Everyone knows that we can’t have both environmental protections and a healthy economy with plenty of jobs. If we try to save the environment, we’ll end up throwing people out of work: timber loggers can’t log, coal miners can’t mine, oil barons can’t bar, etc. I think we’re only weeks away from hearing someone posit the converse to this theory, the brighter side to the 2.3 million jobs that went missing in the Bush administration: obviously, the environment must have gotten that much better!

So maybe you’ve heard of the flypaper strategy and maybe you haven’t. In a nutshell, it’s the idea that by occupying Iraq, we can redirect terrorists who would normally be killing civilians in America, or say, Spain, into attacking our troops on the ground there, who are better equipped to deal with that kind of thing. Leaving aside the problem that the soldiers in Iraq aren’t really all that well equipped to deal with terror attacks, and ignoring that the flypaper strategy is obviously not working, a radical thought occurred to me the other day:

If a low-intensity American occupation of Iraq is good for drawing terrorists out of their spider-holes, think how amazingly effective all-out civil war in Iraq would be! Rampaging mobs in the streets, sectarian massacres, brutal reprisals — what terrorist wouldn’t want to participate! I’m predicting now that if Iraq turns into a horrible, bloody mess, you’ll hear at least one person try to find the silver lining in this wise.

I was warned by my friend Bob last night that I need to read the Economist with more salt grains. I guess Salon’s got some new article saying the Economist needs to be “debunked” again. Well, I read the article Salon refers to, and I thought it was pretty awful, but I think it knew how awful it was. It seemed almost apologetic in explaining how tenuous the data was that supported its conclusions. I got the feeling that most everyone looking into the issue of global economic inequality has really no idea how to get a decent handle on the problem. I understand the Gini coefficient — but after that it’s all a blur in my mind. Also, depending on the day of the week, I either have no idea what the consequences of income inequality are and or I am fighting mad about it.

Maybe the article was actually a cynical piece designed to make me think that a clear issue is actually cloudy. All I know is that as soon as I hear or read the word “globalization” I get tired. And when I see the words “International Monetary Fund”, I start to get cranky. Also, I am really tired of hearing about Argentina. That’s right, Argentinians, I’m sick of your whole country.

I guess the point I’m trying to make is that I really like reading the Economist, because it’s well-written and topical, but I fear that it’s turning me into either a Tory or a befuddled idiot incapable of rational thought.

Your bible-fearing Christian likes to throw around Leviticus when they are trying to fill in the blank in “God hates ________”. For instance, Leviticus 11:10 tells us that God hates shrimp.

Chapter 18 is particularly good, because it reads like a really unimaginative purity test. Verses 1-5 are just some preface material, “I am the LORD“, etc, etc. Verse 6, God says not to bone any close relatives, then in verses 7-16, he goes on to helpfully list all of these relationships: your mother, your sisters and half-sisters, any granddaughters you might have, your sisters again, any aunts on your dad’s side, your aunts on your mom’s side, your father’s sisters-in-law, your daughter-in-law, and finally, your own sisters-in-law. Whew!

What did this leave out? Umm. Everything, I guess, if you’re a girl. Nieces and cousins, too. God does have some other special Springer-esque additions, too, in verses 17 and 18: don’t shag both a woman and her daughter, or any of her grandkids. Also, don’t marry your wife’s sister and have sex with her while your wife is still alive. To review that last one, it’s okay to marry two sisters at once, but you can only screw one of them, at least until the first one dies.

Okay, now that we’ve got all this tricky family stuff out of the way, we’re on to the easy stuff. Verses 19 and 20: “Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period. Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.” Here’s where God starts to lose me. How the heck do you mention banging your wife during her monthly visit from Aunt Flo in the same breath as child sacrifice? Maybe God’s just speaking off the top of his head here — he did mention sisters twice in the list up above.

Anyway, after all of this, he finally gets to gays: “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” I’m told on good authority that though one could read this verse as only applying to three-way sex, it’s actually about dudes getting it on with dudes. Verse 23 rules out bestiality, and explicitly mentions that women shouldn’t do it either. Does this mean the other rules God’s been listing off don’t apply to women? Guess so.

I bring this all up because I wanted to make a point about how knocking boots with ladies who were on the rag got our country into this mess, but now I’m just not sure how to make that point anymore. Reading the Bible has made me all confused and woozy.