How does one explain all the misguided, unwise, sometimes
outright boneheaded things the Bush administration has done
since taking over nearly five years ago, and continues to do on
a pretty much daily basis? How is it possible for a group of
supposedly intelligent, experienced individuals to take this
many wrong turns? Wouldn't you think that once in a while, even
by accident, that George W. Bush and his advisers would make a
decision that made sense?
Can this much mismanagement happen totally at random? Would
the occupants of the Bush White House have us believe that all
these things, these missteps, these miscalculations, these
attempts to deceive, that they all, you know, just kind of
I'm not so sure. And I'm not the only one starting to ask
questions. More and more, it seems unlikely that mere human
beings could make this many mistakes without some sort of
misguiding force, a kind of supernatural entity that has trouble
remembering where it put its car keys.
That's where unintelligent design comes in.
Once one embraces the concept of unintelligent design — a
kind of doofus-like cosmic force — it becomes much easier to get
your head around the operations of the Bush administration.
I mean, making executive decisions randomly would still
probably result in doing the right thing 50 per cent of the
time. So how does one explain such consistent goofiness, like
invading a nation based on evidence that the administration knew
didn't exist in the first place?
Or exposing a CIA employee's identity just to settle some
Ignoring international trade agreements you've signed on to?
Adopting a head-in-the-sand approach to the connection
between human activity on the planet Earth and global warming?
Letting the boss be photographed on the ranch, golfing and
cutting brush and chilling out and generally having a good ol'
time while young Americans die overseas?
Not having the media savvy to have that same boss take a
stroll down the driveway and chat with a woman whose son was one
of those young Americans?
Doing an end run around the Senate to send a loose cannon to
the U.N., while supposedly promoting democracy abroad?
Not firing a defence secretary who totally misjudged how many
troops would be needed to secure Iraq?
Giving rich folks back home huge tax cuts while soldiers go
without adequate body armour?
Looking upon scientific and medical innovations like they're
some sort of voodoo and letting other nations take the lead in
these areas for the first time?
You can't tell me that some magnificently dumb force, more
confused and baffled than all the members of the Bush
administration put together, didn't have a hand in this.
But I know what some of you skeptical types are thinking.
You're thinking, hey pal, where's your proof? Where's the actual
evidence, the cold, hard facts, to support my contention that
unintelligent design has played a role in the decisions of the
Well, that's easy. I have none. Not one shred of solid
evidence. But let me ask you this. What evidence do you have
that I'm wrong? My theory explaining Bush White House screwups
is, by its very nature, impossible to disprove. And if you can't
disprove it, then you don't have much choice but to consider it
as an alternative.
That's why I'm pushing to have universities start teaching my
unintelligent design theory in their political science courses.
Sure, these know-it-all professors may be teaching that Bush and
his ilk do what they do because they're captives of their own
ideology, that they're pandering to baser instincts and popular
prejudices to shore up support among certain constituencies,
that they're willing to put their own political interests ahead
of those of regular Americans.
Yeah, well, maybe. But my theory doesn't take as long to
explain on the final.