Scattershot Theory

It came from outer space

Today’s topic is a weird one – panspermia. What is panspermia? It's a theory that life's building blocks exist throughout the Universe, in space, and they may have been delivered to Earth in a random or directed process, depending on which version you go with. The mechanism for delivery to Earth's surface has been variously described as meteor showers or even rain showers. Some proponents think such life bombardment only happened at the outset of Earth's history, other's think it's a continuous bombardment that causes new diseases and possibly even genetic 'macro' mutations. Some proponents think that both planet Earth and Jupiter's moon Europa got their oceans from frozen life-harboring meteors. Got all that?

Why I bring it up, is that two highly prominent British scientists embraced the theory -- Francis Crick who discovered DNA, and Sir Fred Hoyle, a preeminent British astronomer. These men were no dummies; they sought to reconcile that great divide between religion and science. They saw evidence of a providential 'hand' but wanted more than a hand-waving science theory (Darwin's theory of random mutations) or a hand-waving theology (Special Creation) to describe an intelligent mechanism of life creation. Though I don't really find panspermia to be a very credible theory, there are underlying discussions that I love:

- What is life?
- Is life necessarily made of oxygen, hydrogen and carbon?
- Are prions and viruses living? What is the threshold whereby you say life exists?
- Could life exist in other dimensions, or scales of size?
- Can life exist in extremes of heat or cold, can it exist in space?

These are all questions for a 1st-year medical student, into his second pitcher of wine cooler. They aggravate the mind, violate your 1973 biology text and absolutely frustrate your theology professor. Here, here to discussions that move beyond the mundane and over to the bizarre.

There are some things I don’t like about the theory – mostly its randomness. The life pieces are floating aimlessly in space, and then fall scattershot on the surface of planets. If this were truly the mechanism, you would see weird, frequent mutations happening to prairie grass, rodents, trees and any living thing soaked by raindrops. But the ‘vector’ of evolutionary change that we see doesn’t follow any such pattern. The ‘new’ diseases that we see – HIV, Hantavirus, ‘Iowa’ mumps and avian flu – are all mostly variants of things familiar, following familiar Earth-bound disease routes.

If you make it ‘directed’ Panspermia, it’s a bit more credible, or is it? If an intelligent force on another planet were assembling life here, wouldn’t it want a delivery vehicle more reliable than a meteor or a storm cloud? Surely it would have a vehicle that makes precision landings, on precision routes. Would it not make its presence known somehow? I’m reminded of the Gary Larson cartoon where God has just dropped a vial marked ‘humans’ and He says, “Oops”. The theory can be salvaged if you bend it around a bit. “Another planet” could be a simplistic way of saying “a better place, at some remove”. Kind of like “somewhere over the rainbow”. Characterize the intelligent force as ever-present and involved, but not perfect. OK, now it could make more sense. It’s no longer “panspermia” but what the hey. If the creator that made us is imperfect, you can’t expect perfect consistency from our theories.

Fine China

Kicking butt?

I've heard this phrase used my whole life: "The proof is in the pudding". Where conflicting theories are being argued, you can say finally, "You do it your way and I'll do it my way -- we'll see who comes out on top". Now, looking at the Peoples' Republic of China (PRC hereon), I have to wonder about various pudding recipes. You see, PRC is a communist country with a mixed economy. The anticommunist lore of the last half century would tell us that socialism is opposite to freedom, self-actualization and above all, prosperity. There is no arguing that PRC has a repressive record with regards to human rights; political parties are only beginning to show their faces, and only at local levels.

But something else is afoot. PRC's GDP has increased 6-fold since 1978. Joining the World trade Organization in 2001, PRC became the 4th largest economy in the world by exchange rate and 2nd largest after the US in purchasing power. China has recently been an avid consumer of Euro-American goods and services. Stores like IKEA and Wal-Mart have sprung up in its east coast cities; young professionals are purchasing apartment homes, state-of-the-art electronics and cell phones at a fairly rapid pace. The number of cars in China has been going up 15% per year, and thousands of miles of highway have recently been laid as part of PRC's National "Trunk" system. PRC alone is helping to bid up the price of oil -- they need it as much as we do, and have the ability to pay for it. How can such a "primitive" country carry such a big stick?

The trade imbalance between PRC and the US is considerable. If they are the tail and we are the dog, the tail appears to be wagging the dog. Low wages and tax incentives make PRC a highly attractive manufacturing center. Western governments are wrangling to fix the discrepancy. Western and mainland China still have a high rate of poverty -- these remote areas have not experienced the Western influence (and affluence) of Eastern cities. But compare China to other western 'powers': Bureaucratic France has a stagnated economy. In Russia, communism fell only to be replaced by a stagnant economy, a dictatorial president and a Russian mafia. How did such an 'inferior' Chinese culture spawn such economic and political prowess? When China moved to a mixed economy in 1978, the changes weren't that monumental -- they did away with collectives and they introduced small-scale private enterprises. They relaxed price controls and promoted foreign investment.

We know by looking at PRC's human rights record what they are doing wrong. Now perish the thought -- looking at their economic record, what might they be doing right? If they are engaging in free market practices, without any obvious transgressions that amount to theft of property or services, they have a trick up their sleeve, one that we need to know sideways and backwards. France needs to know, Russia needs to know --- and the United States certainly needs to know.

The Beatles Forever

British invasion

I've been listening to the Bob Spitz biography of the Beatles. Have to say that the Fab Four still inspire me, some 36 years after they broke up. Much of the group's early appeal was that of the clean-scrubbed, adorable mop-tops in matching Beatle suits. This image was pretty much the creation of Brian Epstein, their young manager. As "Johnny and the Moondogs" or "The Quarrymen" (previous names for the group), they had gone for a rough-and-tumble leather jacket look. The innocent music like “Love Me Do” and “She Was Just 17” was also antithetical to the brooding, American style that the earlier Beatles were hoping to co-opt from Elvis Presley or Buddy Holly. The musical selections, like the Beatle suits, were also at the direction and behest of Mr. Epstein.

Good moves from that Mr. Epstein. The Beatles wave actually started in about May of ’63 when George Martin produced their first album. The wave finally crashed upon the American shore in February ’64 when Ed Sullivan featured them on his show. America had just been through a Cuban Missile Crisis and a presidential assassination. Most of the songs getting airplay were about teen angst or rockabilly swagger (see my 2005 blog on the 60’s music). The Beatles presented a new face to masculinity and to musical identity itself. They were fresh-faced, self-effacing, silly and irreverent. To girls they were irresistible, but not ever menacing or dark. For an America whose favorite men were cowboys, astronauts or war heroes, the Beatles represented option “D”, none of the above.

It was possible to be a man who didn’t want to kill, rope, imprison, conquer or master anything in particular. You might just be a man who wants to be – with a Beatles ‘do and a guitar. The impact of their group is still with us today; many who weren’t born when they broke up in 1970 have a complete collection of their CD’s. Likewise, there is no group today, be it Coldplay, Oasis or the Vines that can approach the electric dynamism of the Fab Four. In the group’s later years, they sang “All You Need Is Love”. I might add as a prerequisite to that – you need the Beatles.

How Will Bush Be Remembered?

Loveable Lunkhead?

How will Bush be remembered? More to the point, how will history and the general public remember Bush long after he's gone? Never mind the opinion of this blog author. I think Bush qualifies for "Bottom 5" but it's neither here nor there. In predicting how time will treat Bush, let me first make an odd sidestep to Civil War history:

Ulysses Grant was a war mastermind and national hero -- a noble, handsome man. He served as President from 1869 to 1877, over an administration that was besmirched by scandals -- the Whiskey Rebellion tax fraud and the Credit Mobilier scandal to name a couple. Grant was scrupulous and never accused of anything himself, but scoundrel cronies put a black mark on his term. Grant was viewed as a highly likeable, decorated war hero who was simply in over his head trying to translate war-waging skills into political skills. Wonderful man, terrible president.



A Great General

Now back to Bush -- a General of first degree. What's that you say? There are questions whether he even fulfilled his National Guard duty? Posh to that --- American people see Bush as the de facto General in the War Against Terror. With his smirky good looks and Gary Cooper moments ("Bring it on .....I want him dead or alive") Americans were drawn to his clumsy machismo. During the 2004 election, Americans found Bush's mutilations of English and stark ignorance to be endearing. He seemed like Mr. Everyman. Bush gave a speech over the smoldering dust of 9/11, and roused the public like a first string quarterback. What's that you say? All he ever did was be a yell leader at Andover? Posh to all that --- American people see Bush as a focused, first stringer, looking terror right in the face.

Now, several things have gone haywire for our hero. Iraq is about to erupt into civil war, Iran is trumpeting its nuclear prowess, and the Dubai fiasco made it uncertain if W. Bush was even going to take preventive measures at all against potential "evil doers". A possible reason that 6 retired Generals have recently called for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's resignation is this: Rumsfeld is basically fulfilling Bush's orders. There is a palpable fear that our "Gary Cooper" will do limited strikes on Iran, when Iraq's work is still very much undone. If Bush (Rumsfeld) is left to his own devices, the whole Middle East could rise into radioactive mushroom clouds.

Clinton's Achilles heel was his lust. Nixon's was his own self-centered paranoia. W. Bush is seen to be taking actions based on "good intentions" -- not from more personal forms of weakness. However, he's used his "political capital" to gamble away the family store, and erudite men will see the horrific destructiveness of Bush's actions. Posh to that --- American people will be forgiving to Bush; he'll be seen as the loveable lunkhead who just got in a bit over his head. He won't be in the "Top 10" Presidents list, but neither will he be at the bottom. "Anybody with that many Clint Eastwood moments can't be all bad -- he just inherited a bad situation." So will say the American laity whose acumen is on par w/ Jay Leno's Jaywalkers. This blogger will look at a President who took a problematic world and brought it to the brink of "limited nuclear war". That President is no Ulysses Grant, quite a bit worse in fact. Not even as good as Clinton -- not even as good as Nixon. And there's not much that is loveable.

New Girl in Town

Katie Couric

Marches for equality are interesting, be they for sex, race or other criteria. You have major, big events like the Emancipation Proclamation. Then, you have more subtle progressions -- nothing is signed, no law enacted. Just a grudging respect, a left-handed compliment that says, "I acknowledge your ability and/or your fundamental worthiness".

Such a moment came last week, when CBS made Katie Couric the anchor and managing editor of "CBS Evening News". In previous years, a woman might be tapped as co-anchor, never managing editor. Never anchor and managing editor simultaneously. There is little doubt that Katie will handle the job with grace, competency and aplomb. Her new commission must plant a little bug in minds everywhere: Women can do just about anything a man can do. When Carla Fiorni was CEO of Hewlett Packard, nary a sentence could be written about her that didn't refer to her gender and her "superwoman" qualities. One has to suppose that women will really achieve equality when a woman can do something good or noteworthy, and there is no fanfare about her sex. But for now, the advancements are slow and grudging -- the press, and blogs like mine, must take note of every minor step forward.

Katie is frequently described as "cute and perky". She actually shed those adjectives quite a while back. She's done heavy-hitting interviews with political luminaries and world leaders for 15 years now -- she has doggedness and gravitas to follow any line of questions and follow any trail persistently. She is an upbeat, confident person -- "perky" is an adjective that suggests a person with little else. Katie has lived thru the untimely deaths of her husband and sister; she's no stranger to adversity. She has more than enough depth and sober judgment to handle serious topics.

One person who probably would like to blow a raspberry is Bryant Gumble. He quit the "CBS Morning Show" when they wouldn't raise his salary to be on par with Katie's "Today Show" salary. Now she inherits Dan Rather's throne. Conservatives will also grouse that a lefty anchor has now been succeeded by someone possibly even "leftier". Well, there will always be nay-sayers. Let's give credit where credit is due -- Katie deserves this photo op. And maybe that day will come when a girl does something great, and nobody (like me :-)) has to harp on the fact that she's a girl.

A Different Armageddon

End Times or End of Empire?

Not too long after my blogs, "WDJS" and "Pax Americana" I stumbled upon another recent book that approaches similar topics. My "WDJS" blog discussed how Christian theology has devolved over two millennia, based on Gary Wills' recent book. "Pax Americana" offered some critique of Pat Buchanan's own critique of the Political Right. Now comes another book, "American Theocracy" authored by Kevin Phillips. Phillips was a Republican strategist years ago, but fell from grace with that party when he started offering independent assessments of where the GOP is going.

Phillips believes that the GOP has been hijacked not only by Christian conservatives, but by a significant subgroup of "end times” Christians who base much of their Middle East policies on a sincere belief that Christ's return is imminent. This subgroup also sees the Middle East as a prophesied staging ground for End Times. Phillips constructs his own Fall-of-the-American-Empire scenario based on 3 ongoing phenomena:

1) The US is obsessed with projecting its power across the Middle East, because of its obsessive thirst for oil.

2) The GOP is seriously controlled by Christians who put a literal interpretation on the Bible.

3) American debt is so enormous that we need foreign investors to keep us solvent by purchasing securities from us.

Now, if you truly hope and believe something will happen, there are things in your conscious behavior that can bring it about -- maybe not End Times, but how about a limited nuclear war, a holocaust or a stock market crash? (I'm reminded of the OUIJA board that always came up with the answers my brother desired). Phillips believes that America's Armageddon won't be a Second Coming, but rather enumeration 3, above. He thinks that we, like the Dutch and British empires, will collapse under the weight of our own debts.

My own take isn't as dire as Phillips'. Am thinking that the American people will pull back from the brink if we get too close. China and the European Union would love to take on our own mantle of 'Superpower'. The ending won't be 'Revelations' but merely 'revelations' that we shouldn't entrust major institutions or decisions to people operating on prophecy. Much as Nancy Reagan was lambasted for planning President Reagan's appointments around an astrologist, current policy makers must be taken to task if their decisions are not based on concrete, here-and-now assessments.

The Texas Taliban

You can't get drunk in Texas

Just when I thought I'd seen everything, I hear that the Texas Alcoholic beverage Commission (TABC) is arresting north Texas bar patrons that appear to be drunk. Mind you, the customers are not passed out or disorderly -- just 'appear to be' drunk. In one case, a man was arrested in the bar of the hotel in which he was staying. In other cases, the people had designated drivers. In one case, shown on TV, a woman is saying, "Texas sucks" as she's hand-cuffed.

Now, the Dallas Convention Center and many North Texas businesses are rightly concerned about 'Operation Last Call'. They term it as a biz kill. How TABC steps over the line is this: any patron at any public place selling alcohol could be arrested. You say you just had a promotion or turned 30? Well, better keep that celebration to two beers or one marguerita. You never know what type of TABC officer might be lurking at the next bar stool.

Now two big venues -- Fairmont Hotel and Dallas Convention Center have had corporate customers threaten to cancel conventions. We could stay on our high horse and have our town dwindle to the size of Waco. Or we could find other ways to proactively deal with public drunkenness -- without alienating other states and without stepping on the civil rights of bar patrons. How about hiring cabs or finding designated drivers? There are ways that the other 49 states have found to handle the situation. We needn't evolve our own Texas Taliban. As things stand, a state congressman has asked for ‘Operation Last Call’ to be put on hold, pending further study. No status yet on that, or Texas’ future status as a state that wants tourism.