TERROR FART SHUTS SEVENTH AVENUE : PANIC IN NEW YORK

NEWS FLASH

Reason, Commerce, Justice and Free Beer has just learned that authorities in New York shut down a major city thoroughfare after a Muslim allegedly farted.

Details remain sketchy. It is not known who farted, nor whether the fart constituted "use of weapons of mass destruction" under applicable federal anti-terror laws. It is not even known whether the fart caused any appreciable damage to the surrounding area.

Nonetheless, officials are not taking any chances. Deputy NYPD Police Commissioner B. Leonard Pfurzfinder called the alleged terror fart a "serious attempt" to sow chaos in New York. He warned the public to "keep your eyes and noses open for flatulating Muslims."

Mr. Pfurzfinder gave a press conference shortly after the incident: "I wish to confirm that the Police Department--in cooperation with State and federal law enforcement--have closed Seventh Avenue following the reported emission of terrorist intestinal gas near 35th Street. At approximately 7:45 AM today, a woman named Cathleen Summers passed a man with a long black beard wearing a skull cap and a long white gown. According to Ms. Summers, 'he looked like Osama bin Laden.' As she passed the man at the intersection of Seventh Avenue and 35th Street, Ms. Summers heard a very loud noise. 'It was definitely a fart,' she said. Within a moment following the noise, Ms. Summers also smelled a rancid odor in her vicinity. 'It must have come from the fart,' she told responding officers. She also mentioned that pedestrians gasped in horror when they smelled the fart; they fled in all directions. Pandemonium ensued. One man collapsed from inhaling the fumes. Another man said the 'sound of the fart' broke his iPad® digital reading device. Ms. Summers also reported that the bearded man did not panic after the fart; he surreptitiously moved away down 35th Street."

Mr. Pfurzfinder continued: "We are fortunate that no fatalities resulted from the fart. But we cannot let our guard down. Considering the evidence before us, we must conclude that this fart constitutes a serious terrorist attack on American soil. True, the fart did not cause much damage. But it shows that there are men who look like Osama bin Laden in the United States who can emit toxic odors. Worse, it shows that men with beards and white gowns can infiltrate major American cities, eat gas-producing foods and subject everyday Americans to deadly flatulence. We can be glad that no Americans died in this brazen gas assault on New York City. But we must painfully acknowledge that the War on Terror--especially gaseous fart terror--is far from over."

Mr. Pfurzfinder stressed that Americans must do their part to battle terrorism in all its forms: "We salute Ms. Summers for immediately calling authorities after she heard and smelled the enemy fart. And we also salute Ms. Summers for recognizing that suspicious activity is not always visible. In fact, terrorism does not just affect the eyes; it affects all the senses. Since 2001, the NYPD has admonished New Yorkers to report suspicious activity with the slogan: 'See something; say something.' But that admonishment does not encompass all possible terrorist threats. Terror does not limit itself to visible phenomena. As this case shows, terror can be heard and smelled, too. In that light, we hereby modify our slogan to include all the senses: 'See something, hear something, smell something, taste something or feel something--say something.' Although we recognize that some New Yorkers may report things that do not turn out to be terror threats, we believe that the extra caution is worth it. An old woman, for instance, may feel a spider crawling on her neck while she sleeps. She may believe she is under tactile terrorist attack. She might even call police, wailing: "I felt something, so I'm saying something." Yet fielding a few misguided 911 calls is a small price to pay to avoid another 9/11."

Concerning the general terrorist threat level, Mr. Pfuzfinder elaborated: "We are on edge. Within the last two weeks, Muslim agents have tried to blow up Times Square. In the ensuing days, authorities closed down Times Square several times after citizens reported 'suspicious packages' on various street corners. Those packages turned out to contain ham sandwiches, bottled water and cheap novels; but the threat remains. It remains true that Muslims want to kill us. Today's fart incident represents yet another attempt to target America this month. We are in the crosshairs. The Muslims not only want to destroy significant targets in spectacular attacks; they also want to wreak panic by dispersing toxic farts among everyday people who just want to get to work in the morning. That is truly terrifying--and we are working to stop it."

Mr. Pfurzfinder did not specify how the NYPD plans to address farting Muslims in the future. Still, Republican lawmakers in Washington, D.C. quickly jumped on the news.

"Today's incident in New York just goes to show that President Obama is not doing enough to stop terror," declared Senator John Cornyn (R-TX). "This is the price we pay for the President's misguided decision to 'understand' Muslims. We cannot afford to understand these people. They want choke us on the nastiest farts you can possibly imagine. We cannot have a 'dialogue' with people who are out to drown us in farts. Put simply, we need to stop talking and start attacking Pakistan, which is where this fart guy is probably from. If we don't, the next fart is going to really hurt somebody."

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) echoed Mr. Cornyn's call for increased action against Pakistan. "I have it from reliable sources that al-Qaeda is training operatives to produce massive amounts of flatulence in their own bodies. They call it 'the natural approach.' CIA infiltrators have shown me shocking pictures of masked men sitting in desert training camps eating goat cheese, falafel, kebab and raw onions in terrifying amounts. We are blind to the truth if we assume that this New York fart suspect did not receive al-Qaeda digestive terror training in Pakistan. That is why we must attack Pakistan now. I refuse to see a single American killed by a fart we could have prevented."

In a statement on the issue, Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) shied away from foreign policy assertions. "No matter what we do abroad, I say we need better domestic legislation to punish Muslims who fart. I have already drawn up a draft bill that expands the definition of 'weapons of mass destruction' to include 'the intentional, reckless, negligent or inadvertent expulsion of intestinal gas by a person who is a Muslim, however slight or inaudible.' Ignorance is no defense. I define 'Muslim' as 'any person not a Christian' or 'any person with a suspicious looking beard, unless he is from Texas; but such exception does not apply to African-Americans with beards, or any female, regardless of State residence or race.' If we enforce this law, we will bring digestive terrorists to justice and protect Americans."

President Obama's Attorney General--Eric H. Holder, Jr.--urged a more circumspect approach to the Muslim fart menace. "Our investigation into this matter has just begun. We still need to determine whether the man who farted did so with terroristic intent. This is a legal inquiry: Only farts expelled with a specific intent to terrorize are currently forbidden under existing law. This administration is committed to law. We refuse to indulge speculation. We also refuse to yield to public hysteria surrounding the incident. Until we have reliable evidence, we cannot commit to prosecuting this suspect as a terrorist. For the moment, he is simply a 'person of interest' who farted on Seventh Avenue on May 17, 2010. We understand that our approach may disappoint those who assume all Muslim farts to be terror farts. But respect for the rule of law--and for basic fairness in the administration of justice--dictates that we assemble all the facts before we conclude that digestive terror occurred in New York today."

Rush Limbaugh denounced Holder's statement as "rubbish:" "When a Muslim farts, it's terror. I don't give a shit what the law says."

New York's Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg emphasized that Muslim farting is not good for the city economy. "The thing that upsets me most is that this fart closed down Seventh Avenue. There are a lot of really big stores and businesses on Seventh Avenue, including Ernst & Young and roughly 75 Starbucks Coffee houses. This fart caused people to miss work and lose out on pay. It also caused people to refrain from shopping and going to Starbucks. That is not good for New York. So whether or not we conclude that this Muslim emitted a terror fart, he has already terrorized New York's economy. And I don't like it when corporations can't do business."

At present, investigators are searching high and low for the man who allegedly farted near Ms. Summers this morning. Officials expect to reopen Seventh Avenue sometime this afternoon, depending on the FBI's determination that residual Muslim fart fumes have sufficiently dissipated to permit vehicular and pedestrian traffic.

President Obama issued the following statement after receiving word about the incident: "Our hearts go out to the families and to those affected. We will not tolerate digestive terror and we will not shirk our responsibilities. We are a resilient people. No matter how thick the fart cloud that hangs over us, we will persevere."

DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL : A BAD ARGUMENT, AND AN EMBARRASSING DOUBLE STANDARD

OESTERHOUDT STRIKES

Last week, former Supreme Allied Commander (Atlantic) General John Sheehan testified before a Senate subcommittee investigating whether it was prudent to repeal the American military's ban on openly gay soldiers. General Sheehan argued that the military should not alter its policy. He said that openly gay soldiers reduce morale, combat effectiveness and unit cohesion.

To support his assertion, General Sheehan referenced an incident in which the Dutch army failed to defend a Bosnian town against Serbian aggression during Yugoslavia's Civil War in 1995. Although he could not directly attribute the Dutch army's failure to individual gay soldiers, General Sheehan explicitly said that Holland's "socialized" and "permissive" attitude toward homosexuality in the military made its armed forces "ill-equipped" to fight battles.

Dutch officials reacted with surprise to General Sheehan's remarks. They found it bizarre that anyone could link military ineffectiveness to a policy permitting openly gay men and women to serve in the military.

I find General Sheehan's argument bizarre, too. Moreover, I also find it foolish, hypocritical and ignorant. I have long criticized the U.S. military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy as reflecting a fundamental double standard. It not only assumes that abstract homosexuality makes a person a bad soldier. It also assumes that there are no gay people in the U.S. military. Anecdotal evidence suggests that homosexuality is rife in the armed forces. It's just that no one talks about it. And yet General Sheehan does not suggest that the U.S. military is "ineffective," even though it certainly has gay people in it. Policies do not change the way people are.

But these are not the only flaws in "don't ask, don't tell." Put simply, the entire policy functions on logically untenable premises. First, the policy purports to "strengthen morale, combat effectiveness and unit cohesion" by eliminating openly gay people from service in the ranks. The argument is that openly gay men might form emotional relationships with one another that could jeopardize a particular "mission." Morale and combat effectiveness, in turn, depend on the chain of command. Morale and combat effectiveness require unswerving loyalty to the chain of command. And if men develop romantic connections to one another, then perhaps they will be loyal to one another, not the chain of command. Thus, it is proper to exclude openly gay men from military service: Gay relationships threaten the chain of command because romantic connections switch loyalties from the mission to individual men.

But what about women? The "don't ask, don't tell" policy assumes that romantic connections are only dangerous to the "mission" when they exist between two men. Yet the military allows straight women to serve alongside straight men. Human beings will develop romantic connections with anyone to whom they feel attracted, no matter the gender. Straight men fall in love with straight women just as deeply as gay men fall in love with each other. In that light, the fact that the U.S. military permits straight women to serve with straight men poses the same theoretical danger to morale as allowing openly gay men to serve. Straight people develop romantic connections just like gay people. And according to the army's rationale for "don't ask, don't tell," romantic connections are "bad" because they divide loyalties. Apparently, however, love affairs between men and women in the army do not divide loyalties as strongly as love affairs between men.

This is just ignorant: If the problem is potential romantic connections between soldiers, then neither straight women nor gay men should be allowed to serve in the military. There is no qualitative difference between romantic connections among gay people versus straight people. According to the army's logic, such connections are equally "dangerous to morale" and "unit cohesion." The fact that the U.S. military presumes that gay relationships are somehow "more dangerous to morale" is logically untenable.

I can see no good reason to keep gays from the U.S. military beyond naked prejudice. The only thing that seems to support "don't ask, don't tell" is a historical animus directed from straight men against gay men. Straight men feel "weird" when they know they are sitting next to a gay man, so the policy aims to eliminate that awkwardness. Yet there is no principled reason for this. It functions on the bare assumption that "gay people are different" and therefore must be excluded. To quote Justice Stephen Breyer's observation from the oral argument in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 538 (2003)(the case striking down State gay sodomy laws), "don't ask, don't tell" invokes this reasoning: "I do not like thee, Doctor Fell; the reason why I cannot tell." Straight people in the army just plain don't like being around gay people. That's the only reason for the policy.

I also question the military's assumption that gay relationships could somehow damage unit effectiveness. Leaving to one side the consideration that thousands of gay people already serve in the military without saying so, divided loyalties dominate military service. Men (and women, too) form extraordinary bonds with one another under the stress of combat. Their camaraderie deepens from the moment they enter training to the toughest moments in battle. I have written that the military is inherently socialistic because it cares about its own people; and soldiers are also socialistic because they are all willing to die for their brothers. In fact, they are all willing to die helping to save their brothers, even if their actions "endanger the mission." Put simply, soldiers will always divide their loyalties because they care for each other, romance or not. Allowing openly gay people to serve in the army will not change all soldiers' natural commitments to each other.

Finally, General Sheehan implied that the mere presence of gay people in the Dutch army made it a poor fighting force. This is ridiculous. There is simply no historical correlation between homosexuality and military ineffectiveness. Alexander the Great, Peter the Great and Frederick the Great were all allegedly gay, yet they went down in history as model soldiers. To suggest that an aesthetic sexual taste for members of one's own sex somehow renders a person "effeminate, weak, womanly and unsoldierlike" is simply rank stereotyping. Although history has placed restrictions on the manner in which gay people express their sexuality, it is indisputable that they have served with distinction as soldiers, officers and even conquerors. In that light, General Sheehan's argument that "the presence of gay people" in the Dutch army made it "weak" ignores history.

In conclusion, there is no logical or historical reason to continue the U.S. military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. It makes pernicious assumptions about the relationship between sexuality and military competence. And it also functions on a double standard because another policy permits straight women to serve alongside straight men. The policy identifies "romantic connections between soldiers" as a reason to exclude openly gay men. Yet it allows straight women to potentially compromise straight men with "romantic connections:" "Romantic connections" are only dangerous among gay men, not straight men. The U.S. military offers no justification for the differential treatment. In that light, it is logically untenable. It simply reflects gross and outdated adolescent stereotypes. Romance is romance; it poses the same "dangers" whether it exists between boys and boys or boys and girls.

BIAS AND PREJUDICE IN THE PRESS : NO STORY IS EVER SIMPLE

AN ESSAY

I read the New York Post for two main reasons. First and foremost, it makes me laugh. The headlines are just flat-out funny. Its staff writes in a nasty, even satirical style to mock celebrities and other visible, well-off folks (invisible tycoons are different story because they are not visible). It also covers local New York City stories quite well. In all these ways, the Post is "populist:" It provides a laugh while dispensing relatively accurate local news.

Still, I read the Post for a second reason: To understand my intellectual opponents. While the Post's generic local coverage is populist and funny, its editorial spirit is neither populist nor funny. In fact, it is terrifyingly biased. That's not to say that the Post is any more biased than another newspaper. Every newspaper has a distinct perspective. But the Post's perspective is extremely right-wing. Bill O'Reilly writes columns in the Opinion section. 'Nuff said.

I like getting my news from as many sources as possible. I understand that human sense does not permit me to directly perceive too much in the world. So I turn to second-hand reporting to fill in the gaps. And because second-hand reporting necessarily reflects the bias of those who perceive things, I expect bias when I read newspapers.

For me, reading the news is as much about learning competing arguments as it is about learning "facts." As a philosophical matter, I have difficulty even understanding what a "fact" is, especially when I have no first-hand knowledge about the matter in issue. News reporting purports to relay "just facts." But in reality, its "facts" reflect interpretation and bias as much as any objective "truth." In that light, I suspect every fact I read in a newspaper. The only things I can confidently learn are the newspaper's biases and arguments.

And what luscious biases I find in the Post. To be fair, all American newspapers espouse a particularly virulent bias against Islam. But the Post takes shortsighted prejudice to a fantastic extreme. For almost a decade now, Americans have wondered why "Muslim extremists" attacked the United States on 9/11. I have always known why: Because Western commercial values--which treasure earthly existence over all things--clash fundamentally with Muslim teachings--which eschew earthly success for spiritual success. The fact that Western powers have long encroached on Muslim territory for commercial gain brings this tension in values to confrontation. In essence, the struggle between the West and Islam is a struggle between competing views of human existence: One grossly secular; the other grossly religious. Both are anathema to one another. Misunderstanding and acrimony are inevitable.

But you won't find that analysis in any American newspaper. Rather, you'll find self-righteous odes to the American way over the Muslim way. It's a colossal exercise in "us vs. them." No newspaper makes an effort to see the debate from the Muslim perspective. Heavens no; that would be treasonous. Instead, American newspapers--especially the Post--fan resentment against the "mortal Muslim enemy" by exulting American values over Muslim ones. In the process, they cast difficult questions in a simplistic light, using prejudice and stereotypes distort reality.

Consider two recent Post articles that illustrate these tactics at work. In the first, the Post reports about a Muslim man who fled the FBI, leading agents on a 90 MPH chase through Queens that culminated in a crash and foot chase on the Bronx-Whitestone Bridge. See N.Y. Post, Bridge 'Terror' Thug's Allah Cry, Jan. 9, 2010 at 5. The article says that the man--Adis Medunjanin--was a "high school acquaintance" of Najibullah Zazi, the New York student arrested last year for hoarding drugstore hydrogen peroxide in an alleged effort to build a bomb. Id. The FBI staked out his home for months. Finally, Medunjanin just left the house and ran. According to the report, he "praised Allah" in Arabic shortly before striking a car on the bridge. The report also claims he said: "We love death more than you love life!" in Arabic. Id. Finally, it says that authorities first merely charged him with leaving the scene of an accident. Later, they added terror-related charges. Id.

It is not clear how anyone heard these statements. The article does not say how FBI agents could hear what Medunjanin was saying in the instant before he crashed his car. It is also not clear under what circumstances he said "we love death more than you love life."

What is the net effect here? In short, the report leads the uncritical reader to assume that Medunjanin is a terrorist because he "said things in Arabic" and because he praised Allah. These are gross stereotypes. After all, what does the neutral evidence show here? It shows that Medunjanin was a high school acquaintance of a terror suspect six years ago. There is no evidence that they interacted with each other since that time. The FBI surveilled Medunjanin for months. Presumably, they also wiretapped him. The article does not divulge what the FBI may have heard in those wiretaps. All we know is that Medunjanin fled and crashed his car after saying something in Arabic about Allah, life and death. Those details suffice to brand him a terrorist.

That is bias at its worst.

What about presuming people innocent in the United States? What about fairness? How can Medunjanin escape the stigma that will now follow him? I find all these things unfortunate. After all, we are talking about a criminal prosecution for terrorism. That carries severe penalties. Yet the Post here gave Medunjanin an unfair trial before he was even arraigned. In so doing, it revealed the pernicious American bias that pervades our media: It made him a terrorist because he spoke Arabic, had a Muslim name, mentioned Allah and knew a suspected terrorist six years ago.

But is this the only conclusion to draw from the evidence? Perhaps Medunjanin simply "lost it" after being surveilled without reason for so long. And how do we know what he said in the car before he crashed? What if he said something in English, rather than Arabic? Would that have made a difference? What if he had said: "Oh shit, I'm about to crash" in Arabic? Would that still make him a terrorist? Who knows. All I know is that no one ever reports on these difficult questions in the American press--and especially not the Post.

In the second article, the Post again espouses its virulent prejudice toward Muslims. See N.Y. Post, How Did 'Undy Bomber' Get a Visa? Jan. 9, 2010 at p. 19. Columnist Michelle Malkin takes the opportunity to both generalize about Muslims and castigate the Obama administration for not spotting Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab before his failed bomb attack on Christmas Day.

Malkin argues that U.S. consular officials should never issue "coveted entrance pass[es]" to "globe-trotting, Nigerian-born nomad[s]" who "buy tickets in cash" without "checking in much baggage." Id. Later, she adds that "unmarried, rootless Muslim male nomads" should never receive U.S. visas, either.

Leaving the practical problems associated with Malkin's consular formula to one side, I find it appalling that she recommends a Federal policy based on invidious religious and ethnic stereotypes. After all, Malkin says that "Muslim male nomads" should not be allowed into the United States. Neither should "Nigerian-born" nomads, or "rootless" people, or "globe-trotters," or "unmarried people" or "people who fly with little baggage." These are not workable standards. And they are certainly not standards to which the United States should subscribe, a country that has always prided itself on diversity and equality. It would be awkward at best for the U.S. State Department to advertise America's openness to the world by saying: "Come one, come all…unless you're Muslim, a nomad, unmarried or Nigerian-born."

Hell, I'm unmarried, I fly with little baggage and I sometimes globe-trot to Europe. I shouldn't get a visa, either. Imagine if I was Nigerian: I'd really be in trouble.

In short, Malkin wants prejudice on a governmental scale. Yet her anti-Muslim views find strong support in the Post. Although Malkin's position is extreme, her basic bias against Muslims finds constant expression throughout the American press. In that light, I wonder why the Arab world casts a suspicious eye on America? Could it be that its media routinely mocks them and judges them as terrorists before the fact? I wonder.

We will not solve the tensions between the Muslim world and the West until we stop viewing Muslims as one-dimensional villains. The problems between the Muslim world and the West are understandable. We must merely examine the sharp contrast between the two value systems to see why problems persist. Unfortunately, newspapers do not like talking about value systems. Newspapers do not analyze values; they simply voice them. But the confrontation between the West and the Muslim world will continue until the West tries to understand why its values contrast so strongly with Muslim values.

Sadly, I do not think that's going to happen any time soon. Stubborn self-righteousness inheres in Western thought. And I think the West would rather fight a permanent war against a religion-based civilization than deign to comprehend it.

BIRTHRATES AND HOMOSEXUALITY : A CLASSICAL PERSPECTIVE AND A WORD ON TRADITION-BASED ARGUMENTS

AN ESSAY

Over the last few weeks, I have been delving deeper into Aristotle's Politics. In a previous essay, I wrote that I had begun to read Aristotle with more forgiveness. Now, I can confidently say that some of his ideas actually "work" for me. I no longer cast a suspicious eye on everything he writes. Rather, I closely evaluate his arguments to parse points that make sense to me.

In the past, I criticized Aristotle because he was too metaphysical. He presumed that everything on earth has an identifiable "purpose," and that absolute "truth" was obtainable by analyzing various interactions between "purposes." I first read Aristotle when I was college. At the time, I was making discoveries about my own sexuality. Aristotle's metaphysics appeared to argue against "non-procreative" sexuality because "male sexual organs" and "female sexual organs" have absolute, reproductive "purposes." Accordingly, using sexual organs for purposes beyond procreation amounted to "misuse." It is not surprising that the medieval Church and the modern Catholic Church closely read Aristotle. They used this very argument to demonize all sexuality-- with special vehemence reserved for homosexuality.

But a much different picture emerged when I sat down to read Aristotle again. Rather than condemning homosexuality as an abomination--as I always assumed he did, without ever reading as much--he espoused a much less judgmental attitude. To the contrary, he seemed to echo my own belief that homosexuality exists in nature, and that it makes little sense to condemn it. See, e.g., http://reasoncommercejustice.blogspot.com/2009/01/oesterhoudt-strikes.html.

In analyzing the Spartan Constitution, for example, Aristotle reasons as a biologist, observing: "[C]ertainly all people seem compulsively attracted by sexual relations, either with males or females." The Politics, Book II, Ch. ix ¶ 1269b23. Earlier in the same paragraph, he actually praises "societies in which male homosexuality is openly esteemed," because male-centered societies--unlike Sparta--tend to keep avaricious women in check. Id. Aristotle believed that males "naturally" ruled females; thus, it was more an abomination to tolerate females "ruling" men than to allow males to have sex with each other. But in the final analysis, Aristotle suggests that sexuality is natural, no matter whether it involves males or females. Human beings are simply "compulsively attracted" by sexual relations. And that "compulsion" does not draw a bright gender line.

Aristotle does not simply conclude that homosexuality is natural. He even observes that homosexuality performs an essential State function by restraining birthrates. In analyzing the Cretan Constitution, he notes that the lawgiver actually prescribed "sexual relations between males" in order to "keep[] down the birthrate." The Politics, Book II, Ch. x ¶ 1272a12. He also notes that the lawgiver strictly separated males and females in order to prevent unnecessary pregnancies. Id. Put another way, the Cretan lawgiver understood that all human beings are "compulsively attracted by sexual relations" with each other, so he allowed both men and women to find sexual outlets in a manner that would not bankrupt the Kingdom by overpopulation.

I found this fascinating for several reasons. First, I never thought that a classical philosopher--let alone Aristotle--would argue that homosexuality could actually be exploited to fulfill a beneficial State objective. I always thought that Western governments took a moral stance against homosexuality. Apparently that is not true. In the Politics, Aristotle frankly discusses homosexuality as both a natural phenomenon and worthwhile social policy. Morality does not even enter the analysis.

Second, I found it interesting that Aristotle repeatedly speaks out against birthrates. Although he only mentions homosexuality in connection with birthrates in the Cretan example, he mentions low birthrates many times throughout the Politics. He equates high birthrates with poverty, discord and ruin. At the same time, he praises States that carefully control their populations. This makes sense given Aristotle's belief that States should strive to cultivate "good" people, not just "many" people.

Aristotle's views on homosexuality and birthrates fundamentally differ from modern views on the same subjects. For centuries, Western society has learned to revile homosexuality in all its manifestations. Church dogma called homosexuality a "sin;" it warned homosexuals that they would go to hell if they "practiced" it. The law labeled it a "crime;" it warned homosexuals that they would be executed or imprisoned for it. Even the scientific community diagnosed it as a "disease;" psychiatrists did not remove it from the book of "mental illnesses" until about 1970.

Although extreme institutional intolerance toward homosexuality has slowly weakened over time, there remains a virulent moral strain against homosexuality in Western societies. It is still "not normal." It is still somehow illegitimate and "disgusting." Put another way, it may not be "illegal" anymore; but it is still "immoral." Despite some modest legal advances in recent years (i.e., it is no longer constitutionally permissible to jail gay men for having sex), these attitudes force homosexuals to live on the fringes of society. They risk everything by living truthfully. They face a difficult decision whether to tell others about their own sexuality, a decision that no other people need to worry about in society. Or they can simply to choose to live in secret.

These are hardly appetizing decisions to make in life.

Against this background, it is almost inconceivable that a respected scholar would suggest that homosexuality is "natural," let alone that it could serve a "beneficial social purpose." If anything, attitudes toward homosexuality in Western civilization reveal little more than contempt. Until the late 19th Century, "sodomites" hanged in Great Britain. That is a far, far cry from Aristotle's argument that homosexuality actually could provide a benefit to society through lower birthrates.

But Western societies traditionally do not like low birthrates, either. That is why Aristotle's views on low birthrates seem so fascinating today. Historically, Western societies have done their best to encourage high birthrates. They have generally wanted to increase their populations. This coincided with Church dogma that men and women should "honor God" by "blessing Him" with as many offspring as possible. Just as the Church preached against homosexuality, so too did it praise prolific childbearing.

Modern America is no exception to these attitudes. For the most part, the United States encourages procreation among its citizens. Families with many children earn social praise, even congratulations. By the same token, modern America does not fully tolerate homosexuality. Homosexuals, after all, do not procreate. Is there a conceptual link between historical hatred for homosexuals and their inability to contribute to the birthrate?

Is there a moral link? After all, Western history shows that high birthrates bespeak "moral" living, while homosexuality bespeaks "immorality" because it does not contribute to the birthrate. In this sense, there is an inverse relationship between homosexuality and birthrates in modern society: The capacity for high birthrates is moral and good, while homosexuality is immoral and bad because it does not lead to high birthrates.

These views have reigned in the West for centuries. But a quick read through Aristotle reveals that it has not always been so. If a philosopher as renowned as Aristotle suggested that homosexuality is natural and that low birthrates are good, what does that say about "traditional" Western views on these subjects? After all, those who demonize homosexuality as an immoral abomination prize arguments based in "tradition." They say that "tradition" provides a reason to hate homosexuality because "our society has always reviled homosexuality."

But what if "tradition" is wrong? Or at least conveniently tailored to meet ideological ends? When it comes to homosexuality, Aristotle provides a historical example that not everyone in the "Western tradition" thought homosexuality was an abomination. Put simply, Aristotle's divergence from the so-called "tradition against homosexuality" shows that "tradition" arguments can be very misleading. After all, it is easy to just ignore inconvenient voices in a historical tradition, then call the tailored version "tradition."

I do not think that "tradition" categorically supports an argument that homosexuality is necessarily "immoral," or that high birthrates are necessarily "good." We simply must reference Aristotle to wreck any argument that "tradition" on these subjects has been unanimous. It hasn't.

And to those who think arguments based in tradition somehow carry special weight, I offer another quote from Aristotle to temper reliance on tailored history: "Generally, of course, it is the good, and not simply the traditional, that is aimed at." The Politics, Book II, Ch. viii ¶1269a3.

Put another way, it is no answer to a problem to say: "That's the way we've always done it." Solving problems takes independent thought, not blind imitation or historical charades.

UNDERPANTS ARE DANGEROUS AND MUST BE SEARCHED, NO MATTER THE COST

A CRITICAL MESSAGE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

By : Mr. B. Kyle Hosenfeld, Ph.D., Acting Commissioner for Airport Security, Department of Homeland Security (appointed by President George W. Bush, 2005-present); Former Chief Financial Advisor, Traxxx Garment Manufacturing Company, Inc., Toledo, Ohio (1990-2005); Lingerie Expert (since childhood); Ladies Hosiery Hobbyist (1976-present).

Terror does not take a Holiday. Terror does not distinguish between the old year and the new year. For terrorists, every day is another opportunity to kill Americans and disrupt American business. Here at the Department of Homeland Security, we know that.

That is why we never rest. We are committed to protecting the American people from Muslim fanatics, as well as any other fanatics who attempt to depress the stock market through violence. This holiday season, we saw that terrorists remain determined to strike America. Almost a decade after 9/11, a Nigerian Muslim named Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tried to blow himself up on a packed airliner above Detroit. To accomplish his dastardly plan, he packed explosives into his underwear. Thankfully, they did not detonate; he succeeded only in setting his own pants on fire. The New York Post dubbed him "The Crotch Bomber." The Daily News called him "Fruit of the Loon."

We concur. But despite Abudulmutallab's failure, we understand that the American public remains concerned about terror. For that reason, we have instituted new airport security measures to assuage anxieties concerning hosiery-borne weapons of mass destruction. We believe that we can stop terror attacks before they happen. And that means searching every piece of underwear in the airports--and that means all of it, right down to the buttocks.

Searching underwear is the only way to verify whether an airline passenger is really a terrorist. In the past, we have seen that various garments can carry weapons. Learning from the past, we here at the Department instituted a new airport security principle: Target the offending garment. When Richard Reid tried to detonate a bomb in his shoe in 2001, we decided that all shoes are dangerous and must be searched. In the years since, Americans learned that they had to take off their shoes before boarding an airplane.

We should apply the same rule in this case. Here, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tried to detonate an explosive in his underwear. The "offending garment," then, is underwear. Just as we required all Americans to take off their shoes at airports because Richard Reid transformed shoes into an "offending garment" in 2001, so too must we require Americans to take off their underwear today. It is the only way to ensure maximum safety for all.

We do not believe that Americans will find it inconvenient to remove their underwear prior to boarding aircraft. In 2001, Americans understood that Richard Reid nearly blew up a plane with a shoe-bomb, so they willingly suffered some inconvenience by removing their own shoes in the years that followed. In 2010, Americans understand that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab nearly blew up a plane with an underwear-bomb, so they will not mind suffering some inconvenience by removing their underwear, too. When safety is at stake, Americans do their part. Underwear is no different than a shoe. When removing a garment is necessary to protect America from Islamic terror, we are confident that Americans will gladly--and publicly--take everything off.

We recognize that civil liberties advocates will object to our new underwear search protocol as excessive. They will say that requiring all Americans to remove their underwear will encroach upon their dignity. They will say that it will invade their privacy. They will even say that it will embarrass children and women, especially overweight ones.

We disagree with these contentions. For one, we point out that privacy must yield to national security concerns. We all like privacy. But when it comes to preventing terror, we all must be prepared to bare all for safety. If we are a little embarrassed about our bodies, we must learn to overcome our shyness, whip off our underwear and put it on the automated x-ray conveyor belt. Second, the United States Constitution does not guarantee "dignity." Even if stripping naked in public were somehow "undignified," we reject the assertion that an official, Federally-mandated underwear search violates "dignity." If nudity occurs pursuant to law, it is not undignified. More to the point, we are certain that every American would rather sacrifice their dignity by removing their underwear in front of leering, apathetic Transportation Safety Agents than be blown up in midair. Viewed in that light, we see absolutely no merit to the claim that mandatory underwear searches violate "privacy" or "dignity."

Mandatory underwear searches will do more than merely stop terror. They will also yield beneficial secondary effects. For example, many drug traffickers elude detection by packing narcotics in their underpants. By requiring everyone to remove their underwear, we would eliminate that subterfuge for good. Furthermore, mandatory underwear removal will enable Federal agents to identify dangerous, ugly, unpleasant and malodorous genitalia. Under applicable Federal statutes, such genitalia are "weapons of mass destruction" that subject the possessor to felony terrorism charges. Until now, it has been difficult to locate dangerous genitalia because they are generally camouflaged under trousers, skirts, underpants and stockings. But thanks to the new underwear removal procedures, we will be able to effectively enforce the law against recalcitrant genital terrorists.

In sum, we here at the Department are committed to protecting Americans, no matter the cost. We believe it is logical, consistent, effective and reasonable to require all airport travelers to remove their underwear prior to boarding any flight originating on American soil. Contrary to all objections, this is not a drastic step. It is no different than the regulation requiring Americans to remove their shoes. By orienting airport security scrutiny around the "offending garment" principle, we achieve theoretical and logical consistency for our enforcement efforts. Not only that, we also increase safety, deter terror and reduce genitalia-related crime in interstate commerce. We achieve all these salutary goals merely by requiring Americans to take off their underwear at security checkpoints. Balancing the burdens against the benefits in this case, we must conclude that we have found a winning procedure.

In a final step, we have also determined that all travelers with the word "Abdul" anywhere in their names must be forbidden from air travel. That includes American Idol judge and pop singer Paula Abdul, as well as avowed terrorists such as Abdul Sheikh Mohammed. Although liberal activists and Middle Eastern scholars will doubtlessly claim that this measure sweeps too broadly, we respond that we have conclusive evidence that people with the name "Abdul" stand a much higher chance to commit terror than people named Swanson, Harrison or Clark. When it comes to security, we must consider probabilities. And in this case, we are simply playing the numbers: Abduls are more dangerous than Clarks.

It is safe to fly in America. Do not let terrorists like Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab discourage you from taking a trip. Despite his nefarious attempt to kill Americans with explosive underwear, we have emerged from this crisis safer than ever before. We have learned that both shoes and underwear are mortally dangerous. To that extent, we have tailored our security protocols to ensure that neither shoe nor slip poses a threat to law-abiding Americans. From this day forward, we promise to search every last undergarment that passes through any airport in the United States.

Terrorists beware: We will search your underwear.

And behold America's resolve: We are not afraid to take off all our clothes, even for a Podunk flight from Tuscaloosa to Memphis. Even if we weigh 500 pounds, we are unafraid. We will take it all off.

When in doubt, just remember our new slogan:

Because security begins with safe underwear®.

TERROR TRIALS IN NEW YORK : DO WE REALLY CARE ABOUT FAIRNESS?

AN ESSAY

On Friday, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that it would try several key al-Qaeda suspects for their alleged role in the 9/11 attacks. That was big news; under President Bush's direction, the Justice Department deferred exclusively to the military for handling so-called "enemy combatants" captured in the "War on Terror." Unlike President Bush, Obama decided to heed the United States Constitution and prosecute these suspects before U.S. civilian courts. After all, these detainees are not "soldiers captured in War" under the Geneva Convention, because al-Qaeda did not sign the treaty. Yet American authorities hold them on American territory for breaking American laws. In such circumstances, there is only one lawful alternative: Try them in domestic courts.

This was a significant step. But the Justice Department announced something even more significant: It would try the suspects in New York.

From a legal perspective, it makes little difference where the sovereign chooses to try a criminal defendant for violating the law. Here, the United States seeks to convict terrorists for plotting to attack the World Trade Center and ultimately destroy it. As long as the sovereign holds the defendant in his realm, he can prosecute him under the ancient principle of "personal jurisdiction over the body." If you are present in a country and you commit a crime there, you can be prosecuted for it in that country--it is very simple.

It also makes sense to try 9/11 conspirators in New York from a practical perspective. In criminal trials, venue is proper when it is easy for witnesses to get to the courthouse. Certain districts have a greater interest in trying a case than others, especially when all the "sources of proof" lie in those districts. Venue is also proper when the crime has a direct connection to the locale. Even the United States Constitution says: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed." U.S. Const. Amd. VI. This makes common sense as well as constitutional sense. It is practical--and somehow just--to try cases in the places where the crimes happened. Every jurisdiction has a public interest in punishing wrongdoing in its own borders.

Yet there are times in which it does not make sense to try cases in the most logical places. New York seems the most fitting place to try those accused of destroying the World Trade Center. All the witnesses are there, and obviously New York has a burning local interest in punishing those who caused such havoc in its borders.

But these practical advantages spawn larger concerns. After all, the Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants "a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury." U.S. Const. Amd. VI. It is also guarantees that "no State shall deny any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Id. at Amd. IV, s. 1 The Supreme Court has held repeatedly that a State deprives "a person" of "due process of law" if it does not afford him a "fair trial." For obvious reasons, 9/11 conspirators may not get a "fair trial" by an "impartial jury" in New York. That is why it might not make sense to hold the trial there.

How can any New York jury be impartial about 9/11? Daily newspapers routinely run stories about "dangerous Muslims." Bitter memory about 9/11 runs deep. Many people knew individuals who died in the attacks, or they know their families. 9/11 is a focal point for national anger; and it burns hottest in New York.

These are the people who will sit in the "New York jury pool" when the conspirators step into court in New York. Can they be impartial? Can they render a judgment free from passion, excitement, resentment, anger or emotion? Trials are fair when they are based on evidence admitted under law in open court. They are not fair when they are based on emotional reaction, prejudice or bias.

And how can New Yorkers insulate themselves from pervasive press coverage about the trial? As soon as the Justice Department announced that it would try the suspects in New York, the New York Post published a blaring headline: "NOW DIE! 9/11 Fiends Coming Back to New York for Trial--Next Stop Hell."

That headline reminded me about the famous Supreme Court case about trial publicity and Due Process: Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966). Sheppard held that every criminal defendant has a right to a "fair trial free from massive, pervasive and prejudicial news coverage" that is "reasonably likely" to lead the jury to find against him based on inadmissible evidence and emotion. The case also concluded that the trial judge has a duty to control press access to the trial, and to monitor every juryman's out-of-court attention to news comment about the case. After all, according to the Court, the State provides trials in order to "adjudicate controversies, both civil and criminal, in the calmness and solemnity of the courtroom according to legal procedures." Id. at 350, 351, quoting Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559, 583 (1965). Those "legal procedures" include the requirement that the jury base its conclusions on evidence admitted in court, not on outside sources or emotion. Id. Prejudicial and pervasive press coverage undermines these goals when it poisons an entire population against a criminal defendant. And it undermines another key goal in our justice system: Fairness.

Many people discount fairness in legal questions. Law professors used to scoff at me when I suggested that certain results in cases were "unfair" or that legal forms resulted in "unfairness." After all, the law attempts to introduce scientific certainty into the maelstrom of human existence. It attempts to govern the ungovernable. In many ways, humans are ungovernable because nothing can control their emotions. Emotions are not reasonable; they are intuitive. Sometimes they flow from perceptible evidence. At times they do not. Legal formalism fails when it refuses to accept just how important emotion and intuition are to the human mind. Like emotion, it is difficult to quantify fairness. We know it when we feel it. We know when a process is unfair, even if we cannot articulate why. Fairness is important to the law, even if it draws ridicule from law professors. And sometimes even the law recognizes how important it is. In more hopeful moments, even the Supreme Court sees that no legal rule can survive unless it comports with intuitive fairness: "[O]ur system of law has endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness." Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 353 (1966), quoting In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955).

I doubt whether the 9/11 suspects will receive a "fair trial" anywhere in the United States. But I am certain they will not receive a fair trial in New York. The fact that the New York Post blared a headline telling the suspects (who are not convicted) to "Go Die" and mentioned "hell" indicates how New Yorkers feel about the case. True, not everyone reads the Post. But it voices a very popular sentiment, and it is almost impossible to avoid seeing such headlines each day. And these are the people who will receive jury duty summonses. Can we expect them to be "unbiased, calm and serene" as they consider "only evidence produced in court" in this case? I think not.

All this begs a question: Why even bother holding a trial at all for these suspects? In theory, the State and the individual should be equally matched at trial. The State attempts to divine the "truth" about the individual's "criminal act," while the individual--whom our system presumes innocent--is free to cast doubt on all the State's claims. As long as he produces a reasonable doubt about his guilt, he must go free.

But this is all theory. Few Americans presume everyday criminal suspects innocent, let alone the 9/11 conspirators. These men have been demonized in the press for over eight years. They have been held in orange jumpsuits at Guantanamo Bay. We have all seen the pictures. Can any American truly presume them innocent? Can any American reflect on them without bias or prejudice? Yet we now expect Americans--in New York, no less--to put aside all their emotions about 9/11, as well as all the negative publicity they have heard about it for the past eight years. We now expect that they will calmly and serenely reflect solely on evidence produced in court. We expect them to drop all their emotions, preconceptions and prejudices. We expect them to magically forget all the horrible things they have been told in the press since 2001. And we even expect them to respond to a judge's command to "exclude any information I deem inadmissible," including confessions induced by torture.

If our jury actually acts in the way the law expects, the 9/11 suspects will get the "fair trial" to which the Constitution entitles them. But people do not simply shut off their bias or emotion. Nor can they erase a fact from their memory simply because a judge says: "Disregard that fact, please." In short, national hysteria surrounding 9/11 for the last decade has so inflamed the American public that there is no way the 9/11 conspirators will get anything approaching a fair trial.

In this case, emotion, prejudice and a rabid press have already made the decision.

As guilty as the conspirators may be, we should step back and ask ourselves how "fair" our process truly is. And while we're at it, perhaps we should wonder whether we even want "fairness" for "monsters."

But if we sacrifice fairness in one case, what happens in the next one?

TAKING ON AYN RAND AND A WORD ON MY FOCUS THESE DAYS

A REFLECTION

Yesterday I bought Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead. For years, I've debated whether to read Rand's books. I always decided against it because I yielded to the general left-wing prejudice that Rand is a "capitalist muse" and "free market apologist." In submitting to that prejudice, I thought that because I lean toward socialism, I would inevitably feel revulsion if I read her works.

But I do not want to be intellectually prejudiced. I have always enjoyed reading authors whose ideas I detest, notably Adam Smith and St. Peter. I also really enjoy reading judicial opinions by arch-conservatives whose utter lack of sympathy provides me with prime material for satire. In short, I like understanding how my ideological opponents think. I disserve myself when I simply avoid their works. It is much better when I take the time to read them, and then ruthlessly criticize them. In most cases, my criticism takes satirical form. In some cases, however, I respond with text-based essays. In the process, I see my own values more clearly. To quote an old Chinese general (probably apocryphal): "If you know your enemy and you know yourself, you cannot lose." That explains my attitude toward reading everything, even the stuff university liberals urge me to avoid.

Ayn Rand has obviously had immense philosophical influence in America. I see people reading her books all over the place, even in the New York subway. Generally, they are well-groomed looking people (always white; usually women) with small bags who look like they are going to work or coming from work. I want to understand why her ideas have won so much traction over the years. I hear that she sings odes to the individual. In that sense, I share her views. But I also hear that she sings her odes in the key of "self-interest" and "free market economics." Here I part company with Ms. Rand. Still, I will withhold calling her books "scandalous drivel," "the most abysmal trash ever printed," "repugnant, odorous nonsense," or "sheer right-wing balderdash" until I have taken the time to read them and grasp their arguments. Contrary to most American judges' approach to judicial work, I will actually give Ms. Rand her day in Court before hanging her.

So far I have read the first two pages. I am not impressed with the style. "Wet with sunrays?" "Granite explosion?" "A body of long straight lines and angles, each curve broken into planes?" This sounds like bad high school poetry, not cogent economic analysis. But I am too hasty... perhaps in the next 600 pages I will uncover some comprehensible passages.

I also noticed that Ms. Rand published The Fountainhead in 1943. This was the height of FDR's New Deal. Was she angry about governmental intrusions into "private economic autonomy?" If she was, then her position mirrors modern-day conservative objections to increased governmental encroachments into private enterprise. Just as FDR revolutionized government's role in everyday American life during the 1930s and 1940, so too is Obama "threatening" increased government involvement in American life. I think this makes reading Rand a worthwhile enterprise; there is a historical parallel at work.

Having said all this, I am sure you have noticed that I have not written a satire in a while. In less fractious times, I generally alternate between essays and satires each day. But in recent weeks, my life has been fractious at best. I am happy to have mustered the strength and mental intensity to write anything at all. My satirical ideas arise when I feel relatively carefree and confident about the future. I have not been feeling that way lately. To the contrary, I feel as if my mind is in a vice grip. I cannot really see past tomorrow or the next day. I live from hour to hour. Things have improved since last week, but I am not healed yet. Still, I am glad that I have the mental clarity to write a few essays, even if they are not as nuanced or expansive as usual.

I can assure you that more satire will land on these pages. It's just going to take a while until I can really laugh hard again. In the meantime, thanks for reading what I manage to throw down.