More Love Mail today! This one has so much more flamboyant charm than Chip Linkhorn’s short message.

First of all i woudl liek to say that you are in need of a reality check. Secondly i woudl liek to say that what you are publishing on the internet is absolutely wrong and actually possibly the dumbest thing i have just abotu ever heard. You need to stop thinking about how “bad ” our president may be and focus on other things liek how to make yourself more helpful to the community. Not slander George Bush. Your arguments on the chemical suits are completely off and have no point of even beign said. The US has perfected chemical warfare and the techniques to use it but using it on the homeland is crazy unless you are a coked-up acid junkie. which you no doubt probably are. Also, the US woudl not even waste its time thinkign abotu using chemical weapons in Iraq or any other miniscule war. the last time the US has used chemical weapons was in the First and Second World War.

Another complaint against your bullshit is the fact that you are trying to get people with you by claiming the government will persecute you for some made up terrorism reason. What is wrong with you?! You dont even know what it is like over in Iraq all you probably do is try and save some dumb fucking whales and say the President is crazy when in fact you are the one in need of a mental institution.

God Bless America,
Harrison Anderson

God bless you, Harrison Anderson. God bless you! You can check my reality any time.

Yes, hon, you sure got me coming and going with that “you are trying to get people with you by claiming the government will persecute you for some made up terrorism reason.” I mean, I am so full of shit. Bull shit, even (how’d that get in there?)! It’s not like, you know, the government settled a lawsuit just today for big time bucks for illegally detaining, torturing and deporting some guy who it turned out wasn’t even a terrorist, and stuff. You know, like cleared of terrorism charges and junk. It’s not like the place in Brooklyn where that guy was held without criminal charges was found in a 2003 Department of Justice report to be a den of human rights abuses. Like being shackled and then kicked until you bled, and having a flashlight shoved up your rectum. I mean, that never happens! This is America! Or Umerica! One of those. I never can remember which.

P.S. Do you know how dangerous it is to save a dumb, fucking whale? A dumb whale is hard enough to save. A fucking whale, also pretty tough. But a dumb and fucking whale? Good thing I had my vasoline!

It all begins with one question: What was Peter Waldron doing in Uganda with a bunch of guns hidden in his house?

The government of Uganda intends to find out, and so is putting Waldron on trial for terrorism. In the process of that trial, the American people may find out quite a bit about their own government that they don’t like.

Let’s list what we know about Peter Waldron, and then we’ll try to piece the picture together a bit later:

- Peter Waldron is from Wyoming - Dick Cheney’s home state
- Like Dick Cheney, Peter Waldron seems to be fond of guns. Waldron was found with assault rifles hidden in his bedroom by a crowd of Ugandans in his Kisugu home (outside Kampala) just after the re-election of Yoweri Museveni
- Two men were seen leaving Waldron’s house carrying a bag that contained two assault rifles just before Waldron himself was apprehended
- Waldron claims to have been working as an information technology consultant for the Ugandan ministry of health
- Waldron also claims to have been working as the publisher of a news magazine, the Africa Dispatch, but other accounts list Waldron as just a freelance writer and photographer
- The Africa Dispatch appears to be created in partnership with a writer affiliated with the right wing Reverend Moon’s Unification Church
- Waldron worked with a company known as the Contact America Group
- Documents found on Waldron indentify him as an advisor to the Rocky Mountain Technology Group
- Waldron is also the founder of a right wing Christian group, the Cities of Faith Ministries. The mission of the Cities of Faith Ministries is to expand and extend “the Kingdom of God on earth by teaching Biblical principles and precepts that build civil society blessed by the Almighty God of the Bible”, and justifies its work as “addressing God’s governments and a Believer’s Biblical responsibilities in society in which one lives and to the institutions that influence, and in some cases, govern the world’s society”, and writes in its central document that “The Bible represents the absolute source for the guiding principles and precepts for all governments in man (self-government), of families (family government), churches (church government), and for nations (civil government).”
- The Ugandan Inspector General of Police says that Waldron had links to an unnamed organization in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and “planned to set up a political party here based on Christian principles.”
- According to the Ugandan police, Peter Waldron was also thought to be a diplomat representing the United States government
- In an interview with the New Republic, a right wing American magazine, the following information about Waldron is made available:
— When the reporter asked about the nature of his work, Waldron replied “I’m not at liberty to say.”
— Some of Waldron’s work resulted in people getting executed by a firing squad
— Waldron claims to be a veteran of the United States military
— Waldron has visited the White House, accompanied by MC Hammer
— Waldron has been a syndicated radio talk-show host
— Waldron has been a lobbyist
— Waldron has worked as a political consultant for campaigns affiliated with the Republican Party
— Waldron has met with Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni
— (The New Republic writer ends his section on Peter Waldron by commenting, “The United States may have a born-again president, but it is far too diverse to ever fully be, as conservatives call it, ‘a Christian nation.’ But Uganda is on its way to becoming one.”)
- Peter Waldron is quoted by the National Alliance Against Christian Discrimination, “The enemies of God won’t tolerate Christian cultural and political action.”
- The Contact America Group describes Peter Waldron’s work as “for clients desiring to either pioneer work or maintain relationships with foreign countries”.
- Waldron claims to have worked on several Republican presidential campaigns, as well as for Republican congressional campaigns. Among these have been Gary Bauer for President, Alan Keyes for President, John McCain for President, and the Bush/Quayle presidential campaign of 1988
- Waldron lists the Republican National Committee, National Republican Congressional Committee, National Republican Senatorial Committee as among his clients
- Waldron describes his political specialty as “organization of the faith-based community” and “Faith-based and Ethnic Specific Coalitions for marketing and campaigns”
- Waldron appears to have had his hands in the campaign to push oil drilling into the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
- Waldron’s work in Uganda - whatever it is - goes back to the 1970s, in the time of Idi Amin
- Waldron conducted some kind of work with the apartheid regime in South Africa
- Waldron’s web site’s reference to his work in Afghanistan contains only three words: “War, war, war”
- In the Sudan, Waldron writes of encountering “civil war”
- An unnamed “US embassy spokeswoman” has been quoted as refusing comment on Waldron, “citing his protections under the “US Government’s Privacy Act” - suggesting that Waldron is working as an agent of the US government

Peter Waldron may turn out to be the Eugene Hasenfus of the Bush Administration, or may turn out to be a dead end. However, whatever Peter Waldron turns out to be, if he is doing some kind of work in Uganda on behalf of the US government, the American people deserve a straight answer.

Watch this story. It’s likely to get stranger and stranger.

Chip Linkhorn writes in to say:

W: Say all you want but he was smart enough to beat your commiecrat asses twice which doesn’t say much for you!

You heard him: go ahead, say all you want. Tell it to Chip!

My own take: See, we voted against him. All that says for us is that there weren’t enough of us. Bush got into office twice because you voted for him twice. Look what’s happened since. That doesn’t say much for you.

Below, I give my free speech bona fides some air, making available an archive of Holocaust Cartoons from an Iranian newspaper. This newspaper is trying to show that we Westerners are just using our Free Speech claims as a cloak, that we won’t show something that we find offensive. Well, I hope I’ve shown that at least in this little corner of the West, that’s bullshit.

Well, I have. And now, moving on in the world of bull,

Four Reasons Why Holocaust Denial is Such Pure Bullshit:

1. It grows out of an embarrassingly transparent hatred for Jewish people. Exhibit A: National Socialist White People’s Party Head Harold Covington’s explanation of Holocaust denial as a tactic:

Take away the Holocaust and what do you have left? Without their precious Holocaust, what are the Jews? Just a grubby little bunch of international bandits and assassins and squatters who have perpetrated the most massive, cynical fraud in human history. Once the world at large becomes aware of the way we have all been lied to and deceived from birth about the causes, events, and responsibility for World War Two, the Jews’ days of lording it over the earth are numbered.

I recall seeing a television program on revisionism a few years ago which closed with Deborah Lipstadt making some statement to the effect that: “the real purpose of Holocaust revisionism is to make National Socialism an acceptable political alternative again.” I normally don’t agree with anything a Jew says, but I recall exclaiming, “Bingo! Got it in one! Give that lady a cigar!”

2. You can’t trust the sources of Holocaust deniers, because their work is so filled with jam-packed with lies. Exhibit B: Nizkor devotes a multitude of pages and people to documenting and refuting the lies of Nazi sympathizers who deny the Holocaust.

3. You can read the accounts of countless people who survived the Holocaust. Exhibit C: Dr. William Samelson of Trinity University

4. You can see the testimony of a multitude of Holocaust survivors yourself. Exhibit D: Watch the 9 1/2 hour Shoah documentary.

I am sure there are many more reasons why Holocaust Denial is pure bullshit. Please share yours.

Earlier this year, we at Irregular Times published our own images of the Islamic prophet Mohammed (Comic 1 | Comic 2 | Comic 3 | Comic 4). Earlier this month, we established a web page to hold the twelve well-known but little-seen cartoons of Mohammed from the Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten.

Initially, we shied away from using the Irregular Times website to publish the Mohammed comics from Denmark. Clearly, we have published our own set of Mohammed comic strips because in writing and drawing them, we naturally agree with them. But we did not draw the original 12 Danish Mohammed cartoons, and do not necessarily find ourselves in agreement with them. Indeed, it would be fair to say that we do not like a number of them, and so we felt little need to publish them in our own mirror site.

However, as it became clear that most American newspapers would refuse to publish the Danish drawings of Mohammed, we began to ask how responsible citizens could possibly form an opinion regarding images of Mohammed if they could not be seen. It is reasonable to expect that active, responsible citizens in an Information Age should be able to review the images and make their own considered decisions regarding them. And so, because our mainstream media has largely refused to make those materials accessible in this case, we felt a need to publish them in our own mirror site.

Since then, the Iranian newspaper Hamshahri, in conjunction with Caricature House, issued a challenge to the West. If Western media would be willing to publish cartoons deeply offensive to Muslims in the name of free speech, would it also be willing to publish cartoons offensive to Jews regarding the Holocaust in the name of free speech?

In making this challenge, the Hamshahri newspaper was making a bet that Western media would respond with a resounding NO. To quote from Hamshahri’s letter of challenge:

As usual, freedom of expression is used to serve as an excuse for westerners to attack sanctities of the Muslims in blatant disregard for moral prinicples and respect for opinions of others. The attack comes despite the fact that it is an unforgiven crime in the West to debate and critique many issues including the domineering system, looting, and crimes perpetrated by the U.S. and Israel as well as historical events like the Holocaust. Many thinkers express doubt about the accuracy of the Holocaust. However even expressing doubt in this regard entails prosecution.

Here, the Hamshahri newspaper displays either its ignorance or its willingness to deceive its readers. While what Hamshahri claims is unfortunately true in some areas of Europe, here in the most powerful Western nation, the United States, it is not a crime at all to debate any of these subjects or matters. Nobody can be prosecuted in the United States for being stupid and ignorant enough to deny that the Holocaust occured. Here in the United States, we let Holocaust deniers say what they have the legal right to say, and then we laugh at them derisively and disprove them with clear evidence of the shameful historical truth of the Holocaust. This is why Holocaust deniers are unhappy in the United States; we fail to give them the cachet of the censored.

After this disappointingly off-kilter beginning, Hamshahri finishes strongly: “Hamshahri is going to measure the sanctity of freedom of expression among the westerners. Thus, it is co-sponsoring with the Caricature House a competition on the Holocaust…. Theme of the competition: what is the limit of Western freedom of expression?”

The Iranians running Hamshahri clearly hope that the Western media will refuse to publish their cartoons because this is “different” or “clearly out of bounds,” or something similar. Then Hamshahri hopes to be able to revel in the hypocrisy of Westerners, and assert more loudly that the whole “free speech” claim is a front for hatred of Islam and Muslims.

In responding to Hamshahri’s challenge, we are presented with the same dilemma as with the Danish cartoons of Mohammed. On the one hand, after reviewing the five Holocaust-related cartoons Hamshahri has made available, it’s fair to say we don’t like most of them. (An exception is an entry by Carlos Latuff of Brazil, which you can see to your right. I won’t speak for my fellow Irregular Times writers, but I personally like this one.) On the other hand, Irregular Times is not only a place for people to find out what we like, but is also a place where citizens can come to find out what’s going on and see for themselves what all the fuss is.

Therefore, with a mind to Hamshahri’s challenge and anticipating that most Western media will NOT publish the Holocaust cartoons, we have created this web page as a repository for the five Holocaust cartoons from the challenge that Hamshahri has made available thus far. Our publication of these Holocaust comics does not indicate that we agree with them; in fact, it’s fair to say that we disagree with most of them to some degree. However, we also feel strongly that such cartoons should be made available as widely as possible.

Furthermore, to go above and beyond, we will also make available to Western eyes six cartoons displayed by Caricature House that respond directly to the publication of Mohammed comics. Again, our publication of these reaction comics does not indicate that we agree with them. These are mostly disappointing in the extent to which they are simplistic (Danes are devils!) or infantilize their own readers (poor Muslims, they can’t control themselves when they see a cartoon. Cartoons are destroying peace!) However, we again feel strongly that such images should be widely available.

You may find an archive of Iran-Sponsored Holocaust Cartoons, and Iranian Cartoon Responses to the Mohammed Comics, right here on our server.

It is my sincere hope that a member of the staff at Hamshahri finds our response and notes with interest how a Westerner reprinted the cartoons … and managed NOT to be arrested for it. I then hope that the staff of Hamshahri might begin considering publishing the Mohammed comics itself, resolving its own case of glaring hypocrisy.

It is also my sincere hope that these comics be made available far and wide to demonstrate the strength of commitment to freely available information, to show that even the images that most strongly upset and offend us do not really hurt us, and in the hope that they become the starting point for discussion with the few sorry, ignorant souls who still believe that there was no Holocaust.

Go to google and type in “Mohammed ‘not about freedom of speech’” and you’ll get, as of right now, 757 web pages on which people write that the Mohammed cartoon controversy is “not about freedom of speech.” I’ve read in multiple places the argument that the right of people to say what they want about different religions is not at issue. Rather, they say, the act of drawing Mohammed is the central offensive act.

I’ve been thinking about this since I drew my own set of four cartoons of Mohammed a while back. What is it that took my own drawings over the line, from not offensive to offensive in the eyes of some Muslims? In my thinking about this, I kept on coming back to the very notion of “Drawings of Mohammed.” What makes a “drawing of Mohammed” actually a drawing of Mohammed?

To tease out an answer to that question, here’s a picture from one of my Mohammed comics:

Note of April 15, 2008: I have voluntarily removed the image of this Mohammed Comic — not because of threats, but because of the recent lack of them. As of late, there have not been riots regarding Mohammed Comics or death threats directed at me or any other public creator of Mohammed Comics. As a gesture in recognition of this return to some state of non-violence on the issue, I am taking my drawn image of Mohammed down. After all, the point of the comic was not to anger Muslims, but to pointedly engage in free speech at a time when free speech on the subject of Islam was threatened. Should the threat arise again, you may expect to see my Mohammed Comics appear again as well.

Now, is that an image of Mohammed? Really? What makes it an image of Mohammed? It certainly isn’t that the picture makes an accurate representation of what the actual person Mohammed looked like in his lifetime. Thanks to the Islamic iconoclasts, there are no surviving pictures of Mohammed to indicate what the man actually looked like. So I ask again, what makes this a picture of Mohammed? My answer: nothing more than me writing the words that tell you it is.

Don’t buy it? OK, watch this incredible transformation:

Poof! In a wink of an eye, Mohammed becomes Carl, the vegetarian restaurant waiter, offering you a nice glass of wheatgrass juice. What is this magic I traffic in, you ask? Well, watch me again:

Poof! It’s Mohammed again! (speaking, by the way, in his very own words from the Qu’ran)

There’s a saying in positivist science circles: “you can’t explain a variable with a constant.” Let me spell out what I think that means for the current situation. Clearly, the second of the three above pictures is not offensive (to Muslims, I mean; it may be offensive to vegetarian restaurant waiters, but they’re a pretty safe bunch to offend. No offense.) However, the third picture clearly fits within the zone of “offensive Mohammed cartoons” defined by offended Muslims. I’d also assert that the first picture qualifies as an image of Mohammed, even though nowhere in the drawing itself is the figure identified as that of Mohammed. I mean, heck, let’s look at this one of the twelve condemned Danish cartoons of Mohammed:

There are no words in the image above identifying it as an image of the prophet Mohammed, and yet it has been roundly condemned around the world. American newspapers won’t publish this image, they deem it so unacceptably offensive. Why? Because in the text that accompanied it in the original Jyllands Posten newspaper publication, it was identified by word as a picture of Mohammed.

“You can’t explain a variable with a constant.” It should be clear by now what this means here. If the drawing I’ve made remains the same but at some times is an offensive drawing of Mohammed while at other times is an inoffensive drawing of Carl the vegetarian restaurant waiter, then it can’t be the drawing itself that is the source of offense. The source of offense, rather, is the written text, text that either is incorporated into the comic itself or accompanies the comic in an attached essay.

Punch line: it’s what is said, not what is drawn, that is causing the recent hub-bub. Attempts by individuals and institutions to prohibit the publication of “Mohammed Comics” are attempts to prohibit offensive words. Them who doth protest too much that “it’s not about freedom of speech” are trotting out that line so stridently because they know that, at base, it is indeed about freedom of speech after all.

As Republicans carry on about how the best way to secure peace is to wage war, I want to offer this piece of perspective: In the last week alone, over 1,300 Iraqis have been killed. That’s about half the number of Americans killed in the attack of September 11, 2001.

We Americans have been complaining and moaning for almost five years now about the loss we took on just one bad day. Since that one bad day, American territory has been almost untouched by terrorist attacks. Nonetheless, in Iraq, 2,296 Americans have been killed so far, and in Afghanistan, 272 Americans have been killed.

That makes for a grand total of 2,568 Americans killed in Bush’s wars so far - a number that’s growing every day. That’s 86 percent of the 2,986 Americans killed on September 11, 2001.

What about all the other people killed? What about all the Iraqis, for example? Well, who knows? The lowball estimates say that around 100,000 Iraqis have been killed. Other estimates place the number around 400,000. That’s something around 130 attacks of the size of September 11.

So, you want to tell me that September 11 changed everything? I can’t agree with that. Bush’s wars launched with the excuse of September 11 have changed a hell of a lot more, and Bush’s wars have not made things better. The rate of death is increasing, not decreasing, the longer American soldiers continue their overseas occupations.

War is not working. So, let’s try something else instead. Let’s try a little peace.

A new report indicates that massive numbers of churches are breaking the law by funnelling money to political candidates. In Maryland alone, over 100 churches have been caught writing checks to political candidates. Members of those churches who put money in the basket Sunday mornings probably had no idea that their donations were being used to support partisan political agendas.

The rules are clear. If churches want to become political action committees to support certain political parties and political candidates, they are free to do so - so long as they renounce their special tax-exempt status. Churches that hustle themselves out on the street corner of politics have no legal right to ask for special support from the government.

There’s no discrimination involved in this rule. Secular nonprofit organizations, like the World Wildlife Fund and the NAACP, are forced to comply with the same requirements.

American democracy cannot survive this kind of religious black market in political funding. We voters deserve to know who is funding our representatives’ campaigns for public office. We also deserve the assurance that no member of our government has been bought off by a church that is attempting to exert an unethical degree of influence over our democracy.

There are theocracies in the world, like Iran. I’ve seen enough of the way that they work to be dead set against the idea of establishing the United States as a religious nation, in their model. We don’t need any American ayatollahs - from any church.

CBS News Reports:

The latest CBS News poll finds President Bush’s approval rating has fallen to an all-time low of 34 percent, while pessimism about the Iraq war has risen to a new high.

Mr. Bush’s overall job rating has fallen to 34 percent, down from 42 percent last month. Fifty-nine percent disapprove of the job the president is doing.

For the first time in this poll, most Americans say the president does not care much about people like themselves. Fifty-one percent now think he doesn’t care, compared to 47 percent last fall.

Just 30 percent approve of how Mr. Bush is handling the Iraq war, another all-time low.

By two to one, the poll finds Americans think U.S. efforts to bring stability to Iraq are going badly – the worst assessment yet of progress in Iraq.

Even on fighting terrorism, which has long been a strong suit for Mr. Bush, his ratings dropped lower than ever. Half of Americans say they disapprove of how he’s handling the war on terror, while 43 percent approve.

Now would be an appropriate time to stick this on your car:

The following is the text of the letter written by 18 Democrats from the House of Representatives to President George W. Bush urging him to appoint a special counsel to investigate the program of spying against Americans by NSA agents without the legally required safeguards for citizens’ liberty.

In response to this letter, the White House spokesman Scott McClellan merely said that, “where these Democrats who are calling for this ought to spend their time is on what was the source of the unauthorized disclosure of this vital, incredible program.” In other words, the Bush Administration is getting ready to hound the whistleblowers of its own lawbreaking, but refuses to allow any investigation into the actual violation of the law. Figures.

Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)
Gary Ackerman (D-NY)
Rick Boucher (D-VA)
Lois Capps (D-CA)
John Conyers (D-MI)
Peter DeFazio (D-OR)
Anna Eshoo (D-CA)
Sam Farr (D-CA)
Raul Grijalva (D-AZ)
Mike Honda (D-CA)
Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)
Doris Matsui (D-CA)
Jim McGovern (D-MA)
George Miller (D-CA)
David Price (D-NC)
Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)
Adam Schiff (D-CA)
Bennie Thompson (D-MS)

Oooh, this is getting too much pizzazz, in the musical theatre song and dance sense. They tell me I won’t be laughing when I stand before the judgement throne of Jesus. Maybe not, but I can tell you, I will sure as hell be dancing. That’s why I have released a second of my own versions of the Laughing Judgment Throne Song - in a style inspired by the B52s.

H’enjoy it. Monday is completely to blame. It’s not my fault that I’m losing my grip today.

Here now are the four previous versions of You Won’t Be Laughing When You Stand Before the Judgment Throne of Jesus.

You send me your videos of farting dogs. I cry inside.
You send me that picture of Aunt May before her dentures fell into the champagne. I weep.
You send me a Dave Letterman Top Ten List and I grate my teeth.
Who can giggle when somewhere there’s a puppy crying out “woof, woof?”
Who can guffaw when there’s a single mother in Montana who cannot fill her prescriptions?
Who among us does not adore the Comedy Channel? Me! Me!
Your undulating uvula and gaping, quivering lips serve only to reinforce the dominant paradigm.
At least, that’s what my English professor says.
Pass the joint, you bourgeois toad.

I’m starting to think we missed our calling as talent scouts for Gospel music producers. This afternoon, we have yet another version of what is becoming an Irregular Times hit song, You Won’t Be Laughing When You Stand Before the Judgment Throne of Jesus.

(Okay, I admit it. It’s me. You finally get to hear the crooning of young Peregrin’s stylings.)

This one returns to the song’s jangly roots, and has a touch of Neil Young’s plaintive tones to it. Okay, no, it doesn’t. I’ve just been waiting forever for the opportunity to stick the phrase “Neil Young’s plaintive tones” into a blog post here at Irregular Times.

Here are the previous incarnations of You Won’t Be Laughing When You Stand Before the Judgment Throne of Jesus.

For some months now, J. Clifford has been writing on the phenomenon of Ram Bahadur Bomjon, also known simply as Ram Bomjon in the news (links: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5). To recap, Ram Bomjon is a 16-year-old boy born and living in the village of Ratnapur who allegedly is in the process of transforming into the next incarnation of the Buddha. It has been claimed that the so-called “Buddha Boy” has been sitting under a pipal tree in uninterrupted meditation since May of 2005. According to the set of people who surround and control access to Ram Bomjon, he asserted just before sitting down that he was entering into a six-year meditative state in order to attain enlightenment, a la the original Buddha Siddhartha Gautama. According to the same set of people who surround and control access to Bomjon, he:

• has not stirred from his meditation since May 2005,
• has had nothing to eat since May 2005,
• has continued meditating even after being bitten by a snake,
• and has caused two mute people in proximity to him to begin to speak.

Is this true? To date, it has been impossible to say, since those surrounding Ram Bomjon refuse to permit access to him, suspiciously shrouding him from sight at regular intervals. The committee in control of Bomjon say that any close approach or physical contact will disrupt his meditation (although a snake bite apparently could not). In the meantime, photographs clearly show that Ram Bomjon has moved.

And now, more news has leaked out, thanks to Kantipur, the Nepalese news agency. The first piece of news is that the committee controlling access to Ram Bomjon has liberalized their conditions of access to the boy Buddha: although they once did not let anyone come closer than 50 meters (164 feet) away from Buddha, they have since decided that in order to verify that Ram Bomjon is alive, visitors may now come as close to him as… 25 meters! That’s 82 feet, folks. What’s more, visitors may only remain at the 82-foot distance for thirty seconds. Is standing 82 feet away from a person for thirty seconds sufficient to know what’s really going on with that person?

Second, there have been increasing calls for investigation and empirical confirmation that Ram Bomjon has really been living since May 2005 without eating, drinking or moving. In response, the committee controlling access to Ram Bomjon has made a great deal of inviting two scientific teams to observe Ram Bomjon. The first team was allowed to stand within 16 feet of Ram Bomjon for thirty minutes. They saw that he was breathing and moved his eyelashes, but were unable to gather any other information because of the restrictions placed upon them. Team members reported that “He needs to be thoroughly examined” and “Just by examining the glucose level in his blood, it can be easily found out whether he has eaten or not.” These requests were denied. The second team was sent to the site with similar restrictions, and so was unable to complete a report.

Third, a team of seven Buddhist monks has been sent from the Pharping Monastery to observe Ram Bomjon, also from a distance. Their conclusion? Meditation in Buddhism is unextraordinary, there is not currently reason to conclude that Bomjon is the new Buddha, and “his body must be scientifically examined to know whether he has eaten or not.”

Fourth, security officials report that a large majority of income derived from the selling of Ram Bomjon CDs, t-shirts, and photographs at the site go to Maoist rebels in need of funds.

Let’s review:

• A group of people claim that a boy has entered into a meditative state in which he has not had anything to eat or drink and has not moved since May of 2005.
• They’re calling him the Boy Buddha.
• This same group won’t let visitors within 82 feet of Bomjon, and only then for thirty seconds.
• This same group has regularly used barriers to remove Bomjon from sight.
• Special investigative teams weren’t allowed to physically examine Bomjon.
• Those teams say they cannot verify the Ram Bomjon claims.
• Buddhist authorities themselves say it’s not approporiate to refer to Bomjon as a new Buddha.
• It appears proceeds from Ram Bomjon sales are going to Maoist rebels.

The Ram Bomjon phenomenon has been referred to by many people as a great mystery. I agree, but perhaps not in the manner they intend. To me, the mystery is not how a boy manages to survive nine months without eating, drinking or moving. To me, the mystery is why people are proving so eager to believe that this is the case when there is no affirmative evidence beyond the claims themselves to support these claims. To me, the mystery is why a committee would refuse to allow multiple teams to test those claims. To me, the mystery is why people aren’t more skeptical about the monetary interests of the people who are in control of access to this “Buddha Boy.” To me, the mystery is why people aren’t paying much attention to the respected Buddhist monks who say there’s no reason to think Ram Bomjon is a Buddha.

I don’t know what the resolution to this mystery is. I do, however, have a suspicion that this matter is much more about the desire of needy people to believe something special than it is about the digestive, meditative and exercise habits of a 16-year-old boy named Ram Bomjon.