Editorial: Prep week just an excuse for the lazy

Published: Thursday, December 11, 2003

There has been a lot of hoopla regarding the proposal of a Preparatory Week amendment that would bar teachers from introducing new material during the week before finals. This initiative has sparked interest at the University because ASUNM officials claim the student body will use an extra week of study time wisely and responsibly. Consequently, ASUNM senators have created a committee to spearhead this very cause.

Now that the pressure of final exams is impending, Prep Week looks extraordinarily appealing. But, as with any suggested alteration to campus policy, the pros must be weighed objectively against the cons.

Finals are certainly a stressful time loathed by all, but that is the nature of the beast. Finals are essentially disagreeable and abject. Incidentally, proponents of Prep Week claim such a policy will alleviate final exams' encumbrance. This disencumbering effect, however, has yet to be proven.

The idea of a successful Preparatory Week is predicated upon the premise that students will devote five extra days in their entirety to studying. This is unlikely to happen on a mass scale. With an extra week of studying, many students will continue to rationalize putting off work until the last minute, using the common "tomorrow-I'll-buckle-down" excuse. Instead of devoting time to studying, many will use the extra time to pursue extra-curricular activities, such as relaxing downtown with a pint every night.

The beneficial elements of a Prep Week look to work in favor of students because only half of the academic spectrum is being viewed. Devoting an entire week to non-stop studying in which no new material can be taught has a truncating effect on the academic calendar. The majority of UNM classes operate within a 16-week curriculum. Preparatory Week would shrink this to 15 weeks. While this may not be as devastating for English 101 students and dance majors, students in 300 and 400-level classes will suffer from having a week of learning stripped away from them. Thus, 16 weeks of mind-numbing material will be crammed into 15 weeks. This is just slightly unfair. Classes like Organic Chemistry II, Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos, and Quantum Mechanics should not have to suffer because other students have yet to figure the secret to budgeting their study time.

Finals week is designed to provide students with plenty of time to prepare, and it has been working without extraneous problems for decades, especially now that most teachers opt not to give cumulative exams.

Rather than restructuring finals week, students need to wean themselves off the mother's milk and realize that waiting until the day before the final to prepare works in high school, but not in college. While an extra week of studying will benefit negligent students, it will do nothing for the serious students who stay on top of their studies the entire semester and spread their final studying out over several days. A Prep Week will only benefit procrastinators, and UNM should not cater its policies to favor the lazy and unmotivated.

Editorial: Gentle breeze offers solution to energy scare

Published: Friday, November 7, 2003

Most Americans are familiar with the term "energy crisis." And with dreams of cold fusion - a theoretical nuclear energy source that creates no hazardous byproducts - quickly being swept away by practical reason, many conservationists are demanding an increase in renewable energy, as the technology to reap the benefits of renewable resources currently exists.

The United States, like many other nations, is heavily dependent on fossil fuels, coal and nuclear reactors to produce electricity. France produces nearly 80 percent of its energy through nuclear fission. Unfortunately, nuclear fission reactors yield nuclear waste.

Fossil fuel consumption, like nuclear energy, is far from perfect. With concerns that natural gas will run low in the future, the United States and other environmentally conscientious countries are working toward developing new ways of creating and harnessing energy.

Ideally, more modern energy endeavors will reduce the number of pollutants being released into the environment, minimize the devastation of natural topography and present fewer health hazards for consumers.

Given that two major oil tankers transporting crude oil and petroleum products have spilled contaminants into the world's oceans in the past 15 years, killing and injuring an uncountable number of marine plants and animals, it's a relief to see that PNM - Albuquerque's energy provider - is now offering its customers the option to use a renewable energy resource: wind.

Wind energy costs more than traditional energy production because of wind's unpredictable nature. Because harnessing wind cannot be controlled in the same way that pushing a button to start a nuclear reactor can, it's natural that it should cost extra. But the average amount of increase in the consumer's bill will be inconsequential compared to the long-term benefits.

According to the American Wind Energy Association, the United States is currently equipped with enough wind turbines to produce 20 percent of the nation's energy. The sooner Americans opt to pay a little extra for wind energy, the sooner U.S. reliance on purchasing oil from other countries and gutting the countryside for coal can come to a halt.

After all, a $10 a month increase in your power bill pales in comparison to smogless skies, pristine countrysides and tumor-free children who don't worry about the neighborhood nuclear smokestack turning Chernobyl.

The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind.

Editorial: The Right needs to write with reason

Published: Monday, May 19, 2003

The Daily Lobo, through some act of sardonic wit, has carried the moniker of Daily Liberal for quite some time and letters received by Lobo editors indicate that this reputation has arisen through content printed in the Opinion section. Whether this epithet is deserved or not is an object of debate.

In the past, letters and responses regarding content have trickled in, accusing editors of neglecting the conservative campus voice. These same letters assert that the Lobo also conflates the amount of liberal representation to an unjustifiable degree, hence the name the Daily Liberal.

But is the Daily Lobo the crux of liberal "propaganda" on campus? And if so, is this necessarily the fault of Lobo editors?

It should come as no surprise that institutions that expose the truth tend to be seen, at least in the public square, as leaning more toward the left than the right. A quick analysis of the attitude taken toward the media by Big Brother in George Orwell's 1984 will confirm this view. And although 1984 describes a totalitarian state, many of the techniques used by Big Brother are exaggerations of modern day conservative practices, i.e. the demand for more governmental control (of course, ironically, laissez faire is also desired) and the willingness to deceive the public in order to conceal unpalatable truths.

Thus, as a media source and revealer of facts, the Lobo is already stereotyped as moderate - exposure of the truth is often deemed dangerous by conservatives for fear of revealing too much.

But conservative qualms in this regard are not entirely unfounded. Despite newsmakers' efforts to reveal as little critical information as possible in their coverage of the war against Iraq, live broadcasts from American newsagents were assuredly being viewed by Iraqi intelligence officers. It's entirely possible, as many have vocalized, that reporting live from the battlefield actually assisted in Iraqi resistance, providing the "enemy" with helpful information.

However, magazines such as the Standard Review and the National Review are renowned for their reactionary conservatism, so not all news sources are necessarily branded overtly liberal.

UNM, and perhaps most college campuses, sees more activism on the part of liberalism. Whereas conservatives have higher voter turnouts, based upon the amount of pertinent letters submitted to the Daily Lobo, liberals more frequently express their objections in writing.

Perhaps the number of liberal sentiments received by the Lobo is indicative of the overwhelming majority of liberals on college campuses. Perhaps the number of liberal sentiments received by the Lobo can be extrapolated to reveal a national trend. Conservatives take physical action at the beginning of a situation, i.e. voting, while liberals procrastinate, don't vote and satisfy themselves by reacting aggressively through written display of ideals.

Or perhaps the real reason is that conservatives on campus aren't saying much that's worth printing. Perhaps the liberals are taking the proper initiative of submitting unique perspectives rather than uniform tautological complaints about Lobo inadequacies.

It's the responsibility of advocates of conservative policy to provide the Daily Lobo with material that accurately portrays the conservative voice and conservative views. This means submitting something other than the dozens of letters received that say, "I'm thoroughly disgusted by the paltry representation of the conservative voice in the Opinion section." Letters like this are unpublishable, for they don't express an opinion; they express gut reactions that anyone can have, not true conservative ideas that do the author's position justice.

This is not to say that submissions should not be emotional, they should. But they should be more than just that.

If the Daily Lobo is to represent the conservative voice accurately, letters expressing viewpoints with substantial conservative insight must be submitted. This means that conservative letters, as well as those expressing unfavorable reactions, should address politics, business, legal matters, ethical dilemmas, foreign affairs, etc.

But shouldn't it then be Lobo policy to print the few conservative letters that are submitted because they represent a minority view, and balanced coverage should be any news source's ultimate goal? Yes, but one can't squeeze blood from a stone.

If an elephant has a thorn in his foot that he wants removed, he won't achieve his goal by lying down in the underbrush and moaning. The elephant must think of new ways to remove the thorn, because repeating the same cry over and over doesn't accomplish much of anything.

Editorial: Safety threatened by leashless dogs

Published: Thursday, July 17, 2003

UNM is not a leashless dog park and shouldn't be treated as such.

Those willing to take a stroll around north campus are well advised to carry a large rock or stick on their journey. For what purpose? For the purpose of warding off dogs and ensuring their own safety against puncture wounds and rabies.

Despite the clearly posted signs indicating that all dogs on campus must be adhered to an effective tethering device, known more colloquially as a leash, more pedestrians than not still feel at liberty to liberate their dogs from the oppressive confines of a harness.

However, signs drawing attention to the strict leash policy are posted for a reason; dogs, as animals are primarily beasts of instinct. They act and react without reason, without first asking, "Am I being rational in biting this man's thigh?" Thus, when a dog sees a golf ball flying overhead, it isn't surprising that it should want to chase it. When a canine sees a runner trotting along the golf course, it's not uncommon for the dog to react with a degree of aggression.

An easy rebuttal to the accusation that loose dogs are a threat is proffered by many ignorant dog owners -"Spot wouldn't hurt a fly," or "Killer obeys incredibly well. If he starts to foam at the mouth, I make him heel." But whether or not a dog is Cujo or Benji is beside the point; people who enjoy exercising on any UNM campus should not have their feeling of safety infringed upon by a loose dog, as it's impossible to tell by mere appearances whether a dog has been trained to have a certain amount of restraint.

The bottom line is such: no one, in particular negligent dog owners, has the right to make others uncomfortable or fear for their well being, and unleashing a dog does just this.

If a sign indicates that a leash policy is in effect it's only common courtesy to adhere to it. Those who don't are selfishly and inconsiderately pursuing their own interests. They are also breaking campus law.

Unfortunately, UNMPD seems disinterested in addressing this situation, so it's the responsibility of those who feel uncomfortable around loose, unbridled, foamy canines to take the matter into their own hands by addressing the situation every time it arises.

COLUMN: US puts HIV on backburner

Published: Thursday, December 4, 2003

Harsh criticism has engulfed the Bush administration since the 2000 election, and because I take a middle ground between the guns and granola, I have to take the time to both praise and scold President Bush for his anti-AIDS program.

This program, which many thought would never get off the ground, sets aside $15 billion over the next five years for HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment in 14 underdeveloped foreign countries. With this plan, 2 million HIV-infected world residents will receive the most modern drugs and 10 million infected children will be properly cared for.

The anti-AIDS program sets its sights on 12 African countries and two Caribbean countries. With HIV infection levels soaring to nearly 40 percent in adults in Botswana, this plan shows that American philanthropic endeavors can continue to be at their strongest even when intensive military action is being questioned scurrilously.

The only thing that could have improved Bush's plan would have been to reverse the anti-AIDS budget with the Iraqi spending budget, which when combined with the recently allotted $87 billion is nearing the $150 billion mark.

Many may contest that military operations and issues of global health parallel the proverbial "apples and oranges" argument. However, the two are united in several ways: concerns of comfortable living, physical and environmental threats, interests of securing public health and, of course, money.

A simple mathematical analysis shows that the post-war $87 billion would have been better spent on the anti-AIDS program.

The current population of Iraq is 26.3 million. The current number of people infected with HIV is 1.6 times that number - 40 million. If it seems conspicuous that the American government is willing to spend $150 billion dollars in less than one year for "freeing" 26.3 million people from the grip of a tyrannical dictator and only $15 billion on research and treatment that will benefit 40 million people over five years, consider yourself a humanist. Intuitively, it makes more sense to spend more money to save the lives of more people. However, such is not the case. In regards to Iraq, we've spent more money on fewer people and in a shorter period of time. Simple utilitarian ethics tell us that we should strive to increase the quality of life for the greatest number of people, not the greatest number of people living on top of fossil fuels.

HIV/AIDS is a pressing issue that is immediately threatening the biological security of every nation on the planet. To ignore the HIV virus is to ignore the preliminary evidence of a 21st century Black Death equivalent

It is projected that within the next year, 11.6 million people will become infected with the HIV virus. How many people were projected to be an immediate lethal threat as a direct result of the regime of Saddam Hussein in the next year? Unless Hussein was planning on injuring roughly half of his country's population, HIV/AIDS should have been a higher priority for the "conscientiously minded" American government. Instead, we used backward sophistry in determining which matter took precedence.

If you see a dying man in the street, are you going to stop and correct the errors in the judicial system he lives under before offering medical assistance? Before we can correct the philosophical and ideological transgressions of other nations, let's first confront practical concerns and bring the pragmatic technology - medicine and the like - of other nations up to par with first world countries.

While Hussein was unarguably a terrible threat, was he as big of a threat as the HIV virus? Did he need to be taken out sooner rather than later? The answer to these questions is a resolute, "No!" HIV is a more burning issue than Iraq was, and while the current government may have no problem with putting it on the backburner for the time being, at least they're not turning off the gas altogether.



Howerton is an English-Philosophy and Psychology double major. Send scathing remarks to erichow@unm.edu.

Celebrity Interview: Attell storms Duke City

Published: Thursday, November 20, 2003

Comedian and scholar of intoxication Dave Attell says that Jack Daniels could easily beat Captain Morgan in a fistfight.

"Jack Daniels has the heart, but Captain Morgan has the wind," Attell said. "Captain Morgan's the kind of guy who would not beat you that day, but would find you a week later and beat you in the head with a hammer. Jack Daniels will get you on the ground right now and put a knife to your eye."

Attell, the star of late-night TV's "Insomniac with Dave Attell," will bring his mix of off-handed vulgarity, tongue-in-cheek wise cracks and guaranteed laughter to Albuquerque for the Comedy Central Live tour. He will shoot his mouth off with fellow comedians Lewis Black and Mitch Hedberg.

A New York native, Attell travels from town to town on "Insomniac," delving deep into the annals of nightlife, barhopping and nocturnal debauchery. Accompanied by alcohol and a camera crew, Attell's late-night antics have taken him to the far stretches of Dublin, Amsterdam, Canada, Tijuana - which he claimed was the worst smelling city in the world - and nearly all of the major American metropolises, including the Duke City.

During his epic journey, Attell has encountered many hydras. He's worn a prosthetic penis on his chin, been kissed by a man, consorted with prostitutes and eaten at numerous greasy spoons.

"Insomniac," now in its fourth season, is a favorite among cable-watching night owls. But despite its popularity, Attell said he still encounters resistance when shooting in a new town.

"The research people on the show will go out and see what's available in the town, and they always start out with the wish list: 'We'll go to this town where you get to ride a tiger or fly an F-14 Phantom Jet.' And I'm always like, 'Wow, that's great!' And then a week or two later the research people will go, 'Well, they don't want us to come and do the show there' or 'they don't want us to be around the tiger, but there's a place where you can hold a puppy."'

Although Attell said the goal of the show is to stay up all night and not get drunk, the tenured drinker said he's never actually thrown up on the show.

He said the best cure for a hangover is to "keep drinking." He also noted that before landing a successful network series, he sobered up by actually going to work rather than calling in sick. Hangovers be damned, now Attell can get drunk at work. The cameramen of "Insomniac," however, don't get to partake in the festivities.

He noted that at times, being plastered in front of the crew can be a little embarrassing.

"It's kind of like watching your dad get drunk at Thanksgiving," he said. "Everyone else is playing a part. They're eating and talking and they're there for this big celebration and then there's this drunk guy at the end of the table who's got a carving knife in his hand."

To all the concerned parents who think he is not a suitable role model for children, Attell said, "Stop judging because we know while your kids are away at school you're (expletive) in their beds."

COLUMN: Cure for depression is twofold

Published: Tuesday, November 18, 2003

A recent article in "Mother Jones" ("Is it Prozac or placebo?" December, 2003) investigating the efficacy of prescription drugs questions whether antidepressants like Paxil and Zoloft are truly effective in combating the psychological trauma associated with depression.

The scientific community often leads the public to believe that depression has a biological or genetic root, and this may be true. But a biological predisposition does not necessarily implicate a biological treatment as effective.

Because depression is still primarily considered a psychological disorder, not genetic, efforts to treat it that exclude psychologically trained professionals is clearly counterintuitive; taking prescription medicines designed to alleviate psychological burdens without entering therapy or counseling is tantamount to addressing the symptoms of an ailment without honesty attempting to cure it.

Because studies in neuroscience have been unable to determine if depression is purely biological or if the onset of the disorder is a combination of psychological trauma and biological propensity, to believe that depression can be cured with a little tablet is to completely disregard it as a predominantly psychological syndrome.

According to the article, less than 50 percent of the leading six antidepressants outperform sugar pill placebos in 47 trials. When partnered with a 2002 worldwide gross of $8.3 billion, it seems absurd that the 92 million people given prescriptions in the same year were paying billions for medicine that is statistically hit or miss.

Even more startling is that corroborating data shows antidepressants to have only a 50 percent chance of working on any afflicted person. Further complicating matters, most statistical trials of medication reveal that placebos are only effective 35 to 45 percent of the time. Thus, because of the prevalence of the placebo's power of suggestion, as little as 5 percent of clinically depressed individuals currently taking Prozac or Celexa may actually benefit from the medicine itself versus the idea of medicine.

A major medical concern with antidepressant prescriptions is that doctors with no experience in diagnosing and making prognoses of cognitive and behavioral disorders are given room to do so. Consequently, ill-stricken people seek out the wrong type of doctor to treat them. If you believe you have leukemia, it would not be reasonable to visit an ear, nose and throat specialist. For the same reason, people who are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder should not be receiving medication from general practitioners - but they do.

Unfortunately, many people are unwilling to enter therapy for fear of social stigmatization. There exists a preconception that when one enters therapy, one is tacitly making an admission of insanity. And, sadly, the anticipated shame of entering therapy is magnified through such films as "Me, Myself and Irene," "Seven," "The Cell" and "Conspiracy Theory." For the most part, the depiction of psychologically disturbed individuals is portrayed as either villainous or humorous, and this is rarely the case. On the flip side, those suffering from biological diseases such as cancer, AIDS or diabetes are always portrayed as victims, and people would much rather be a victim and admit to a biological disease than be viewed as laughable or murderous.

People taking antidepressants who are not in therapy are only superficially addressing a potentially harmful condition. To treat psychological disorders with medicine alone is becoming ubiquitous because it is all too convenient. (Even a podiatrist can prescribe Prozac!) However, using medicine alone in an attempt to break the hold of depression is to treat a staph infection with local anesthesia - the pain may go away, but the infection will only swell and fester until it does some serious damage.



Eric Howerton is an English-philosophy and psychology double major. He can be reached at erichow@unm.edu.

Music Review: Shins album stays close to home

Published: Tuesday, November 4, 2003

Albuquerque darlings The Shins are back in the business of rasslin' acoustic guitars by the horns and delivering bowlfuls of campfire gumbo with morsels of throwback indie-pop on the band's second full-length album, Chutes too Narrow.

The follow-up disc to 2001's Oh, Inverted World, Chutes too Narrow offers a similar auditory experience - nostalgic melodies packaged in the warm cellophane crinkle of delicate New Mexican sunsets, bubbles and mild retro ornamentation.

Like an obedient puppy, Chutes stays close to home. Chutes is to Oh, Inverted World what "Army of Darkness" is to "Evil Dead II," a sequel with a bigger budget, better production and better effects. It's not necessarily better or worse than the band's first effort though.

Fans of Oh, Inverted World will appreciate Chutes for both its familiarity and its subtle differences. Songs like the faux-Western "Gone for Good," the almost loud and roller- disco friendly "Fighting in a Sack" and the Radiohead-minus-the-pretense "Saint Simon" all satisfy with ease.

Once again, The Shins succeed by doing what comes natural - writing steady-handed songs of folk humanism supplemented with the occasional electronic impulse.

The only distraction is the CD booklet, which looks like a collection of random frames picked up from the cutting room floor at Cartoon Central.

COLUMN: Ethical elasticity has its place

Published: Tuesday, November 4, 2003

In the summer of 1971, Phillip Zimbardo made headlines with the Stanford Prison Experiment. In what turned out to be a study in cruelty, moral turpitude and mental abuse, Zimbardo took paid volunteers, divided them into two groups - guards and prisoners - put them in "holding cells" and watched as an experiment designed to observe the psychology of prison turned into mayhem and madness.

The experiment was cut short after one student had an emotional breakdown and another assumed the role of prisoner so intensely that, when asked his name, he recited the prisoner number he had been assigned.

Regarded as one of the most unethical social psychology experiments of the modern era, the Stanford Prison Experiment is still repeated daily in spirit, and no one raises an eyebrow. Instead, we celebrate these experiments because they are aired on television as reality shows. Reality TV is not a new phenomenon and, in theory, fairly innocuous. But the new breeds of reality TV are so corrupt that they make the Stanford Prison Experiment look like a harmless puppy.

The discrepancies between television and science are vast; television entertains, science explains. However, there exists a cultural double standard that reflects poorly upon our character as a civilized people.

Science is held to the expectation of performing experiments in which human participants are not subjected to unwanted aggravation, can remain anonymous, and can withdraw from the experiment at any time. Science, unlike the real world, is supposed to be safe and controlled.

Reality TV is the antithesis of ethical experimentation. Chock full of deception, staged scenarios and discomfort that may lead to lifelong trauma, there is nothing prohibiting an unethical TV show from being produced, but there is in science.

Reality TV shows are, in essence, sociological experiments with a potentially harmful aftermath. "Average Joe" - an NBC dating show in which an NFL cheerleader and beauty pageant winner is set up with 16 unattractive, overweight nerds - studies human attraction. "Temptation Island" - a FOX show in which couples are provoked into cheating through access to superhumanly attractive members of the opposite sex - studies human infidelity. And in "One Bad Trip" - a show that studies autonomy, responsibility and promiscuity - MTV foots the bill for a spring break trip to Las Vegas or Lake Havasu while the parents and fiancées of the protagonists watch every foul and slutty thing they do.

The connection between the Stanford Prison Experiment and reality TV is one of an ethical nature. As a society, Americans have lambasted science for studies that involve an unethical component. But when these experiments are funded by a major television corporation and broadcast to millions, we celebrate and relish displays of immorality! The hypocrisy of the situation is appalling; we're not willing to incorporate mildly unethical practices into the canon of science in order to learn about the human condition, but we're willing to loosen our moral sentimentality when it's entertaining.

An article published in the New York Times ("The Cruelest Cure," Nov. 2) investigated the effects of a new line of behavioral therapy aimed at curbing the intensity of diagnosable anxiety disorders. In the past, anxiety disorders have been treated through systematic desensitization - a process in which patients are slowly and calmly exposed to their fear object by thinking about it, then seeing it at a distance and then seeing it up close. This process is effective but lengthy.

A new procedure, designed by David H. Barlow, director of the Center for Anxiety and Related Disorders at Boston University, exposes patients directly to their fears without prior desensitization. People with fear of public speaking are forced to address rude crowds right away. People with claustrophobia are encouraged to climb in the trunk of a car until their anxiety is overwhelming. Barlow, unlike other therapists, believes that curing pathological disorders shouldn't always be comfortable. In fact, sometimes it should be uncomfortable because the real world is uncomfortable and unpredictable.

Critics of Barlow call his techniques tortuous and unethical. But if Barlow claims he can eliminate the anxiety of 85 percent of his patients in as little as 12 weeks, why should he be criticized? At the very least, Barlow is discovering critical therapeutic techniques. He's increasing the knowledge of science. Reality TV intentionally makes people miserable solely to entertain others. Where's the justice in this?

As it stands now, psychologists and sociologists who have mildly unethical experiments that may provide crucial information have a hard time getting approved by the Office for Human Research Protections because unethical experimentation can lead to litigious action. Instead of appealing to the Internal Review Board of the OHRP, scientists with ingenious experiments of a polemic nature may be forced to pitch their idea to one of the networks instead of the scientific community because the regulations are obviously looser for television.

Hypothetically, the IRB wouldn't approve an experiment designed to test the limits of human greed in relation to the consumption of bile, roaches, grubs and coagulated blood, but NBC already has. It's called "Fear Factor."

COLUMN: Democrats need miracle worker

Published: Tuesday, October 21, 2003

After the recall election in California, concerns were abound that Democrats held little sway over the political direction of a liberal state, and the country as well. With 54 electoral votes, more than any other state, the Democratic Party desperately needed the polls to represent a liberal majority in California.

Despite the cooperative admonishment of soon to-be-governor Arnold Schwarzenegger by liberal presidential candidates like John Kerry and Gen. Wesley Clark, the landslide victory for the Republicans had many worried that if the Democratic candidates couldn't convince one state with their collaborative efforts, how could they expect to win the entire country in 2004?

It seemed unlikely, until ...

A recently published Gallup poll indicates President Bush's approval rating has dropped to just under 50 percent for the 65 and older age group, a group considered a Republican stronghold.

But a decline in Bush's approval ratings is not equal to an increase in Democratic approval ratings. A disapproval rating of 51 percent of the senior voting pool does not mean 51 percent approval of an as yet unnamed Democratic nominee.

While the above statistics prove very little, they do give hope that the uphill battle the Democrats are facing is not so much a 90-degree angle but rather a 95-degree angle with shallow handholds.

Three key issues stand between Democrats and the White House.

National defense is the first key issue. A Democrat with a strong opposition to nuclear arms and the continuation of the war on terrorism cannot defeat Bush. Even though the United States has not used a nuclear weapon on another country since World War II and has placed a moratorium on underground testing since 1992, voters' mouths water at the mere mentioning of nuclear weapons.

Americans love nukes more than they love reality TV, and so far Republicans are the only ones willing to openly support the national proliferation of weapons.

Republicans tend to believe that the quality of life is correlative with the size and strength of the military whereas Democrats believe that the quality of life is a comfort rating.

The issue is optimal security versus minimal encroachment of civil liberties, and the Democrats must find a candidate willing to stand somewhere in the middle.

The next key issue is health care. As the baby boomer generation becomes the Metamucil generation, the Democrats need to appeal to their nostalgic liberalism. Health care for all does just that.

With research in genetics advancing rapidly, nationwide health coverage is a must and the Democrats are the only ones willing to propose it.

The further genetic studies progress, the more likely it will be that in the not-so-distant future health insurance companies will require genetic testing before agreeing to insure individuals. Eventually, with the cracking of the genetic code, scientists will be able to determine the disease and likelihood that a health care applicant is prone to contract and/or develop. Before these "genetic codes of weakness" can be determined, everyone must be insured. The urgency of this measure cannot be overstated.

The third leg of the political crux is the issue of U.N. interaction and international relations. If America does not wake up from its jingoistic slumber, those who have been our allies in the past will shun us for fear of being associated with a megalomanical nation. America cannot forget that the Cold War ended just over 10 years ago, and the threat of another political ice age lurks just around the corner.

Since the war in Iraq, a war that may have ended too soon to secure a White House victory for the elephantine conservatives, Bush has been desperately struggling to find his second wind, namely a project that will secure a second term.

If the underdog Democrats hope to garner a win in 2004, which has seemed unlikely up to this point, they are going to have to take advantage of Bush's shortsighted goals and work doggedly to nominate a venerable candidate. No mediocre candidate will upset Bush in 2004.

The Democrats don't need a miracle, they need a miracle worker.

Eric Howerton is a Psychology and English-Philosophy major. He can be reached at erichow@unm.edu.

COLUMN: Don't call me ever again

Published: Tuesday, October 7, 2003

Regrettably, a while back I took a summer position situated lower on the social totem pole than lawyers. I was a telemarketer.

While the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission are in legal limbo over the 51 million names on the national Do Not Call list, I've been reminiscing over the tedious hours spent as a confidence trickster, the summer days I passed yelling into phones at dunderheaded customers and the $1,200 paychecks that weighed heavily in my pocket and upon my soul.

The Do Not Call list is an inventory of citizens, cataloged by the FTC, who have requested to be removed from all telemarketing databases. The FTC has proposed charging telemarketing companies that fail to recognize the list fines of up to $11,000. A directive such as this would have devastating effects on companies that rely heavily on outreach business strategies like interrupting family time, but more importantly, the list means peace and quiet for those whose throats grow hoarse with repeating, "I'm not interested."

Many telemarketing companies are playing the Constitution trump card, saying that any restriction on telemarketers directly violates freedom of speech. However, the belief that corporations have the same rights as individual citizens is built upon a prevaricated tablature of court records. A recent column by Cecil Adams, author of the Straight Dope, indicated that such a belief is a historical inaccuracy that has been perpetuated by speciousness and ignorance.

Telemarketing companies fear the diminishing pool of available clientele will result in lost jobs, and this fear is not without validity; with more than 50 million Americans already requesting to be put on the Do Not Call list, the numbers will only increase. The attrition of callable customers is not as much of a social or economic injustice as is perceived by the unbiased observer. As a former telemarketing employee, I have seen hell with my own eyes and wholeheartedly believe that telemarketing is a beast whose extinction is long overdue.

As telemarketers, we were trained briefly on our job duties, which consisted of selling a certain number of product X within a two-week period. During training, it was implied that to be a good salesman, one must be good at deceiving others and checking your conscience at the door.

A good salesmen, or so we were told, is one who can put spin on a defective product so that it looks golden. This is no easy task. It takes a certain type of mind, personality and moral turpitude. It's the type of job where it becomes hard to look at yourself in the mirror afterward knowing you have most likely been stealing dollar bills from unsuspecting little old ladies all day long.

Spinning the product equates to taking advantage of customer naiveté. A good telemarketer can make an incredulous customer long for a product they don't need, want or can't afford, and though this practice is ubiquitous in sales, I fully support any program that will keep business ventures more honest.

Telemarketers, especially those working for long-distance providers, are informed of the legal loopholes and how to speak in such a way that the customer is given the impression of truth, when in reality facts are being omitted. This type of ambiguous speech isn't as innocuous as it seems: It protects telemarketers from litigious action because they're lying between the lines rather than outright. Perhaps customers will save $5 on their long-distance telephone bill by switching from company A to company B, but often they're conned into paying hidden fees and/or restricted calling hours. Before you know it, the customer has been hoodwinked into paying more for less freedom.

Another problem of telemarketing companies is that they hire high school students who don't have enough understanding of the legal ramifications of mixing mendacity and money. Because of this they see no harm in stretching the truth in order to arrive at an enormous paycheck at the end of the week. And the pay is great. The only difference between running a short con in the streets and running a short con in an office building is the presence of a supervisor.

Telemarketers are deceptive and rude and it's no surprise that they become surly. When you call an average of 300 people a day and 99 percent of them hang up within the first 30 seconds, it can be a very trying and frustrating job.

Telemarketing is intrusive. It is Spam over the phone. And the vast majority of people who have been telemarketers in the past have no reservations revealing they flat out lied to the customer in order to make a sale. The sooner America can purify the wells of commercialization by killing off all perfidious viruses and bacteria, the better.

Eric Howerton is a Psychology and English-Philosophy major. He can be reached at erichow@unm.edu. Please don't e-mail during the dinner hour.

COLUMN: Aging as natural as science

Published: Tuesday, September 23, 2003

Woman: "Doctor, I feel groggy, incontinent, crotchety and my hair's gray."

Doctor: "You're just getting old."

Woman: "Isn't there anything you can prescribe me?"

The above scene is certainly apropos of satire, but within a decade doctors predict they'll be able to help the concerned woman with her depreciating beauty, wrinkled skin and rapidly curving spine.

That's right. The days of professor Aloysius' Stupendously Satisfying Youth Tonic - 90 percent snake oil, 9 percent WIPP drippings, 1 percent ethanol - are over. Geneticists are currently working on isolating the genes that activate senescence - or aging - in an effort to increase human longevity and it's likely that products with names like Regener-X or Juven-oxyproven-ile are destined for general consumption.

Many argue the sciences attempt to reveal the mystic secrets of the natural world. However creationistic science, such as increasing the human life expectancy from 74 to 150, is a Pandora's Box of ethical issues; when it comes to genetics, chromosomal studies are a smoking gun in the hands of a toddler.

Genetically modified fruits and vegetables, flies with four wings, glow in the dark mice, stem cell babies for organ harvesting; it's all very interesting. But when genetic discoveries are used to alter the course of human existence, tampering with the natural order is not such a wise idea.

Granted, some of the discoveries from genetic studies of aging will help identify the factors of living a healthier life, but in a society where anything appealing to hedonistic impulses is marketable, genetic anti-aging studies are nothing more than a Svnegali; the findings will be exploited as against the better interests of the scientific community and the public. If life as a commodity can be sold, it will be.

Ironically, the people who want the anti-aging drugs are the ones who need them the least: the young. Most elderly people are satisfied with their careers as transient beings and would scoff at living another 80 years.

Aging is natural, and it's only because of the stigma of repugnance Americans place on growing old that aging is seen as abhorrent. In many other cultures, the old are actually respected, not shoved away in some sterile group home to eat baby food for the last 10 years of their lives.

There is a natural course to life. People grow up, reach sexual maturity, get married, have children and then start to die slowly and painfully. Whether this dying is a result of having children or getting married is still the object of some debate. However, variations of this lifestyle formula have been extant for millions of years and, consequently, humans have developed a moral reasoning in combating problems that arouse through social interaction and natural crises. Because issues of genetics have only existed for a brief snapshot in the human chronological spectrum, our minds have not yet adapted solutions to these new, synthetic problems of morality.

As sophisticated as humans are, our minds cannot be forced to evolve in a decade or two to novel and troubling stimuli. We have the capacity to develop nuclear bombs, clones and extended survival length, but we haven't yet developed the cognitive capacity to appropriately and responsibly handle these inventions.

The existential philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche argued that philosophy would always remain leaps and bounds ahead of science. However, science is now hyped up on the amphetamines it has synthesized and is running full speed ahead. This is dangerous, for our teleological science is moving along at such a rate that moral preponderance is being eliminated from the agenda. Like Dr. Frankenstein, we're prone to hypothesize, invent and discover before a full investigation of ethical issues has taken place.

Eric Howerton can be reached at erichow@unm.edu

Sports: Young teams earn experience

Published: Monday, September 15, 2003

Despite four UNM team leaders red-shirting this season, the men's cross country team managed to snag a fourth-place win and the Lobo women took fifth place at the Lobo Invitational.

The cross country team opened up the first of three running seasons at home this weekend. The Lobo Invitational, now in its fourth year, was Saturday at the UNM North Golf Course.

The course consisted of grassy knolls, packed dirt trails and hundreds of cheering spectators. The 14 men's teams competed over a distance of 8,000 meters while the 13 women's teams duked it out over a slightly shorter course of 6,000 meters.

"It's just a moderate course," head coach Matt Henry said. "But we never run out here. The only advantage we really have is that we're at home."

Men's top runners junior Cameron Clarke and seniors Matt Gonzales, Nick Martinez and Ben Ortega have all opted to sideline off-road competition for the cross country season because of what Henry called personal complications.

"It's hard to explain," Ortega said. "There's not any one reason."

Gonzales, who hopes to compete at the Olympic Trials, said he is taking the time off to boost his strength and avoid injury. Martinez admitted to being "a little burnt out" but will use the time to prepare for nationals later in the season.

All four redshirts hope to be back for the indoor and outdoor track seasons and will continue to practice with the rest of the Lobos.

Henry said that the red-shirting four front-runners will give younger athletes a chance to run.

Coming in first for the men's team was Albuquerque native and senior Sean Flaherty. Flaherty finished 18th overall in the men's 8K with a time of 25:40.

Coming in on Flaherty's heels were freshman Stephen Martinez (33rd), sophomore Brandon Vigil (34th), junior Nate Clem (38th) and freshman Juan Ortega (40th).

"The women's team is really coming together," Henry said.

The women's team placed fifth overall in the 6,000-meter run.

Leading the women's pack was freshman Riann Lucy, who finished 27th out of 103 competitors. Lucy finished with a final time of 23:56 and helped propel the team to top ranks. Coming in after Lucy were sophomore Timmie Murphy (32nd), senior Sarah Gonzales (35th), sophomore Janice Tosa (38th) and freshman Myrriah Gomez (50th).

Absent from the top ranks was junior Jacquelyne Gallegos, who injured her back and pelvis in a 2002 car accident. Gallegos finished 81st overall.

Henry said that Gallegos is fully recovered from the accident and will use the remainder of the season to get back into peak condition. Gallegos finished second in last year's Lobo Invitational.

Other competing collegiate teams were Colorado State, which won both the men's and the women's divisions, Western State College, UTEP, Louisiana State University, Texas Tech, Fort Lewis College, University of Texas-Pan American, Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute, New Mexico Highlands University, Dine College, El Paso Community College, Eastern New Mexico University, New Mexico Junior College and NMSU.

Also at the Lobo Invitational were 21 local high school teams competing on a 5k course.

COLUMN: :Actions still wrong after 9/11

Published: Tuesday, September 9, 2003

Planes are hijacked, buildings crumble, people die, and, as a military rebuttal, America invades two separate nations. What kind of a people are we?

Obviously, a vengeful people.

The two-year anniversary of September 11 is drawing near, and as it does, it's tragic to see that neither the American people nor their government have made any headway in deterring a repeat of terrorist activity.

America has too long focused on stopping terrorists in the act, but it's crucial to stop them before they act. We've successfully prevented terrorist networks from striking again through airport shoe inspections, but we seem to be altogether missing the point. Deterrence - not prevention - is our social prescription, because by the time we reach the stage of prevention we've already lost; corrosive opinions about America are concrete in the minds of those who are all too willing to harm us.

The gap between prevention and deterrence is infinite. Prevention involves actions such as increased military presence and rigorous airport security; deterrence involves improving our reputation with the rest of the world and eliminating the want to attack. When it comes to the latter, we have yet to put our best foot forward.

Many claim that the events of Sept. 11 were an awakening experience. I have yet to see good come from these "enlightening insights." September 11 should have shed light on America's image problem. Instead, it magnified our sense of vulnerability; now that our Achilles Heel has been revealed we've done all we can to maximize our defensive strategies. We try to minimize noticeable weaknesses by optimizing domestic confidence. This is absolutely the wrong approach, as actions in this vein make the United States very unlikable.

In light of recent events, we've begun to treat certain immigrants, whether suspected of illicit behavior or not, with a deplorable disregard for human concern.

We've proven to be self-absorbed lemmings, interested only in getting cheap gas at the expense of being deaf to the world's secret prayers that we should one day get stuck in the political crossfire we create for ourselves.

We've established the Department of Homeland Security, which has a budget of $26.7 billion and does little more than color code our fear.

And we've increased our military budget, dispatched hundreds of thousands of soldiers, and attacked Afghanistan and Iraq against the U.N.'s recommendation, proving we think ourselves sufficiently justified in bloodshed without international backing.

If Sept. 11 could not show us of the imperative need to work on improving international relations, we are hopelessly blind. If nothing else, Sept. 11 should have given us some lucid hindsight. Instead, we've not only repeated but also amplified our past mistakes and have adopted an attitude of reluctance toward any modicum of change.

America's number one priority should be improving foreign relations, point blank. Further obstinacy and aggression will only hurt us and perpetuate more revolt. As a world leader, we can no longer use Machiavellian scare tactics to throw our weight around. We have to be civil and conscientious. Only then will people see that we are not ethnocentric colonialists and only then will the malignance of terrorism come to a halt.

We've made a remote island out of America, and it's an island that many want to see struck by a tsunami. Until we stop our international officiousness, America will continue to inherit the enemies of our allies, and we can no longer afford to be on bad terms with any country or its leaders. September 11 should be looked upon as the day America woke up from its ignorant slumber, not the day it took another Quaalude and went back to sleep.

If the betterment of America means a raise in gas prices, so be it. Ten dollars a gallon is a more reasonable sacrifice than 3,000 lives and $87 billion to fund minatory revenge schemes.



Eric is an English-Philosophy and Psychology double major. He can be reached at erichow@unm.edu.

Music Review: Rancid back with a solid mix

Published: Wednesday, August 27, 2003

Gross and rancid: Vultures picking the sun-tenderized meat off of the drunken, bloated, and vomit encrusted body of fat Elvis.

Good and rancid: A band deriving its inspiration from the blue-collar workers and street- wayward pipe wielders whose orchestral rants have been coined "punk rock."

With tattoos of cobwebs marring their skulls, a panoply of albums and a devout following of hard-headed skins, Rancid's sixth full-length effort, Indestructible, is yet another jolt of unpasteurized, uninhibited waffle boots and bumpy knuckles.

Despite mediocre diversions such as The Transplants, consisting of Rancid singer/guitarist Tim Armstrong, Travis from Blink-182 and Lars Fredericksen, Rancid's other singer/guitarist and the Bastards, Rancid seems to be operating as a cohesive unit once more.

A healthy departure from Rancid's grayscale, proto-crust core project Rancid (2000) - which was a transgression from the third wave ska founding members Armstrong and Matt Freeman have practiced since the formation of their high school band Operation Ivy - Indestructible is an album of resurgence and tactful remembrance.

Whereas Rancid (2000) is the atavistic cry to demolition derbies and no-holds-barred mosh pits, Indestructible channels the serrated pop spirit of their 1995 release And Out Come the Wolves.

Nevertheless, Indestructible captures the grit and toil of society's misfit generation and wraps it in the spirit of hope.

Like all Rancid albums, Indestructible is epistolary storytelling set to music. But where earlier Rancid recordings can be generalized as either friendly or brackish, Indestructible oscillates between Sid Vicious-style bollocks and an enrapturing, dirty-cot romance.

With a vocal track apropos of The Pogue's Shane McGowan, a baseline that bounces with more intensity than a self-medicating trucker on white pony and accolade worthy choruses, Rancid has always operated in the space between class and crass.

While far from being the band's best work, Indestructible samples from the buffet of Rancid peas and carrots. Life Won't Wait experimented with off rhythms and blissfully obscure riffs, Rancid (2000) unleashed the band's hydra, And Out Come the Wolves was pacifying pop-mother's milk to dilettantes of angst - Indestructible is a Mai Tai mixed from the pool of rancid well drinks; it's sweet, but it still has that acrid burn.

COLUMN: Governor race a mockery

Published: Tuesday, August 26, 2003

There's a new breed of politician, and it's coming to a theater near you!

The recall election in California has been the topic of much debate recently and many are scrutinously asking, "Are recall elections ethical? Or are they merely a way for big money hustlers like Bill Simon to sway government doings? And if a recall occurs, is justice being served when one of the recall candidates takes office by garnering a lower approval rating than that currently held by Gray Davis?"

While these are all good questions, the answer to whether recall elections are a sound alternative rests precariously on a slippery slope.

In some ways, recall elections are a little like political piracy; the unpopular politician is hoisted from his throne before his term is up in order to make way for a preferred replacement. This begs the question: If someone is elected to do a job for four years and suddenly upsets the public with his decisions, should he be fired? Or should Davis be guaranteed the full four years to repair his mistakes and fulfill his duties?

Others regard recall elections as a feasible solution to rectifying high tier incompetence. After electing Davis, many Californians feel like he is no longer the most suitable man for the job and should be replaced by someone who can perform to a higher standard.

Unlike an impeachment hearing, recall elections don't accuse the defendant with any illegal activity; rather, they merely censure and point out a lack of constituent confidence. And in a democratic society, if the majority of people want to relinquish someone's political authority, shouldn't they have the right to do so?

This is where things start to get ugly. Most educated Americans concur that the majority of the population is made up of complete buffoons, and they're right in this belief. So to predicate the future of a country based on millions of button-pushing nincompoops seems like a very precarious way to run a country. Most Americans don't even know what their candidate's platform is, but the Constitution guarantees them the right to vote for the guy with a cooler sounding name.

The real humor lies not in the Constitutional promise that a million bozos get to determine the shape of things to come, but in the pool of qualified individuals who should be running the country, which seems to be shrinking by the day.

While the legitimacy of recall elections should be the most important issue in California and the rest of the country, it's not. Instead, Americans are more concerned with which of the recall election candidates has a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.

Since actor John Wilkes Booth popped Honest Abe in the noggin, acting and politics have celebrated an inseparable partnership, the pinnacle of which can be seen in the rocket to stardom of John F. Kennedy. Since Kennedy's forays with America's most noted blonde bombshell, Sonny Bono, Ronald Reagan, Clint Eastwood and Charlton Heston (the latter three have all frenched apes, by the way) have all tried their hand in the politician poker game of celebrity and affairs of the state. And it's happening again in California.

Since the early rumors of a recall election, porn super-mogul Larry Flint, Different Strokes' diminutive Gary Coleman, watermelon smashing comedian and general good-for-nothing Gallagher, coitus queen Mary Carey and former Mr. Universe/star of Kindergarten Cop Arnold Schwarzenegger have all announced their intention to run for governor of America's most populated state.

Welcome to the freak show, folks! Two bits a gander!

It's easy to see that none of these candidates could be deemed "qualified" for the job. While Larry Flint has spent a lot of time in the courtroom arguing his right to expose women's genitals to the public, it appears as though the Austrian terminator has the best shot of taking the cake.

Schwarzenegger has already been vicariously employed by the government before by continually playing military men and police officers. Arnold may also be able to get a grasp on California's immigration problems as he trenchantly demonstrated his ability to wrangle up evasive aliens in Predator.

Strengthening Schwarzenegger's chances is his role in True Lies, in which he played a federal agent hunted by international terrorists. But with all of the action Schwarzenegger has seen in the last 20 years, one might wonder: Will politics be interesting enough for Conan the Republican? Perhaps we should be giving him a high profile position lest he get fed up with taking press conferences and lay waste to every reporter in the room with a battle-axe.

Fortunately, Arnold's political aspirations could never carry him as far as the White House as he's not an American by birth. However, I fear that Schwarzenegger already has an answer to this problem. Borrowing from the plot of The 6th Day, scientists could birth a clone of Arnold inside the United States, speed up the aging process by feeding him nothing but coffee and Miracle Grow and install the Arnold clone in the White House. Oh the humanity!

Now you might be saying that it's important to see the actor apart from his movies, that to separate the two is essential. Perhaps actors can be good politicians.

But even before Arny starred in action flicks making casual murder to the '90s what casual sex was to the '60's, he wasn't all there. With an aspiration to sculpt his body after Gigantopithecus, can California stand to replace a poor financial manager with a violence-endorsing, self-absorbed body builder? And after admitting to using steroids, it's important to keep in mind that Arnold could have some very serious health concerns in the near future. Remember that steroids of Arny's era have been linked to causing brain cancer. And I don't think merely saying, "It's not a toom-ah," will dispel concerns.

While its true principles of acting and politics are structured around performance, rhetoric, approval ratings, hob knobbing and fundraising, the similarities between the two fields stop there. It takes years to understand the interconnectivity and complicated networks of politics. And jumping in head first in the race for governor might be a little too ambitious.

There's not a dearth of candidates to replace Davis. However, there is a dearth of suitable candidates. Instead of looking at a ballot that more resembles the MTV Movie Awards, California would be wise to stick with a professional and allow Gray Davis to complete his term. Unfortunately, America seems content on being the laboratory of humanity. So get ready for the decade of political method acting!

Hey Arny, I've got an idea for your re-election campaign: "I'll be back!"

Music Review: NOFX CD criticizes American ignorance

Published: Monday, May 19, 2003

Although notorious for tongue-in-cheek songs about lesbians and drugs, NOFX have rounded the corner of a touchstone career move with their politically-throttling album, The War on Errorism.

Despite being aging punk veterans - a status that indicates dying one's hair pink to hide the gray - Fat Mike, Melvin, El Hefe and Smelly's newest release brings a healthy dose of volatile political science to the mosh pit.

Errorism, the group's newest material since 2000, is a healthy departure from its immature and uninspired predecessor, Pump Up the Valuum, which appeared to be nothing more than vulgar cliché bait-on-hook used to attract the newest schools of prepubescent skate punks who think punk rock's motto should be the atavistic cry of "Kill, Smash, Grrr!" Errorism is punk rock for adults, more akin to The Decline - a disgruntled testament of genuine concern relaying NOFX's anxiety for American hegemony and social neglect.

While the songs are full of middle-aged head banging and criticizing plutocratic ideals, a fair number of the tracks also treat punk rock as a kingdom overthrown by stupidity and shallow dreams.

The Decline was incredibly confrontational, but below the surface it said something more - punk rock's anger can be channeled into a worthy cause, that of recovering America's prestige. Rather than being consumed by nihilism and apathy as Fat Mike says in "Franco Un-American," "I don't want to be another I don't care-ican," the scene should represent the hatred of aristocracy and the desire for reconstructive improvements, not just the desire to scream, annihilate, bleed, vomit and pierce.

These ideas continue on the three-page rant that accompanies the CD. The band writes, "WE ARE THE ONES calling attention to the faults of our government and trying to fix them," and "WE ARE THE ONES trying to educate people." These sentiments are elaborated with surprising social consciousness and optimism, creating a new social manifesto for punk rock.

The War on Errorism rivals the quality of So Long and Thanks for All the Shoes, however the B-side is not nearly as strong.

"The Separation of Church and Skate" highlights the band's concern with the neutralization of punk rock, posing the question, "When did punk rock become so safe, when did the scene become a joke?"

"Franco Un-American," possibly the best track on the album, addresses the narrow American dictum that "what lies outside of America is not of our concern," and proposes that American happiness relies on a blindness that should be violently shattered.

The incorporation of saxophones, drum kits, amphetamine riffs and even a kazoo makes the songs enjoyable even without explicit societal despair. The War on Errorism is a fairly elitist effort and the reactionary ideas expressed here will most likely fly right over the heads of the vast majority of their listeners.

It's ironic that an album so focused on the dissolution of ignorance will remain unintelligible to the uninformed and disinterested teenagers who buy NOFX only to annoy their parents.

NOFX is doing its job, but will anybody listen?

COLUMN: Discomfort breeds quality

Published: Tuesday, May 6, 200

Dear readers,

Throughout the semester I've written some fairly controversial columns. And as a result, I've received some vulgar diatribes in response to my views.

I've been accused of using the Constitution in lieu of Charmin to wipe my backside solely because I posited the dangers in assuming the Bill of Rights as universally valid. I've been labeled unsympathetic to the homeless. And I've been called a Nazi on several occasions, once for speaking out against nuclear weapons and again for shedding light on the dangers of handguns. (Last I checked, the Nazis invented the Luger and were designing nuclear arms toward the end of WWII.)

But throughout it all I kept my cool. While some of the narrow e-mails I received were unsettling, I didn't get upset when referred to as a "liberal asshole," a revivalist, a classicist or an uninformed, ignorant, pea-brained nincompoop. No, I didn't seethe, bark out foam or bare my sharp canines. I thanked those who e-mailed me for their responses; I accepted the fact that people hold different opinions than I do and that the public expression of my opinions has a tendency to make others squirm in their ruffled panties.

I did, however, become very uncomfortable at times as I read reader responses. On several occasions, I doubted my own ideas, both before and after publication in anticipation of public rebuttal. I inquired as to whether I truly believed what I was saying or whether I just wanted to get under people's skin. In most cases it was a combination of both.

But it's really discomfort as an object of study that I want to defend. In modern times, people highly value their comfort and consider it a moral violation when things are copasetic and some rabble-rouser comes along and turns everything upside down. Often, the result is an erroneous lawsuit where trivialities become trauma and people exaggerate the amount of damage they've endured.

This is disheartening, because by now people should be insightful enough to gather some keen perspicuity out of an uncomfortable situation rather than having to be awarded money by a judge in order to feel like the situation has been rectified. It seems that life's lessons are being grossly overlooked because we value our commodious lifestyle too much. People seem to have forgotten that life is about intervals of pain and pleasure.

Given the history of the world, it's ironic that people allow distress to disturb them. Rather than putting it to a good cause, namely self-affirmation, people complain, or lay lethargic, quoting the maxim, "The world's not fair," instead of trying to alter these circumstances. Most people view discomfort in any form as extremely abject, and will do anything they can to avoid it.

But uneasiness gives birth to desire, protest, progress and reformation. Things that are unpleasant and aggravating teach you more about yourself and the world than do situations of friendliness and neutrality. Things that are upsetting are just as valuable if not more so than things that are pleasing.

Discomfort has been the world's most galvanizing catalyst in the natural and the social realm. Animals adapt and evolve because of the discomfort of competition and death. People are uncomfortable with hegemonic political states, oppression and injustice, and this threat, this uneasiness, provokes them to congregate in the streets yelling, chanting and screaming.

Rosa Parks could have easily not moved from her seat that fateful day in 1955. If she had merely found a way to be comfortable and accept her subjugated position, the world would be a very different place. She could have just started walking to work and avoid the immediate pain of her stance against riding in the back of the bus. But instead she confronted an unbearable situation. Discomfort makes people reassess their beliefs and reaffirm their philosophy. It concretizes their values. Discomfort that people don't act upon is harmful; confronting discomfort leads to the betterment of the world.

Instead of viewing discomfort as something that should be avoided at all costs, whether it's physical pain or emotional distress, it's absolutely imperative to view every situation in the human life as offering some sort of anecdotal wisdom. Why avoid pain, or sadness, or anger at all costs when there's much to be learned from these things? Of course, exaggerations like sado-masochism, depression and violent outbreaks are not healthy but a good dose of discomfort is essential to the balanced life. What good is the life only filled with ups and no downs? Can a person who's never suffered know the true meaning of happiness?

Men avoid wearing pink shirts for fear of being stereotyped. Many women to this day hesitate before arguing with their male partners. Most people hate hearing opinions that drastically clash with their own. These types of discomfort need to be confronted before we can progress as a society.

More instrumental than avoiding certain types of discomfort is spelunking the caverns of the mind; it could be that you're uncomfortable because something is festering that needs closure and resolution.

If what you read on the Opinion pages of the Lobo makes veins bulge in your forehead, great! But once you've calmed down, take some time and ask yourself, "Why was I upset just then? What does that say about me as a person? And do I really want to react that way?" And if you still feel strongly, let us know. Write us an inflammatory invective. Tell us when and why we're wrong. Butt heads with us, don't just put your tail between your legs and sulk away.

In conclusion, thanks to everyone I've upset over the course of the semester and I look forward to accommodating your discomfort in the future.



Send jeremiads to erichow@unm.edu

COLUMN: U.S., U.N. should join forces

Published: Thursday, April 24, 2003

Anecdotes about pride are plentiful. In the Book of Proverbs, the Bible tells us that, "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall."

Founding forefather Thomas Jefferson said, "Pride costs more than hunger, thirst and cold." And, perhaps most pertinent, American Clergyman Fulton John Sheen said, "Pride is an admission of weakness; it secretly fears all competition and dreads all rivals."

Despite requests from the United Nations, the White House continues to hurdle international collaborative-effort plans in establishing a post-war Iraqi government. Yet in this time of political strife, when it would be surprisingly easy to make an even more flammable effigy of ourselves, the United States must use extreme caution so as not to let the rewarding smell of burning rubble and victory overpower the other senses.

Especially the most common of all senses.

The United States and the United Nations both agree that the prompt sovereign rule of Iraq by Iraqis and not a puppet government run by outsiders should be set as the ultimate and final goal in the Iraq liberation process. However, America stands to lose more than it will gain should it choose to assume sole responsibility without actively allowing the United Nations to play a major role.

While many Coalition flag-wavers are calling to mind the original oppositionary stance that U.N. Security Council members France, Germany and Russia maintained prior to the Coalition acts of vigilance as just cause for excluding these nations from post-war efforts, listening to these voices would be a pigheaded action. Now is not the time for America to let jingoistic pride stand in the way of global peace efforts, now is the time to embrace an international gregariousness.

In calming the narrowly patriotic voices that want the post-war resolution to reflect gloriously only on those nations that chose to run alongside America's war machine from time zero, it's important to remember that many members of the U.N. did not oppose a war targeting the annihilation of misanthropic Iraqi tyrants, they merely opposed a premature war based on speculation and decade-long grudges.

But in the aftermath of war, many nations are stepping forward, extending their generosity toward the Coalition Forces and offering assistance. And it would be damned foolish of the United States to sacrifice turning a questionable deed into a virtuous one only because we want to stand alone at the podium.

As of Tuesday, France was the first non-militaristically involved country that supported the indefinite lifting of U.N. sanctions placed on Iraq since the 1990 attack on Kuwait. The embargos have since crippled Iraq's economy, which would otherwise be strong due, obviously, to a plentitude of oil.

Germany and Russia remain hesitant, calling for the reimplementation of U.N. weapons inspections to verify Iraq's disarmament before raising sanctions. But rather than accepting Hans Blix's offer to return to Iraq with a party of U.N. weapons inspectors and hunt down the remaining weapons, the United States has a defiant attitude, radiating a bitter desire to act alone.

By raising sanctions, Iraq can begin to rapidly generate money, thus decreasing the amount of expenditures that will be endured by Coalition countries. In order to instill a sense of autonomy, and give the yet to be appointed/elected Iraqi leaders a firm enough sense of sovereignty to shrug off foreign allegiance, the Iraqi government should be funded primarily from moneys raised through domestic resources. And with Iraqi oil fields pumping oil again, programs like Oil For Food and others should contribute the vast majority of financial resources aimed at restructuring and egalitarianizing Iraq.

Chief U.N. Weapons Inspector Hans Blix recently proffered services toward the Coalition Forces, offering to return to Iraq and aid in the hunt for weapons of mass destruction. The United States declined, sending more than 1,000 American weapon inspectors in lieu of the U.N. delegates.

Not only would working with the U.N. garner global support in Iraqi peace efforts, but also strengthen the unstable relationship between the United States and many nations that opposed rash artillery deployment. Iran has renounced American presence in Iraq, stating that they will not recognize any form of legislative system founded by America.

In working with the U.N., the United States stands to gain a more generalized acceptance of the future Iraqi government from Arab states; a joint national effort will emanate philanthropy and potentially squelch faction rebellions. It will be much harder for Iraqi opposition groups to gain support in protesting a U.N. effort than just an American effort alone.

Working closely with the U.N. is the perfect opportunity for the United States to shrug off the world's perception of America as having a Superman complex, save billions of dollars that could be better invested in our own economy and demonstrates that our interests are in the right place. Instead of boasting independence, why not enforce foreign relations by assenting to cooperate, showing that we are not a country run by pride, arrogance and immature feuds.

Share the burden, America. Save some money. Do the right thing.

COLUMN: Beware of pseudoscience

Published: Thursday, April 17, 2003

Ah, medicinal science. With your bounty of assorted pharmaceutical tablets, catheters, and colostomy bags, what can't you do?

Throughout the world, medicinal practices are used daily to treat human afflictions. And with researchers working double time, testing and retesting formulas and hurling beakers full of boric acid at annoying coworkers, the timely discovery of the newest panacea could be mere seconds away.

Crude attempts at medical treatment have probably been with humans as long as language. For this reason, medicine has a long paper trail of barbaric and untrustworthy shenanigans; from carving open people's craniums with seashells to reduce brain swelling and "let the spirits out" (a.k.a. trephination), to allowing starving leeches to feast on large blood clots, the ancients tried practically every machination imaginable to ease physical pain and psychological trauma.

Nevertheless, a larger percentage of moderns put more faith in medicine than in God, which is ironic considering that doctors still make mistakes at an alarming rate.

This is not to say that the fruits of medicine are entirely feckless or that doctors are misanthropic, spiteful rats. Quite the contrary; medicine has contributed to eudemonic fulfillment almost as much as the Philly Cheese Steak. The malignancy associated with medicine is this: the faith placed in doctors and "scientific" medicinal research is a dangerous product of hegemony and, like a car mechanic, takes advantage of people's ignorance of subject matter.

But are modern medicinal techniques the final answer? Are the current practices as universally authentic as many believe them to be?

As the Greek philosopher Heraclitus said, "Everything is in flux." This means that nothing is ever guaranteed eternal truthfulness, despite what the powers that be may assert.

All doctors agree that a regular dose of Vitamin C, Calcium and complex carbohydrates lead to a healthy lifestyle - today.

But what of tomorrow? Running used to be healthy, now it's bad for your knees. Alcoholic beverages used to be deleterious, now they help to unclog arteries and can be of assistance during coronary failure. Early reports of cigarettes claimed that they were benign recreation. Years later they've proven to be one of the most life threatening acquired pandemics ever.

Instead of deifying medicine and science, it's more practical to be weary and to take what the "authorities" say with a skeptical grain of salt. Does this sound paranoid? Yes. But with the monumental mistakes doctors have made in the past (i.e. frontal lobotomies, laudanum, not cloning Shakira, etc.), being cautious is justifiable.

It's important to remember that not every laboratory study mentioned on the nightly news deserves a two-thumbs-up approval rating. In fact, some medicinal research is improperly conducted, harmfully misleading, and platitudinous.

Take for example a study investigating the relation between sex, shaving, and strokes in men.

Medical researchers in Wales had a sneaking suspicion that men with five o'clock shadows would suffer more strokes and heart attacks than baby-faced angels. The results of the study were shocking, claiming that men who don't shave daily have a 70 percent greater probability of falling victim to strokes than habitual Mach-3 users.

The study also observed that men who don't shave regularly were likely to be unmarried and could expect orgasms with lower frequency. The logical conclusion drawn from these results? Fuzzy men get less sex. Less sex means more strokes.

This particular study spanned 20 years.

Hey, lab nerd! Instead of watching the poor bearded bastards stay virgins for two more decades, why didn't you just buy the sorry jerks a razor? Come on science! Don't just watch these unkempt Welshmen deteriorate for 20 years! Get them some sex! And bring it in truckloads! We're talking Welshmen here!

(Sorry for the outburst. I'm just waiting for my doctor-prescribed rage pill to kick in. Serenity now.)

While the findings from the Shaving-Stroking experiment are suspect, the study - and thousands like it - places the reputation of factual medicine in jeopardy because it's what's known as pseudoscience - a field of study based on fallacious foundations or foundations. Pseudoscience looks scientific, smells scientific, but doesn't taste scientific. Closely related to pseudoscience is pseudomedicine - a branch of pseudoscience - and is, as far as the public is concerned, legitimate research. The pseudo-fields of thought gives bona fide experimentation a bad rap.

Another pseudoscientific example hails from London. Dr. Frederic Berthier of the Nice Teaching Hospital recently reported that winning the World Cup greatly reduces the number of lethal heart attacks suffered throughout an entire country.

The 1998 World Cup game saw a brutal match-up between France and Brazil. Dr. Berthier noticed that in the days immediately preceding and following France's victory, an average of 33 Frenchmen died daily from heart attacks. But on game day, only 23 Frenchmen lost their lives. Ergo, winning soccer matches, covering yourself head to toe in red oil paint, and screaming till oxygen depravation turns your face blue, stopping only for the occasional alcohol fueled bout of fisticuffs with the opposing team's fan base, reduces the likelihood that irregular heart palpitations will drag you kicking and screaming to Hades.

Pseudoscience and pseudomedicine want us to believe the following: If we could find a way to allow every team to win the World Cup everyday, maybe we can effectively eliminate heart attacks altogether! (I'll get Big Brother on it right away.)

With doctors, students, and researchers all looking for the one idea that has eluded everyone else, that one noteworthy discovery that will guarantee a nod in the history books, the social blunders of pseudomedicine are running rampant under the guise of truth.

As conscientious consumers, it's our job to question what we're being told. For all we know, another retraction may be just around the corner.



Send a stretcher and 10 cc's of morphine to erichow@unm.edu.

COLUMN: Concealed weapons act harmful

Published: Thursday, April 10, 2003

According to a recent report, criminal inmate populations grew 11.1 percent last year in New Mexico.

With national incarceration rates at an historical high, seeking to lower the number of felonious perpetrators entering into the prison system would seem to be the next logical step for our governing body to take.

However, a recent bill passed in New Mexico will actually boost criminal activity, increasing the frequency with which rash criminal acts that result in fatalities and injuries occur.

On Monday, April 7, Governor Bill Richardson signed a bill previously passed by the N.M. House and the State Senate that would allow qualified individuals to obtain permits, for a fee, allowing them to carry a concealed handgun on their person.

The very fact that two gun-related incidents struck within close proximity to UNM two times in the past six days should indicate that laws dictating handguns need to be made more stringent, not more lenient.

Saturday morning at Denny's on Central Avenue. an overzealous pancake fan, unwilling to wait the customary 20 minutes for service, began threatening to rob the establishment if a tasty stack of syrup and flapjacks was not procured on his behalf. When the Denny's employees ejected the man, he withdrew a loaded pistol, pointed it at the staff and then dared them to call the police. They complied and the man was arrested.

Fortunately, no one was hurt in the incident.

However, not all instances of handgun misconduct end peacefully. On Tuesday, a man was shot and killed inside Mail Boxes Etc. after an altercation erupted between a pedestrian and a motorist. The affair resulted in the death of the motorist from a gunshot wound to the lower back.

As it stands now, both of these men were illegally carrying concealed handguns. As citizens, it's our duty to ask how and why paying $100 for a permit can change the legal nature of a concealed weapon from a violation to a perfectly legitimate happening.

The fact of the matter is this: handguns in urban settings are carried with the sole intention of harming other people. Any law that legally affords people the privilege of carrying a deadly weapon without an explicit purpose (i.e. protecting and serving) is counterproductive to making our streets a safer place.

"Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you're going to use it," you might say.

If you don't plan on using it, why carry it? For the sake of feeling empowered?

Advocates of the bill claim that toting hidden handguns will actually decrease the amount of aggressive crimes that transpire because, when the threat of concealed armament is presented, violent criminals will think twice before robbing that unfortunate fellow who frequently visits dark alleyways.

This logic, however, borders on idiocy. Any way you cut it, concealing a handgun protects no one and endangers everyone. If the intention is to deter scofflaws from committing criminal acts, it makes more sense to display the firearm than it does to conceal it.

If a criminal can see that a man has a handgun, he won't try to rob him for fear of being shot. This eliminates the confrontation entirely, which is good. Evidence of this: people don't rob police officers because policemen and policewomen wear their firearms in a highly visible fashion, as a deterrent.

But if the handgun is not visible, criminals have no way of knowing whether or not their potential victim is armed and, as the maxim goes, "Criminals is stupid." For that matter, it is highly unlikely that criminals will be dissuaded from their intentions merely because someone "could" be holstering a concealed weapon.

This latter predicament presents far too many opportunities for bloodshed. If the robber has a knife and the victim is a concealed weapons permit holder, the victim becomes legally justified in making the thief's chest resemble the floor of a meat locker. Later, in court, the permit holder can cry, "Self defense!" and get away with a slap on the wrist.

Or not. Given that most thefts take place in poorly lit areas, the victim could overestimate the threat of the would-be thief, send an unarmed petty thief to the morgue, and spend the next 20 years in jail.

Call me a pacifist, but, on the rare occasion that I actually have $20 in my wallet, I would rather forfeit my cash than be responsible for taking another human life. Twenty dollars is a small price to pay for not suffering from the mental anguish of knowing that I sent someone to the grave.

What ever happened to a good, old-fashioned thrashing? Or mace in the face? Or stun guns? Previously, when presented with a menacing individual, people either forfeited their wallet of fought back.

In modern times, many people can succeed in securely asserting themselves on when they possess the necessary means to kill another person. Yes, when someone takes my money, they inconvenience me and violate my personal space, but does that give me the right to flash a pistol in their face or shoot them? Absolutely not.

Imagine how many bar room brawls have ended peacefully for no other reason than a deadly weapon wasn't available at the time of fury or intoxication. Would equipping these people with a deadly but legal weapon have helped to diffuse the situation? Or would it have merely heightened the level of severity and potential for harm?

Rather than increasing the presence of handguns in the community, we should be taking active measures to decrease crime by keeping firearms where they belong: out of social environments. Putting more weapons in the hands of people who do not need them is a solution that will surely have unforeseen and grave consequences.

Music Review: AFI album profoundly haunting

Published: Tuesday, April 8, 2003

Davey Havok is the punk rock equivalent of Edgar Allen Poe.

California’s AFI, or A Fire Inside if, to quote the Dude, “you’re not into the whole brevity thing,” has been kinetically summoning Halloween-spirited black mojo for over a decade.

The band’s newest masterpiece, Sing the Sorrow, renews the dooming prescription developed by their previous albums The Art of Drowning and Black Sails in the Sunset.

Often revered as revivalists, with five full-length albums and two EPs to their credit, the members of AFI gloriously carry on the traditional gothic-punk torch, upholding the hooting owl/cemetery/zombies inspired legacy of Ed Wood, Vincent Price and Glen Danzig of The Misfits.

But singer Davey Havok and the other three members of AFI outclass Danzig’s Misfits. By singing about more than the lust for undead girlfriends and Martians, it’s obvious that the semantic séance pool from which AFI conjures ideas runs deeper than the proverbial six feet.

AFI doesn’t disappoint those fastidious punk rockers searching for profundity in poesy. Latin Necronomicon-esque song titles, techno-gothic drum machines, industrial intonations and chainsaw-ripping guitar riffs help pull the listener into AFI’s doomed cavern, a land of dripping stalactites and vampire mystique.

Something remains elusive about AFI. The band’s lyrics are esoteric, not like the political crossword puzzles of Bad Religion, but more haunting and mysterious. The lyrics read like a dark, candle-lit biblical passage with a pinch of film noir detective gloom.

But AFI is more than the punk rock equivalent to “Night of the Living Dead.” The group’s opportune timing and understanding of traditional musical techniques gives Sing the Sorrow a classical, antique texture. The music is not dated, rather it has the mimetic quality of entering a musty attic after having just drunk several pots of black coffee — scared and energized.

Unlike the majority of punk rock, AFI understands the importance of a carefully crafted segue. Abrupt track closure and confrontational beginnings are not found on Sing the Sorrow. Interludes help the album be less viscous.
The album is a constant streaming flow of ups and downs without sudden drops and harsh ruptures.

Sing the Sorrow is an album of requiems, necromancy, hopelessness and what Havok calls in “Dance Through Sunday,” “horrid romance.”

Sing the Sorrow, produced by Butch Vig, is a standard AFI record and while it fails to reach the standard set forth by The Art of Drowning, its shortcomings are minimal and forgivable.

Enter the labyrinth.

COLUMN: White Sands glorifies first bomb detonation

Published: Thursday, April 3, 2003


Attention all lovers of mass destruction!

In celebration of America's awesome power to blow things to smithereens with little to no remorse, the White Sands Missile Range will open the pearly gates of Ground Zero to the public on Saturday, April 5 from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. for all interested parties - a.k.a. the death obsessed.

The occasion? The celebration of the world's first nuclear bomb detonation, which took place 58 years ago in southern New Mexico near Alamogordo.

That's right, folks. Before Japan got dealt a double tempura suplex more devastating than wasabi up the nose, Gary and Wyatt from "Weird Science," and several other noteworthy scientists, proved their love for the land of amber waves of grain (that's America, stupid) by accepting the most risqué mission since Cool Hand Luke ate 50 hard-boiled eggs in an hour.

The noble nerds congregated in Los Alamos in 1942 with the intention of developing a novel alcoholic beverage that was destined to become the drink nouveau du high society cocktail parties. Mysteriously labeled "The Manhattan Project," the crew, lead by mastermind Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer, failed miserably in their initial goal. Imagine - a group of nuclear physicists couldn't remember that a Manhattan is two ounces Rye Whiskey, 3/4 ounces Sweet Vermouth and three dashes of Angostura Bitters. Talk about a socialite faux pas nightmare.

But fortunately for President Roosevelt's biker gang The Deadly Peace Cobras (a.k.a. the Allied Powers, the United States, France, England and the now defunct Soviet Union), within two years' time the rambunctious scientists serendipitously stumbled upon a way of reaching critical mass while mixing grenadine and napalm with a splash of Pernod. The 19-kiloton nuclear equivalent of the bubonic plague helped preserve the integrity of Europe's Jewish population and contained the spread of guttural tongues and Ochsenschwanzsuppe.

The first nuclear bomb, or "doomsday device" as it were referred to by skeptics, was tested at White Sands on July 16, 1945. While there's no doubt that the scientists were super-smart braniacs, some actually feared that the bomb might ignite all the oxygen in the earth's atmosphere and kill everybody on the planet. What a riot!

Thankfully, the scientists risked world annihilation, dropped the bomb, clenched their teeth, and watched from a meager 10,000 yards away as the sand of southern New Mexico was instantaneously melted into Trinitite - a green radioactive glass - by the super-hot 40,000 foot tall mushroom cloud. (Interesting trivia fact: The force behind the detonation shattered windows up to 120 miles away!)

The Trinity Site (named after the holy trinity of Larry, Curly, and Moe) is open only twice a year to civilians, so seize the opportunity. Though most of the Trinitite has been snagged in an attempt to breed a legion of superhumans in a hidden lair miles beneath the earth's crust, some find consolation in knowing that had they stood next to the brick Trinity Monument at 5:29 a.m. on July 16, 1945, they too could have become the Incredible Hulk.

For our hungry patrons, snacks and beverages will be on sale, so you won't have to celebrate death on an empty stomach.



Shoot a skud over to erichow@unm.edu

COLUMN: Bats could be secret weapon

Published: Thursday, March 27, 2003


As the tension surrounding the war in Iraq heightens, the United States continues to look for new resolutions for the arenaceous Persian Gulf chokehold. And it should come as no surprise that new avenues of tactical warfare are currently being employed.

However, it takes a strange mind to turn a lackadaisical stroll through the zoo into a scouting mission for new military recruits. And yet, such is the case with the U.S. Armed Forces.

While the use of animals in combat is not a new notion by any means (horses, dogs and pigeons have all been used, and who could forget Hannibal the Barbarian's champion elephant Surus!), the U.S. Navy has stumbled upon a new and rather obscure combat treasure. Dolphins.

Renowned for their intellectual superiority and rambunctious squealing, it didn't take long before the natural gifts supplied to our deep-sea mammalian brethren were exploited in the interests of mankind. Bottle Nosed Dolphins, endemic to practically every ocean in the world, are presently being used to detect mines off the coast of Umm Qasr and other port towns. These dolphins are specially trained to use their sonar mind tricks to seek out mines that Iraqi soldiers may have placed offshore.

If the dolphins say the coast is clear, the Marines drop anchor, spend several labor-filled days drinking and mingling with local harlots, and then commence to skewer some Arab-kabobs.

According to U.S. Navy Captain Mike Tillotson, the dolphins, which are being transported in first-class, luxury fleece-lined slings, "travel very well." Though I was unable to contact Tillotson himself, a Southwestern Airlines representative told me that "traveling well" for dolphins is not all that different from humans; staying seated during landing and take-off, not smoking in the restrooms, and refraining from spouting blowhole water at the stewardesses when requests for extra pillows go unheard are all characteristic of a well behaved traveler.

Zoological wartime potential is an amazing, untapped resource. Historically, animals have contributed so much to the veni, vidi, vici mentality that it begs the question: What animals could contribute to our plight?

So I got to thinking.

If the Navy has an aquamarine animal aiding in the war against terrorism, it's only fair that the other branches of the militia should have a patriotic animal as well. My suggestion for the Air Force: vampire bats.

The beauty lies in the simplicity of it all. If a plague of airborne vampire bats were unleashed on Baghdad, planting their demon seed in the necks of every Iraqi, the time required to exterminate Saddam Hussein and his band of ruffians would be cut in half.

Operation Guano Flapjack consists of six painless stages:

1) Release hordes of flying underworld spawn, turning every citizen of Iraq into a sanguinary Dracula.

2) Close off all borders with Iraq.

3) Wait. The vampire experts I consulted predict that within 72 hours every Iraqi citizen will be infected and, with the borders closed, no fresh blood will be available. Given the voracious appetite of vampires, all warm-blooded beasts (goats, sheep, etc.) will be sucked dry within another 48 hours. The Iraqi vampires will then wither and grow weak from malnourishment and lack the energy to escape the accursed sun.

4) Spray a lethal concoction of garlic gas over the country thereby eliminating the stubborn stragglers hiding in the shadows.

5) Sweep up the mess.

6) Throw a party. (Stage six is optional.)

With the Air Force and the Navy taken care of, that leaves us with the terrestrial divisions of the Armed Forces, the Coast Guard, and the Marines. Because no one really gives two hoots about the Coast Guard (a.k.a. bullhorn jockeys) and the Marines are currently working on arming salmon with lasers (early trials were purportedly flawed, undesired side-effects consisted of sashimi massacres and swimming downstream), we'll stick to the Army.

Finding a suitable animal to represent the Army was quite a task. Images of quails and armadillos immediately came to mind. And then it hit me. As all children and adults with head trauma know, the Tasmanian devil is a ferocious beast capable of summoning tornados at will.

While tornados in themselves are not devastating enough to wipe out the entirety of Iraq's forces, a now-extinct cousin of the Tasmanian devil, the Tasmanian tiger-wolf, possessed the awesome power to summon lightning storms, earthquakes, tsunamis, and cholera. Dubbed the "Gandalf of marsupials," the Tasmanian tiger-wolf would indubitably be of assistance in these desperate times.

My recommendation is that geneticists work as diligently as possible to reproduce and clone this striped beast, in all of its pouched glory, before it's too late.

In the meantime, all Iraqi generals are hereby challenged to box ten, three-minute rounds with a full-grown kangaroo. If they lose, their infantrymen must lay down their weapons.

Place your bets!



Send preserved specimens to erichow@unm.edu