem is willfully ignorant.

It turns out that there are humans in both parties. Who knew?

When Worlds Collide.

Barack Obama's much-hyped speech to the Muslim world won't change anything. But it was a pretty good piece of political rhetoric.

Yes, he presented a white-washed version of Islamic history, but what else could he do? He's trying to make friends. And generally, you don't diss the people you want to befriend.

Most refreshingly, Obama resisted the temptation to identify Bush administration policies as the root of America's conflict with the Muslim world, as he's done on past occasions.

And while there were the expected apologies for past American actions in the Middle East (like the overthrow of Mohammed Mossadeq), Obama had equally strong praise for the good ol' USA.

Even so, it's beyond naive to assume that rhetoric will do anything to cure the Middle East's problems.

As Obama acknowledged, the conflict between Islamic nations and the West has been going on for a long time. But Obama's dead wrong when he assumes that all this fighting is the result of a communication problem. Like Bush, Obama assumes that all people essentially share the same set of values. It's a beautiful idea, but it's also completely wrong.

Not everyone is a fan of freedom, peace, equality, and tolerance. Historically, very few nations have celebrated these values the way modern societies do, and many nations still reject them. There are a variety reasons why this happens. Some people value the stability of tradition over the chaos that results from individual expression. Some people believe that the collective will should be exalted above personal choices.

And yes, many Muslims reject democratic values because of their religious beliefs.

Like all religions, Islam is complicated. To say that Islam has always been a religion of violence and intolerance would be inaccurate. But to characterize it as a force for peace and tolerance would be just as lopsided. Historically, most Islamic rulers allowed Christians and Jews to exist in their lands. But non-Islamic citizens were hardly equal. Their testimony was disregarded in court, and they were forced to pay a special tax. At times, they were forced to wear distinctive clothing. The Ottoman Empire populated its army with military slaves known as janisaries, most of whom were kidnapped from Christian families when they were children.

While the extermination of religious minorities was rarely official policy, it did happen.

There are verses in the Koran that imply that Christians and Jews will get to paradise, but there are also verses that seem to command Muslims to conquer unbelievers. Even if many modern Muslims would rather live and let live, you don't have to be a history professor to figure out that Muslims in the past felt differently about the matter. And there are still plenty of Muslims who follow the path of violent jihad.

Islamic jurists from different sects have conflicting opinions regarding Islam's compatibility with modern values. Needless to say, some come down firmly against them. While it's true that several Islamic countries have had female leaders, the broader state of women's rights -- and human rights in general -- in the Muslim world is still dismal. Assuming that all of this is just a massive coincidence, or the result of Western imperialism, is nonsense.

The arrogance of Western commentators is their constant claim that "true Islam" is peaceful. Some Islamic sects are peaceful, others aren't. What gives someone the authority to decide which ones are "true?"

I don't think that most Muslims are "bad people" by human standards. I don't think most of them want to kill me. I think they have some legitimate grievances against the West.

But radical Islam isn't an insignificant force in the Middle East. And its adherents don't share our values.

One of the great failures of humanistic policy makers has been their failure to understand the reality of god-centered religions. They assume that a common ethical core lies beneath the veneer of religious belief. If someone does bad things, it's simply because they're poor and oppressed. This is the flawed worldview that Obama espoused when he talked about people "clinging to guns and religion" because of economic hardship.

But in reality, many people do things simply because they believe it's what their god wants them to do -- whether or not it benefits them personally. Their values are not centered around humanistic ethics, or a survival instinct.

Material poverty can help spark an interest in radicalism, but not all radicals are poor. The Bin Laden family certainly isn't hurting for cash, but that didn't stop lil' Osama from going astray.

What am I getting at?

I'm not sure. In the real world, there's not much the American government can do beyond the things we're already doing: fighting terrorists when possible, allying ourselves with moderates in the region, and attempting to coax skeptical Muslims with reasonable concessions and kind words.

But reality should always inform our decisions. And the reality is that some people are very different from us, and will probably never be like us -- no matter how much we try to be their friends.

This is the world we live in. Coming to terms with it doesn't give us a clear roadmap for the future -- but it doesn't hurt either.

A Just Crime?

Yesterday, a terrible person who killed babies for a living was murdered. Two wrongs may not make a right, but I can't make myself feel any sorrow for George Tiller.

The real tragedy is that all pro-lifers will now be viewed as violent extremists. It's bad publicity for the movement at a time when pro-life views seem to be gaining ground. Even worse, Tiller will now be viewed as a pro-abortion martyr. Others could be inspired to take his place.

The fact that Tiller was murdered while he was acting as an usher in his church will only do more to humanize him.

In a just America, the legal system would have punished Tiller for his crimes. But as a strategy for ending abortion, vigilante justice simply doesn't work.

Freakin' Idiots!

If confirmed, Sonia Sotomayor would be the first Latina on the Supreme Court. Her story is inspiring: She grew up in a poor neighborhood in the Bronx, but managed to rise through the Ivy League and into a seat on one of the highest courts in the land.

Barack Obama boasts that she has a "common touch," and that her life experiences will help her make compassionate decisions.

But sadly, Sotomayor has chosen to ignore the needs of our nation's most persecuted minority group: Nerd-Americans.

Thousands of Nerd-Americans depend on nunchaku -- combined with ninja-like reflexes -- to floor attackers many times their size. But New York law bans the possession of nunchaku, or "chuka sticks," leaving Nerd-Americans in the state defenseless against muggings and epic wedgies.

For a brief moment, there was hope. James Maloney, a proud defender of the ancient nunchaku tradition, challenged the constitutionality of New York's oppressive law.

The case was callously dismissed by a district court.

In his time of need, he turned to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. A panel of three justices, including Sotomayor, examined his case. They had a chance to right a grievous wrong, and strike a blow for Nerd-rights everywhere.

And yet, they chose to turn Maloney away, like some kind of hideous legal puppy that no one could love.

In their ruling, Sotomayor and her cronies asserted that the Second Amendment didn't apply to the states, making his complaint invalid.

But they didn't stop there. Instead, Sotomayor & Co. decided to slander the art of nunchaku-wielding by repeating a torrent of fear-mongering that would make Janet Napolitano blush:

The legislative history of section 265.00 makes plain that the ban on possession of nunchakus imposed by section 265.01(1) is supported by a rational basis. Indeed, as Appellant concedes, when the statute was under consideration, various parties submitted statements noting the highly dangerous nature of nunchakus. For example, New York’s Attorney General, Louis J. Lefkowitz, asserted that nunchakus “ha[ve] apparently been widely used by muggers and street gangs and ha[ve] been the cause of many serious injuries.” Mem. from Attorney Gen. Louis J. Lefkowitz to the Governor (Apr. 8, 1974). And the sponsor of the bill, Richard Ross, stated that “[w]ith a minimum amount of practice, [the nunchaku] may be effectively used as a garrote, bludgeon, thrusting or striking device. The [nunchaku] is designed primarily as a weapon and has no purpose other than to maim or, in some instances, kill.” See N.Y. Penal Law § 265.00, practice commentary, definitions (“Chuka stick”) (quoting Letter of Assemblyman Richard C. Ross to the Counsel to the Governor (1974)).

Shame on you, Sotomayor. Shame on you, New York. America was founded on the belief that every man had the right to disable his foes with the Japanese weapon of his choosing. But as soon as your nerdophobic tendencies kick in, none of that matters to you.

As a Supreme Court justice, you'll have a chance to redeem yourself. You'll have another shot at forming an alliance with the Nerd-American community.

If you reject them, don't come crying to me when a chaotic elven wizard inflicts 30 points of damage on you with his rod of shadows.

Indecent Psychological Exposure?

Every month or so, conservatives find a new what-the-heck-is-wrong-with-England story to shake their heads at.

Kids having babies.

Sharia law becoming civil law.

And now this: Conservative talk-show host Michael Savage has been officially banned from England. According to Jaqui Smith, the director of the British Home Office, his presence in merry olde England would "cause inter-community tension or even violence."

Really?

Savage is a provocative guy. He gets angry -- a lot. And naturally, he has more than his share of detractors. But he isn't in the habit of commanding his listeners to commit acts of violence. Love him or hate him, grouping Savage with neo-Nazis and Islamic terrorists is absurd.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that this move has more to do with punishing someone for holding unpopular (i.e. unacceptable) views than it does with maintaining public tranquility.

Still, England's seeming censorship of Savage is only the latest sad chapter in the larger story of England's weak stance on the freedom of speech. Due to libel laws that are weighted against defendants, England is being used as an international center for the censorship of controversial material:

While in the United States the plaintiff must prove that the claims against him are false, in English law the defendants' claims are presumed false until proven otherwise: he has to demonstrate his innocence. If his defence fails, he must pay both costs and damages. The plaintiff's lawyers make little attempt to limit their costs: the partners at one well-known firm charge £750 an hour. The bill can rise to millions.

Perhaps you don't live in England or Wales, so you think this has nothing to do with you. You're wrong. English libel law now applies to everyone on Earth. Make any accusation, anywhere in the world, and if the subject can demonstrate that a single person in England or Wales has read it, you could be sued here for every penny, cent, rouble, rupee or renminbi you possess. The internet and the global nature of publishing ensure that these medieval laws have become the most powerful extra-territorial legislation ever drafted.

In other words, if you write something controversial about someone in America, and someone can read it in England, they can come after you. In response to the growth of British "libel tourism," Congress is considering a bill that would prevent the enforcement of foreign libel judgements that violate the 1st amendment. A good move -- but it won't help blacklisted Savage.

If the Obama administration has any guts, it should step up to defend one of our country's most prominent voices. What ever happened to "I may disagree with what you have to say -- but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"?