Peter Krupa

The AP is reporting that the Nigerian underpants bomber has been indicted on charges of “trying to use a weapon of mass destruction.” (Indictment PDF) Which is really weird, because I thought he tried to set off explosives (specifically, PETN). Aren’t weapons of mass destruction chemical, biological, or nuclear in nature, and therefore capable of, you know, destroying things en masse?

But nope, there it is, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113B (TERRORISM), Section 2332a: “the term ‘weapon of mass destruction’ means… any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title.” Which is to say, basically anything that goes boom, including guns with a bore greater than a half inch (shotguns exempt).

If I were a betting man, I would bet this is a recent (dare I say “post-nine-eleven”?) change in the criminal code, designed to make terrorists appear more sinister/dashing. And indeed, the Web site I cited indicates that Section 2332a (“weapons of mass destruction”) of Title 18 was modified by Congress on January 5, 2009.

I have no idea how one would go about digging up old versions of Title 18 to find out if this is a recent definition. The take-away, though, is that now you can build a pipe bomb (or what the hell, a cannon) and go around bragging that you’re hiding WMD. (Although you might have to be a Muslim for it to count.)

Excellent Fresh Air interview with author Bob Sullivan on how to avoid getting screwed by banks, credit card companies, and cell phone contracts.

A writer at BoingBoing decided to lob a grenade into the blogosphere by asking, “Is parenthood a lifestyle choice?” You have to live in a peculiar kind of bubble to even consider asking that question. It appears to assume that non-parenthood is more prevalent than parenthood, giving the latter that status of a steampunk obsession, vegetarianism, or a commitment to Linux.

It’s an especially weird question coming from a Web site that is predominantly secular humanist. Evolution-believing, science-loving, socialist-leaning secular humanists, of all people, should know that in this confusing, godless, short existence, pretty much the only thing a species shoots for is reproduction. That’s what “survival of the fittest” is all about: adapting and surviving so you can pass on your DNA, not so you can have Sunday morning brunch with your friends for the rest of your life.

That said, I would never say anyone has an obligation to have kids. I’m not the Catholic Church. I would simply reverse the question posed. “Is childlessness a lifestyle choice?” Yes. And it’s a fine lifestyle choice. But consider this if you’re an artist or filmmaker or a writer or someone who wants to help humanity while remaining barren: You are missing out on an essential, crucial part of what it means to be human.

This has huge implications for how you experience art, civic participation, and social interaction. There is a whole range of emotions and responsibilities that you will never experience, I don’t care how many dogs you have. So get out there and procreate. It’ll be fun.