The evolution of religion

As a follow-up of sorts to my genetics of altruism post, The New York Times magazine had a fascinating, thought-provoking piece on the evolutionary advantages of belief.

Turns out that some scientists have been studying religion from an evolutionary perspective, trying to figure out why religion is universal when it is seemingly maladaptive to survival: usually, believing in nonexistent things and expending energy on nonproductive pursuits will make it harder to survive, not easier.

First the science, then my two cents.

The science is split into two camps. There's the "byproduct" school, which says religion is not in itself an evolutionary advantage, but is a byproduct of a complex and imaginative brain that is. Then there's the "adaptionist" school, which argues that religious belief is in fact advantageous by promoting trust and cooperation within a group.

The byproduct folks have some fascinating bits of data to work with. Their main ones are three recognized human traits:

Agent detection: The ability to infer the presence of organisms that intend to harm us. If we see motion out of the corner of our eye, our mind tends to assume it is a potential hostile organism and react accordingly. We assume the motion is guided by a mind rather than assuming benign causes like wind blowing leaves around. This makes evolutionary sense: If we're wrong about it being hostile, we're still alive. If we're wrong about it being benign, we're dead or injured. But it predisposes us to see intelligent agents behind every observed phenomenon.

Causal reasoning: The ability to "impose a narrative" on seemingly unrelated events. I tend to describe this as "pattern detection", the ability to see patterns even where none exists. Again, this is evolutionarily advantageous: it helps us solve puzzles and figure out cause and effect even with scant evidence, and is largely harmless when applied incorrectly. But it, too, predisposes us to see order and causation where there is none.

Theory of mind: This is simply the recognition that other people have their own viewpoint and do not know everything we know; it's the ability to imagine yourself in other people's heads. It lets us anticipate the actions of other people based on our knowledge of their knowledge. The survival advantage is obvious. The link to religion is a little more complex. Experiments show that children do not develop "theory of mind" until they are 4 years old or so. Until then, they believe others -- and especially their parents -- are omniscient. In other words, we are born believing in omniscient, invisible minds, which paves the way for a belief in God.

Then come the adaptationists. They argue that while the byproduct school might help explain some of the biochemistry of belief, belief itself is also favored by evolution. Some of my thoughts on altruism closely reflect adaptationist arguments. Religion can make people feel better by worrying less about death, letting them focus on living and the future. By reinforcing desirable behavior, it helps them attract better mates. It makes groups more cohesive, allowing them to outcompete nonreligious groups. It makes individuals more willing to sacrifice themselves, again increasing the survivability of the group. Such advantages outweigh the evolutionary costs of religion, which is measured in the time and resources devoted to ritual.

Adaptationists also note that this doesn't have to be an either-or thing. All species contain a range of various traits: height, strength, speed, disease resistance, etc. Why should belief be any different? In that view, theists and atheists aren't enemies; they represent a socially healthy mix. "What seems to be an adversarial relationship between theists and atheists within a community is really a division of cognitive labor that keeps social groups as a whole on an even keel," to quote the article's paraphrase of David Sloan Wilson.

Me, I don't see the two schools as necessarily being in conflict. Humans are social creatures by design, and the idea that we're wired to view the world in a certain way makes sense. Further, anything that promotes social cooperation is evolutionarily advantageous. Religion is an effective tool to that end, so it's easy to see why it would be so ubiquitous.

I would add that belief is advantageous for a reason not cited in the article: because it gives us a sense of control. Early humans were surrounded by deadly things they didn't understand. That could be debilitating to a mind imaginative enough to envision all the horrible things that could happen. But if we think we know why lightning strikes or earthquakes happen or people die, then we can develop rituals and practices to control or appease them. If we think we know what the stars are, we can use them to store our hopes and dreams. Belief is just one more tool to help us order our surroundings, giving us a framework that lets us live our lives more successfully by explaining away the unexplainable.

Believers may be offended by this whole discussion, as if God can be reduced to a particular brain structure or random chance. But that's not necessarily the case. Knowing the mechanism by which humans experience God does not prove God doesn't actually exist. To quote Justin Barrett, a prominent member of the byproduct school and a practicing Christian:

"Christian theology teaches that people were crafted by God to be in a loving relationship with him and other people. Why wouldn’t God, then, design us in such a way as to find belief in divinity quite natural?”

This is a variation of "evolution is the tool by which God created humans" argument. And it works just as well. We believe because God gave us the ability to believe when He created us.

Anyway, it's a fascinating article, far more interesting than I can do justice to here. Give it a read before it disappears behind the Times Select wall.

evolution, religion, politics, midtopia

What was he thinking?

Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick seems to have some difficulty separating the public's business from his own.

Governor Deval Patrick, who was criticized during the gubernatorial campaign for his involvement with a controversial subprime mortgage lender, called a top official at Citigroup, former US Treasury secretary Robert E. Rubin, two weeks ago to intercede on behalf of the owners of Ameriquest Mortgage as they sought urgent financial assistance from the global financial giant.

Patrick's defense?

In a statement to the Globe, Patrick said he made the Feb. 20 call to Citigroup not in his role as governor but after a personal request to him from a top official at ACC Capital Holdings, the firm that owns Ameriquest Mortgage, which has frequently been accused of predatory lending.

That's funny. As long as he's not making the call "in his role as governor", there's no reason to think Citigroup would feel pressured by his day job. Uh-huh.

It could have been worse. Rubin is pretty high-powered himself, after all, and Patrick didn't pressure him to do a deal: he simply offered himself as a personal reference.

But besides the questionable ethics of vouching for a company known for predatory lending, it was an improper intervention. The governor -- whether acting in that role or not -- should not involve himself in the private dealings of private companies.

It's depressing that that apparently isn't obvious.

Massachusetts, Rubin, Deval Patrick, politics, midtopia

Some general thoughts on Libby

Some perspective in its own post, to separate it from the liveblogged initial post.

PARDON POSSIBILITIES
If Bush pardons Libby, it will be near the end of his administration to minimize the political fallout.

A commenter in the other thread suggested that Libby will become Bush's Marc Rich. Rich, you may recall, was the fugitive financier pardoned by Clinton in his final days.

It's not quite a spot-on comparison, because Libby is no Marc Rich. I'm more sympathetic to pardoning an otherwise straight arrow for an essentially political crime, than I am pardoning a fugitive felon simply because he was a campaign donor.

A more apt comparison is when Bush the Elder pardoned the Iran-Contra participants. And even then, Plamegate is no Iran-Contra.

In a general sense, though, there should be a law against issuing pardons to people connected to the president or his party. Pardons are supposed to be acts of mercy, not political favors for the well-connected.

THE JURY
Was the jury filled with rabid partisan Bush-haters, and the conviction a political hammer? Another commenter claimed that. And perhaps with some justification: the trial took place in Washington D.C., which is about 90 percent Democratic. So one would expect the jury to be mostly Democrats.

But that ignores several factors. The major one is the requirement for unanimity in a verdict, meaning that if there were just one Republican on the jury -- and odds are there was at least one -- they could foil a conviction.

Secondly, Libby's lawyers were involved in jury selection, and they were certainly aware of the political implications and chose accordingly.

So let's take a look at the jury. Here's an overview story, and here's a juror-by-juror profile.

Most D.C. residents are black, but 10 of the 12 jurors were white. Nine were women. This already tells you that the jury was not representative of the area. Most said they were largely apolitical -- which would make them similar to most Americans -- but of course they could have been lying about that.

Then lets go juror by juror:

Juror #1: 30s, female, Comptroller. Studied law in grad school and has a classified government clearance pending.

Juror #2: 30s, CPA. Hs two friends in the FBI.

Juror #3: 40s, Accounting administrator for a senior-services group.

Juror #4: 30s, Hotel convention booker.

Juror #5: Denis Collins. Notes that he has a friend who played over-40 football with Libby.

Juror #6: 50s, Web architect for federal contractor.

Juror #7: 50s, retired math teacher.

Juror #8: 40s, Economist. Israeli-born, PhD from MIT, works with overseas regulators in the telecom industry.

Juror #9: 50s, worked as a secretary for Reagan and Bush the Elder administrations. Two master's degrees, friends in the Park Police, Secret Service and CIA.

Juror #10: 60s, Lawyer for the FTC.

Juror #11: 70s, retired art curator. This was the juror who was dismissed.

Juror #12: 50s, retired postal worker.

Suspected political affiliations aside, that may be the most well-educated jury I've ever seen. And while one could apply some gross stereotypes and guess at political leanings for some of them (art curator and postal worker? Democrats!!), there are several that confound expectations -- like the FTC lawyer, and the woman who worked for Republican administrations.

So I think playing "blame the jury" -- either for being partisan or being stupid -- isn't going to work very well.

Plame, Libby, politics, midtopia

Libby found guilty

Wow.

Lewis Libby has been found guilty on 4 of the 5 counts against him.

He was found guilty of obstruction of justice, perjury and making false statements, while being found not guilty on one count of making false statements.

It will be appealed, of course, but if the verdict stands, he's going to prison.

Count #1, obstruction of justice: guilty, up to 10 years in prison

Count #2, false statements about conservations with Tim Russert: guilty.

Count #3, false statements about conversations with Time: not guilty.

Count #4, perjury related to Count #2: guilty

Count #5, perjury related to (but not limited to) Count #3: guilty

It's a little weird that he was convicted on #5 while being found not guilty on #3, but it wasn't limited to the statements involved in #3.

Total potential jail time: 30 years.

It'll be less than that, most likely. And now the question is: does he have any information that he could trade for a reduced sentence?

I'll post links and updates as soon as they appear. I'm getting most of this info from CNN.

Sentencing set for June 5, though Libby's attorneys indicate they might ask for an extension.

Anyone think Bush will pardon Libby if the conviction is upheld?

Updates: Jurist has a roundup. And here's the Associated Press story.

Update 2: The jurors are talking on CNN right now, and they said they found Russert a very credible witness, and were especially unconvinced that Libby could be "surprised" by the mention of Plame's name in his Russert conversation, when he was told more than nine times prior to that about Plame. Even if he forgot who had told him Plame's name, it struck them as very unlikely that he would have been "surprised" by later mentions.

They also found his "poor memory" defense unpersuasive when there were other people testifying that he was a detail guy and the like.

They said there was a lot of sympathy for Libby on the jury, because they viewed him as a fall guy, and wondered why no other administration officials were being questioned or on trial.

They declined to offer opinions on broader arguments, saying they were focused on the question before them.

They took so long to deliberate because they had to break down the huge amount of evidence and then stack it up against the charges. Simply organizing the information was a big task.

They acquitted him on #3 because it wasn't clear if he was lying or if it was simply a misunderstanding.

Trial was not about whether a leak occurred.

Juror speaking is very impressive, as far as his coolness and level-headedness. Turns out he's Dennis Collins, a former WaPo reporter. That helps explain his ease before a crowd.

Update #3: Time has a piece on Why Libby's Defense Failed, and notes that keeping Cheney and Libby off the stand might have been decisive:

Libby and then Cheney were expected to testify about just how crazy things were, but without notice, Wells informed the court that they would not take the stand. Instead, he offered John Hannah, Libby's former deputy, who described how terrible his boss's memory was. Then, after only three days, the defense rested its case.

Declining to put Libby or Cheney on the stand was a controversial move — and one that the defense would pay for. Often in criminal cases, and especially in those involving perjury, jurors like to hear the defendant explain his actions personally. But Libby would no doubt have been cross-examined harshly, and Cheney might have been embarrassed to explain publicly his role in undermining Wilson's criticisms of the war.

Was it a strategic mistake? Or would putting them on the stand have caused other problems? It's fun to speculate. All we know is that the defense decided that putting them on the stand wasn't in their best interest.

Libby, politics, midtopia

Surge update

In a major test of the Iraqi committment to even-handed pacification, U.S. and Iraqi troops spread through the Shiite slum of Sadr City yesterday, following weeks of negotiations with the neighborhood's mayor.

There was no resistance and no violence.

The operation is significant beyond the fact that its a major Shiite neighborhood. Sadr City is home to 2.5 million of Baghdad's 6 million people. So controlling it means controlling a third of the population. And while the major problem with Sadr City has been its use as a base for Shiite militias rather than internal violence, a credible security presence there will weaken the militias by reducing the need for them -- and thus reducing their credibility -- as well as hindering their ability to use it as a base.

Update: on the other hand: 38 die, 105 hurt in a suicide car bombing in the heart of Baghdad. Coupled with attacks on Shiite pilgrims elsewhere in the city, it was the bloodiest day in more than a week.

sadr city, surge, Iraq, politics, midtopia

Ann Coulter is vile

... And she may finally have crossed a line into territory where not even red-meat Republicans will follow.

Speaking today at the Conservative Political Action Conference, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter said: "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards." Audience members said “ohhh” and then cheered.

This followed previous comments about Bill Clinton's "latent homosexuality" and Al Gore's status as a "total fag."

She then endorsed Mitt Romney.

Republican candidates -- including Romney -- quickly criticized her comments, as did many conservative bloggers (such as Michelle Malkin, who called Coulter "witless"), although some of the criticism was more about tactics than substance.

And then there are the nutcases who lamented that someone could possibly be censured for uttering such a word, arguing that it highlights the power of the gay agenda. But them aside, it appears that Coulter has just cost herself a significant amount of support. And if it's the first step toward her shuffling off the stage into well-deserved obscurity, more's the better.

She followed up a couple of days later by calling Edwards' campaign manager, David Bonior, a front for Arab terrorists -- apparently a reference to the large Arab-American population in the former Congressman's district.

Meanwhile, no further updates on her voter-fraud case.

Update: Several prominent conservative bloggers are simultaneously posting a request that CPAC never invite Coulter to speak again.

Update 2: Andrew Sullivan has an excellent column on Coulter's performance and her defense of it. The money quotes:

The conflation of effeminacy with weakness, and of gayness with weakness, is what Coulter calculatedly asserted. This was not a joke. It was an attack.

He also had this observation about the CPAC event itself:

Her joke was that the world is so absurd that someone like Isaiah Washington is forced to go into rehab for calling someone a "faggot." She's absolutely right that this is absurd and funny and an example of p.c. insanity. She could have made a joke about that -- a better one, to be sure -- but a joke. But she didn't just do that. She added to the joke a slur: "John Edwards is a faggot." That's why people gasped and then laughed and clapped so heartily. I was in the room, so I felt the atmosphere personally. It was an ugly atmosphere, designed to make any gay man or woman in the room feel marginalized and despised. To put it simply, either conservatism is happy to be associated with that atmosphere, or it isn't. I think the response so far suggests that the conservative elites don't want to go there, but the base has already been there for a very long time. (That's why this affair is so revealing, because it is showing which elites want to pander to bigots, and which do not.)

Well said.

Edwards, Coulter, politics, midtopia

Michele Bachmann in her own words

Michele Bachmann has now completed her retreat from her statement on Iraq.

In an op-ed piece in the Star Tribune, she wrote:

I said that an agreement had already been made to divide Iraq and create a safe haven for terrorists. Rather, I meant that America's adversaries are in agreement that a divided Iraq benefits their objective to expel America from the region, resulting in Iraq being a safe haven for terrorists.

Notice how the meaning of the second sentence does not in any way resemble that of the first.

The rest of the piece boils down to the revelation that "Iran and Al-Qaeda both wish us ill in Iraq." Wow. Really?

Bachmann's alternate reality has inspired satire from Wonkette and Unconfirmed Sources, as well as a real-life political challenger:

A lawyer for FBI whistleblower Jane Turner said Friday that he will run for Congress in 2008 in Minnesota's 6th Congressional District, currently represented by freshman GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann.

Bob Hill, of Stillwater, said he will run as a Democrat but described his politics as independent. Hill said he will form a congressional committee on April 1.

Surely that's some sort of record for announcing a challenge to an incumbent. Bachmann's hasn't even been in office two months.

Bachmann, politics, midtopia

Heads roll among Army brass

Yesterday, the uproar over poor conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center claimed the career of a two-star general. Today, it claimed the Secretary of the Army.

Secretary Francis Harvey apparently ran afoul of Defense Secretary Robert Gates because, after firing Maj. Gen. George Weightman, he replaced him with another general with links to the controversy.

I haven't been commenting on this scandal because I haven't had a chance to read the Post's stories. Anyone who has ever been through the military medical system knows what a bureaucratic nightmare it can be. I wanted to make sure the Post wasn't making a big deal out of what, for the military, is routine -- however inexcusable it may be.

But with some corrections underway and a push by President Bush and Gates for a top-to-bottom review, not to mention the nearly unprecedented sacking of two senior officials, it seems clear that the administration is taking this seriously and not liking what it sees. Sad as it is to see our soldiers treated this way at any time, much less in the midst of a war, it's good to see it being addressed forcefully.

On the other hand, this would never have come to light without the investigative work of the Washington Post -- a prime example of why a vigorous and free press are important to the country.

military, politics, midtopia

Social conservatives in action

From opposite ends of the country, two stories that will either make you laugh or simply shake your head.

First, from North Dakota:

North Dakota's House has agreed to repeal the state's anti-cohabitation law without a vote to spare, and Gov. John Hoeven is expected to sign it.

The law, which makes it illegal for a man and woman to live together without being married, has been part of North Dakota's code since statehood. It is listed as a sex crime among the state's criminal laws.

Okay. Sounds simple enough. Another outdated law removed from the books.

Except:

Representatives voted 48-41 on Thursday to repeal the law. It takes a minimum of 48 votes, which is a majority of the House's 94 members, to approve any measure in the state House.

That's right, the measure barely passed. Forty-one legislators voted to keep it a criminal offense.

The mind boggles.

Next we head south to sunny Largo, Fla., where the city found itself having to make a decision about whether to keep its city manager of 14 years. The sole reason? He wants to have a sex-change operation and become a woman.

City commissioners ended one of the most tumultuous weeks in Largo history Tuesday night by moving to fire City Manager Steve Stanton following his disclosure that he will have a sex-change operation.

A total of 480 people packed City Hall for a four-hour meeting during which one activist was arrested after police told her not to hand out fliers.

After listening to about 60 speakers, mostly from Largo, a majority of commissioners said they had lost confidence in Stanton's ability to lead.

That's right, fired for wanting a sex-change operation. It'll be interesting to see if the decision survives an anti-discrimination challenge, although his status as a manager makes him more vulnerable to such things, as the "ability to lead" argument shows.

I love the logic of some of the residents who wanted him fired:

"I don't want that man in office," she said. "I don't think we should be paying him $150,000 a year when he's not been truthful. We have to speak up. Of course, we don't believe in sex changes or lesbianism. They have their rights, but we do, too."

He wasn't "truthful" because he hadn't revealed his gender issue until now. Of course, if he had revealed it, he would have been attacked for "flaunting" his sexuality.

But this one takes the cake:

"If Jesus was here tonight, I can guarantee you he'd want him terminated. Make no mistake about it."

The speaker? Ron Sanders, pastor of Largo's Lighthouse Baptist Church.

Update: Churches from around the Tampa Bay area staged a 350-person rally in support of Stanton. I think they were motivated as much by revulsion at the words of Ron Sanders as anything.

civil liberties, morality, gay rights, politics, midtopia

You call this persecution?

The Supreme Court recently refused to hear a case in which Christians claim they are being discriminated against.

At issue in Skoros v. City of New York was whether the city's public school system is impermissibly promoting Judaism and Islam while conveying a message of disapproval of Christianity. School rules allow the Jewish menorah and the Muslim star and crescent in multireligious holiday displays but not nativity scenes depicting the birth of Jesus.

Sounds pretty bad, right? But wait:

The city says its policy treats all religions consistently by excluding "depictions of deities, religious texts, or scenes of worship such as a Christian nativity scene," says Leonard Koerner, a lawyer for the school district, in his brief to the court. "As the Christian nativity scene explicitly depicts the Christian deity [the baby Jesus] as the center of a scene of worship, it falls on the wrong side of the line."

In other words, Christians are free to display Christian symbols, but not a depiction of Jesus or the Bible. The same restrictions apply to all religions. Ergo, no discrimination.

This exposes the general hollowness of the "war on Christmas" charge. While it is possible to find instances where Christian expression is in fact suppressed while other religious expression is allowed, they are isolated and rare. And they usually arise out of a simple-if-bungled desire to be sensitive to minority religions, inasmuch as the people doing the suppressing are often Christians themselves.

It gets even sillier when activists claim that Christians are "persecuted" in this country. That's just nonsense; in a democracy, it is essentially impossible for a majority to be persecuted. Name a single Christian who has been jailed, tortured or executed simply for being Christian. Name a single Christian who has been prevented from attending the church of their choice.

What *is* happening is that the unquestioned Christian domination of cultural life in America is being questioned, and pushed back in some areas. There is increasingly vocal opposition to Christians using the levers of governmental power to promote their religion, and some longstanding practices are being revised as a result. But that's not persecution. Some of us would say it's a long overdue correction.

The sad thing is that Christians are, in fact, persecuted in other countries, sometimes horribly. By trying to claim such victim status here, Christians do their overseas bretheren a disservice by cheapening the meaning of the word.

I'm sympathetic to the plaintiffs on one score: the district allowing Christmas trees to be a symbol of Christianity. The plaintiffs don't like that because Christmas trees, while associated with Christianity, are not actually Christian symbols. Fair enough. Christians should be able to choose the symbol that represents their faith, as long as it doesn't violate the district policy in other respects. There are plenty of choices: A cross should do the trick, or rosary beads for Catholicism or a communion cup or a fish symbol.

There is another worthwhile question here: As long as the district is allowing religious displays, why restrict the content at all? I can understand banning content that explicitly attacks other religions or threatens nonbelievers with eternal damnation or the like, but if you're going to have a Christmas display alongside the Hannukah display, who cares whether there's a nativity scene in it or not?

But that's a separate issue. Having decided to write standards for such displays, the district's obligation is to make the standard objective and apply it fairly. They appear to have done so. And so the plaintiffs' complaint is without merit.

religion, civil liberties, politics, midtopia

North Korea roundup

Some good news, bad news out of North Korea.

First, the bad news. Despite promising to come clean on its nuclear program, North Korea is denying that it has an uranium-enrichment program.

Now, maybe it doesn't. The intelligence on the matter isn't bulletproof, and we have a pretty bad track record when it comes to assessing nuclear capabilities. But their uranium program is the reason we pulled the plug on the Clinton-era Agreed Framework, and there has been some pretty compelling circumstantial evidence that at the very least they were trying to set up such a program. Given that history, I'm not willing to give the North Koreans the benefit of the doubt; it is up to them to provide enough access that inspectors can satisfy themselves that no such program exists.

The good news is that North Korea met with South Korea today and reaffirmed its committment to dismantle its nuclear program -- all part of a bid for humanitarian aid from the South.

The North Korean language was unusually clear and strong:

"President Kim Yong-nam said the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula was late President Kim Il-sung's last guidance and they would make efforts to turn it into reality," a South Korean official involved in the talks said on Thursday....

"(Unification) Minister Lee Jae-joung said strongly that it was very important to conscientiously implement the initial steps for the dismantlement of the North's nuclear programs by soundly complying with the February 13 agreement," the official told reporters in Pyongyang.

Invoking Kim Il-sung strikes me as a particularly important step, but I'm no Korea expert.

North Korea has to be enjoying the fruits of its agreement: besides meeting with South Korea, it has scheduled talks with both Japan and the United States on normalizing relations. Such positive reinforcement offers both practical advantages and a facesaving way for them to claim benefits from the agreement. Playing nice is a cheap way to encourage compliance -- as long as we continue to insist on a robust inspection scheme to verify the destruction of their program.

The real test comes in the next 50 days or so, when North Korea is supposed to take the first concrete steps and shut down its main reactor. But for now, everyone's saying the right things.

nuclear, North Korea, politics, midtopia

Dems get moderate on Iraq

I might have written this legislation myself:

House Democratic leaders have coalesced around legislation that would require troops to come home from Iraq within six months if that country's leaders fail to meet promises to help reduce violence there, party officials said Thursday.

As I've argued: the surge is Bush's last chance, and if it doesn't show results, it's over.

Equally practically, if somewhat less laudibly, the Dems found a way to have their cake and eat it too on the Murtha "back-door withdrawal" proposal.

The plan would retain a Democratic proposal prohibiting the deployment to Iraq of troops with insufficient rest or training or who already have served there for more than a year. Under the plan, such troops could only be sent to Iraq if
President Bush waives those standards and reports to Congress each time.

So they get to make their point and force Bush to repeatedly waive training standards, but they don't actually tie his hands. They also committed to funding the surge and the rest of Bush's Iraq request.

So combine this with the earlier "anti-surge" resolutions, and you have a fairly clear line: Democrats are giving Bush enough rope either to succeed or hang himself. If the surge fails, the troops will come home and the Dems will ride the issue in the presidential campaign. If it succeeds, Bush will have a minor triumph on his hands.

But the Dems are positioning themselves for both eventualities. Though a successful surge will make their anti-surge resolutions look defeatist, they will be able to point to their funding vote and make two claims: One, that they gave Bush the chance to try the surge, so he doesn't deserve sole credit; and two, that their threat to withdraw funding is what finally made the Iraqis sit up and fly straight. In other words, everyone will rush to embrace the success, with at least a modicum of credibility.

Still, if the surge succeeds, the credit will largely belong to Bush, because while he came to the "we need more troops" realization a couple of years too late, he will have been the one who said "this can still be salvaged" after everyone else had given up.

Stay tuned.

Iraq, politics, midtopia

The case of the missing DVD

Whoops.

The missing DVD dates from March 2, 2004. It contains a video of the last interrogation session of Padilla, then a declared “enemy combatant” under an order from President Bush, while he was being held in military custody at a U.S. Navy brig in Charleston, S.C. But in recent days, in the course of an unusual court hearing about Padilla’s mental condition, a government lawyer disclosed to a surprised courtroom that the Defense Intelligence Agency -- which had custody of the evidence -- was no longer able to locate the DVD.

Those sympathetic to the defense made hay with it, of course. "This is the kind of thing you hear when you’re litigating cases in Egypt or Morocco or Karachi," said John Sifton, a lawyer with Human Rights Watch -- an observation that recalls my recent comparison of the treatment of Padilla and a jailed Egyptian blogger.

The judge seems to think that, legally inexcusable as this is, the DVD isn't particularly relevant to the case. The defense was claiming a pattern of mistreatment, and such a pattern would have shown up on the other taped interrogations. As far as evidence admissable to his actual trial, there is a classified report on the interrogation that describes what went on.

Still, it's unusual. And the timing is pretty interesting. The final interrogation session took place in March 2004. Soon after -- and just before arguments on Padilla's detention were to begin before the Supreme Court -- Padilla finally was given access to lawyers. A year later, hoping to avoid an adverse ruling, the government transferred him back into the regular legal system.

So if there was going to be a session in which they pressed him hard it seems likely it would have been the final one, because they knew the case was about to go before the Supreme Court and they might be forced to give him legal rights.

As I said, it appears to have little bearing on his actual trial. But at minimum it's another example of how we've been quite cavalier with Padilla's rights. Worst case, it's a coverup of actual abuse.

terrorism, civil liberties, Padilla, politics, midtopia

Happy Birthday, Midtopia!

I'm as amazed as any of you, but Midtopia turns one today! Break out the party hats!

It's actually a tiny bit older -- about a week -- but I didn't get Sitemeter installed or get really serious until March 1. The first week was spent tweaking the site and uploading some basic content.

In the past year Midtopia has had about 22,000 visitors, and now averages 2,000 a month. We've been linked to by more than 100 blogs. And the site ads have earned me about $12. ;)

Thanks for making Midtopia part of your day.

politics, midtopia

Hey! Iran! Maybe we should, like, talk

Rather surprising, the administration has reversed itself and agreed to talk to Syria and Iran about the situation in Iraq.

The move was announced by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in testimony on Capitol Hill, after Iraq said it had invited neighboring states, the United States and other nations to a pair of regional conferences.

Okay, it was grudgingly. And they were boxed in by the Iraqi government, which doesn't share Washington's aversion to actual diplomacy and is scrapping for survival. But better late than never.

Rice says the U.S. doesn't want to be subjected to extortion. But it's silly to think Syria or Iran will lift a finger to help if we don't actually talk to them. Yeah, they're going to want something. But it sure doesn't hurt to listen to what it is -- and make a few demands of our own.

As in the past, the administration's knee-jerk reaction to ideas it doesn't like is to stonewall. But unlike in the past, the administration is showing new willingness to reconsider that reaction in the cold light of morning. A willingness to talk brought a deal in North Korea; an acknowledgement that more troops are needed appears to be bringing some success with the surge. We shouldn't get our hopes up too high over the decision to talk to Iran, but it sure can't hurt.

terrorism, Iraq, Iran, politics, midtopia

What goes around....

Boy, this had to be an uncomfortable moment.

Prominent Missouri businessman and Republican financier Sam Fox, accompanied by heavyweight backers, expected smooth sailing in the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee Tuesday on his way to confirmation as ambassador to Belgium.

He didn't get it.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., broadsided Fox, criticizing his 2004 donation to the anti-Kerry Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and questioning Fox's credentials for the job.

"You saw fit to put $50,000 on the line to continue the smear, my question to you is: Why?" Kerry said.

Fox's answer wasn't particularly forceful.

Fox, 77, said he couldn't recall who had asked for the contribution and counted it among thousands of contributions he makes yearly. "When I'm asked, I just generally give," Fox said.

Frankly, that's a bit sad.

One can surely understand Kerry's pique. On the other hand, Fox didn't totally deserve the 30-minute grilling: he was a Republican ATM, not a prime mover behind the Swiftboaters. And his confirmation does not appear to be in jeopardy.

But it does show that there is a price to be paid for personal politics.

Kerry, politics, midtopia

The surge might be working

In the first really encouraging sign for the security crackdown in Baghdad, the number of bodies delivered to the Baghdad morgue in February is down by half compared to January.

In addition, today U.S. forces tested the Iraqi government's committment to a nonsectarian crackdown, sweeping into the Shiite slum of Sadr City and seizing several suspected death squad leaders.

The sign of political resolve is a good thing. The success of an increased troop presence, while predictable, is also a good thing. But the next step is the hard one: sustaining both. We appear to be doing the "clear"; what remains to be seen is whether we can manage the "hold."

Let's hope we can.

Iraq, politics, midtopia

Padilla found competent

Well, actually, he was a pretty incompetent terrorist, if that is what he was. But he was found competent to stand trial.

After three and a half days of an intensely argued hearing, Judge Marcia G. Cooke of Federal District Court rejected the defense lawyers’ request that Mr. Padilla be sent to a hospital for psychiatric treatment so that he could be “healed” from what they said was post-traumatic stress disorder caused during his three years and eight months in military detention.

About what I expected. Now the real battle begins: Cooke next must consider the defense motion to dismiss the charges based on what it says is the government's outrageous conduct.

The conduct was indeed outrageous; the only question is whether it was outrageous enough to compel an acquittal.

terrorism, Padilla, civil liberties, politics, midtopia

Technical difficulties

My Internet connection has been down for most of the day, so posting has been impossible. Hopefully I'll get some stuff up later today. A lot going on: Padilla found competent, Kerry grilling a Swiftboater, the U.S. agreeing to attend talks with Iran and Syria, the Baghdad body count down significantly.... A lousy day for technical problems.

politics, midtopia

Prosecution says Padilla competent to stand trial

A prosecution expert says Jose Padilla is competent to stand trial, contradicting defense claims that his imprisonment amounted to torture that had induced post-traumatic stress disorder in the dirty-bomb suspect.

That's how it goes in these cases. The defense witnesses say he's crazy; the prosecution witnesses say he's not. The judge then has to sort it out.

I'm a bit skeptical of the PTSD claim. Solitary confinement can be mentally arduous, but it has a long history in our prison system, so it's not particularly unusual, and it doesn't routinely drive people nuts. If Padilla were particularly vulnerable it could cause problems, but in that case I would expect it to lead to something more concrete than PTSD, which while real is vague enough that it strikes me as a second-choice diagnosis by a defense team that knew a more serious diagnosis stood no chance.

Anyway, it's a sideshow. I also don't think we tortured Padilla, as the defense claims. But the government's treatment of Padilla has still been outrageous. Holding a U.S. citizen for more than three years without trial should offend everyone. And suddenly releasing him rather than face Supreme Court review of his detention -- and failing to charge him with anything related to the alleged dirty-bomb plot -- was both cynical and a tacit admission that the detention would not stand up to scrutiny.

It's good that Padilla is getting a trial. If he's guilty, he should be put away for a long time. But it should not have taken three years of legal pressure to secure such a basic right for a U.S. citizen. And the fact that so many Americans supported the government is downright disgraceful.

The PTSD debate is central to the defense's motion to have the case dismissed outright because the government's conduct has been so outrageous. I think they're arguing on the wrong basis, relying on showing torture rather than simply noting the blatant unconstitutionality of imprisoning a citizen without trial. And while I'd prefer to have a trial, I will fully understand if the judge agrees with the defense motion. It will be yet one more lesson that basic civil rights cannot be taken away by government fiat, and that trying to do so ends up harming security more than helping it.

I also find it interesting to compare our treatment of Padilla (and the political reaction to it) with the fate of the Egyptian blogger found guilty of criticizing Islam and Hosni Mubarak. Many of the same people who support holding Padilla manage to (rightly) oppose the treatment of the blogger. But who got treated better? At least the blogger was charged, tried and convicted in open court. He had a chance to challenge the evidence against him. And his lawyers are appealing the sentence. He wasn't simply picked up by security agents and thrown into solitary confinement for three years based solely on the government's say-so.

Padilla's alleged crime (not the long-dropped "dirty bomb" accusation, but the ones he is facing trial for) is more serious than simply posting opinions to a blog, of course. But the key word there is "alleged." The fact remains that Egypt -- a country known for repression, torture and other heavy-handed tactics -- treated their suspect far more in accord with American standards than we did Padilla. And that's a sad commentary on how badly the president's overreach on security matters has tarnished the proud legacy of freedom here.

civil liberties, terrorism, Padilla, politics, midtopia

U.S. says it found more Iranian weapons

An arms trove buried in a palm grove in Iraq contains items linked to Iran, the U.S. military says.

The cache included what Maj. Marty Weber, a master explosives ordnance technician, said was C-4 explosive, a white substance, in clear plastic bags with red labels that he said contained serial numbers and other information that clearly marked it as Iranian.

It also contained large numbers of formed copper liners, of the sort needed to make explosively formed projectiles (EFPs), although the origin of those items appeared unknown.

The article makes a big deal about also finding a large amount of clearly non-Iranian material, like PVC pipe made in Iraq and the United Arab Emirates. But that's hardly surprising; innocuous stuff like that would be bought on the open market, then married up with the speciality components needed to make an EFP. In this case, the copper liners appear to have been made specifically to match the size of the PVC. So what you have is an anti-vehicle pipe bomb: Fill a length of PVC with C-4, attach a liner to the top, and you've got an antitank mine.

If the C-4 is clearly linked to Iran, that's another piece of evidence showing Iranian involvement. But it still isn't conclusive -- C-4 is a very common explosive, just like the area is awash in AK-47s and RPGs -- and it still doesn't address the fact that our main opponents in Iraq, the Sunni insurgents, are probably not being supplied by Shiite Iran. Unless the point is that it's the Shiite militias, and not Sunni insurgents, who are now our real enemy.

Meanwhile, still no further word on the Steyr sniper rifles. That story is beginning to look bogus, considering that the provenance of the captured weapons should be easy to check.


politics, midtopia

Homegrown lunacy

I've said it before, and not to pile on, but Michelle Bachmann -- what a nutbar.

U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann claims to know of a plan, already worked out with a line drawn on the map, for the partition of Iraq in which Iran will control half of the country and set it up as a “a terrorist safe haven zone” and a staging area for attacks around the Middle East and on the United States.

The best part, of course, is that the area of Iraq she identified as part of the zone is on the other side of the country from Iran.

She later said her words were misconstrued, which actually means "boy, was I stupid."

Minnesota's own Cynthia McKinney. Or maybe Katherine Harris. Anyone wanna bet that Mark Kennedy reclaims his old seat in 2008?

And further: Patty Wetterling couldn't beat this fruitcake. Okay, conservative district and all, but maybe it's time for Patty to hang it up. Call it Minnesota's version of Kerry vs. Bush.

Iraq, Iran, Bachmann, Minnesota, politics, midtopia

Iran roundup

As expected, an IAEA report has declared that Iran is in violation of U.N. resolutions regarding its nuclear program, opening the way for more severe sanctions.

Despite uncertainty over Iran's actual capabilities, the report nonetheless said that Iran has or soon will have 1,000 centrifuges for purifying uranium -- short of the 3,000 it expected to have by now (enough to produce one bomb's worth of uranium a year), but more than most outside observers expected.

Update: Here's the report (pdf).

Most everybody, including U.S. officials, say military action isn't imminent. Israel's being a bit mum, but Tony Blair said yesterday that an attack would be a bad idea, finally saying publicly what British officials had been saying privately for some time.

Then there's this:

Senior British government sources have told The Times that they fear President Bush will seek to “settle the Iranian question through military means” next year, before the end of his second term if he concludes that diplomacy has failed. “He will not want to leave it unresolved for his successor,” said one.

That's speculation, of course. If true, I'm of two minds on it. It's good not to let the diplomatic dance drag on indefinitely without results. But the end of his term is a fairly arbitrary deadline, and military action might simply hand his successor an ongoing crisis instead of an unresolved dispute. If we have to bomb -- and I'm on record supporting such a move if it proves necessary -- it should be because the talks went nowhere, not because Bush is preparing to leave office.

Meanwhile, the Guardian reports that our intelligence stinks...

Most of the tip-offs about supposed secret weapons sites provided by the CIA and other US intelligence agencies have led to dead ends when investigated by IAEA inspectors, according to informed sources in Vienna.

"Most of it has turned out to be incorrect," a diplomat at the IAEA with detailed knowledge of the agency's investigations said.

"They gave us a paper with a list of sites. [The inspectors] did some follow-up, they went to some military sites, but there was no sign of [banned nuclear] activities.

"Now [the inspectors] don't go in blindly. Only if it passes a credibility test."

...but Iran has some questions to answer.

One of the "outstanding issues" listed in yesterday's report involves a 15-page document that appears to have been handed to IAEA inspectors by mistake with a batch of unrelated paperwork in October 2005.

That document roughly describes how to make hemispheres of enriched uranium, for which the only known use is in nuclear warheads. Iran has yet to present a satisfactory explanation of how and why it has the document.

Whatever you think ought to be done about Iran's nuclear program, it seems beyond doubt that they are pursuing weaponry.

nuclear, Iran, politics, midtopia

Congress' next steps on Iraq

In preparation for the next confrontation over Iraq, Congressional Democrats are honing two different proposals that would start scaling back our activities there.

In the House, the plan is to require the military to meet established readiness and training standards that would essentially make a continued large-scale presence in Iraq impossible.

The Senate proposal is more direct, specifically restricting the allowable actions of U.S. troops in Iraq, limiting them to work related to a withdrawal of U.S. forces: direct attacks on Al-Qaeda, training Iraqi units and the like.

Of the two, the Senate has the better plan. The House approach is clever, as it neatly points up the unsustainability of our current troops levels. But it's a somewhat cowardly, back-door way to force a troop withdrawal, and seems to hold plenty of potential for unintended consequences by not forthrightly calling for -- and providing the resources for -- such a withdrawal.

The Senate approach, by contrast, simply commands an orderly end to our mission there. It's simple, direct and clear.

The chance of either plan actually taking effect is minimal. Democrats must overcome Republican opposition in Congress -- including a 60-vote margin in the Senate -- in order to pass them, and then they would face an almost certain veto from President Bush -- even if they are attached to some other piece of "must pass" legislation.

There's another risk for Democrats as well: loss of the Senate. Joe Lieberman is quietly suggesting that he might switch parties if they start pushing an Iraq policy he doesn't like. A lot of that might just be Joe posturing, taking advantage of his swing position to maximize his influence on both sides of the aisle. But he's enough of a true believer in the war that he could be serious. You can be sure any Democratic moves in the Senate will be weighed against the Joe Factor first.

Political machinations aside, are the Democrats doing the right thing by tying the President's hands?

In a general sense, there's nothing wrong with it. Congress has the sole power to declare war, the sole power to fund it and the sole power to truly end it. The President, as commander-in-chief, prosecutes the wars that Congress declares. There has been much blurring of that line over the centuries, but the thing to remember is that Congress, not the President, ultimately decides when and how long to fight. If the people (through Congress) decide they don't want to fight anymore, we should stop fighting.

But is it the right thing to do in Iraq?

Again, in a general sense, yes. The Iraq war was a mistake from the get-go, and incompetently managed besides. It has increased polarization, radicalization and terrorism in the Mideast and worldwide. It has cost a staggering amount of money, political capital, global influence and blood. It has tied up resources better used elsewhere, and divided the American electorate at a time when we needed unity to ensure continued support for the long struggle with terror. Correcting such a blunder is a good thing, and necessary.

"But that means the terrorists win!" I hear war supporters say. Nonsense. Iraq is one battle in a much larger war, and a smart general knows when to cut his losses. Leaving Iraq does not mean abandoning the fight against terror; it means redeploying our resources to more effective fronts, while removing our inflammatory presence from Iraqi soil.

Had war-supporter logic prevailed in World War I, they would have insisted we keep pouring troops into the Dardanelles campaign, lest we "let the Turks win" and show we can be beaten. In reality, of course, the Allies recognized the campaign as a disaster and pulled the plug -- and went on to win the war anyway.

So in a general sense, Congress needs to be prepared to bring our involvement in Iraq to an end. But in specific, their timing is a little premature. Bush's "surge" is just getting under way. He deserves a chance to show it can work, because all things being equal winning in Iraq is preferable to not winning. After all, the logic for withdrawal is not that we don't want to win; it's that winning in any sense meaningful to our national security appears unlikely and reinforcing failure is stupid.

So prepare the bills. But stay the hand until we see the results of the surge. And if it fails (as, alas, it probably will), then report out the Senate version. If we're going to pull the plug, do it responsibly, directly and openly.

terrorism, Iraq, politics, midtopia

Getting my pantsuit in a wad

Suddenly, pantsuits are everywhere.

Washington Post: "To Net-roots sites such as Daily Kos, Firedoglake and Crooks and Liars, (Rep. Ellen Tauscher) is Lieberman in a pantsuit."

P.J. O'Rourke: "Hillary Clinton is Hugo Chavez in a pantsuit."

Peggy Noonan:" They think (Hillary) is a tough little termagant in a pantsuit."

Glenn Beck: "(Cindy Sheehan) is practically Gandhi in a pantsuit."

NewsMax: "It would be even more ironic if conservative news outlets helped Hillary win the White House by pretending she's suddenly morphed into Gen. Patton in a pantsuit."

Hot Air: "(Clinton is) a black hole in a pantsuit." (reader comment)

Christian Science Monitor: "To some voters, (Clinton) is a ruthless Machiavelli-in-a-pantsuit...."

The New Republic: "(Clinton) is Goliath in a pantsuit."

The Jewish World Review: "Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco? She's Ralph Nader in a pantsuit."

The list goes on. The phrase is so common that there's actually a right-wing acronym for Hillary, PIAPS, which stands for "pig in a pantsuit."

The most interesting thing is that as far as I can tell, it's used solely to describe powerful Democratic women. No describing Olympia Snowe as "A RINO in a pantsuit." No calling Condoleeza Rice "A Klingon in a pantsuit." The best I could find was Vanity Fair's James Wolcott calling Laura Bush "just another warden in a pantsuit." But that's hardly fair, considering Mrs. Bush isn't a prime example of a powerful woman.

Second, what's the motivation? Is it an attempt to imply a lack of femininity, to suggest that they are mannish or lesbian or what have you? Is it simply a way to make a cross-gender metaphor? Is there some fascination with pantsuits that I have missed?

In any case, as the list above demonstrates, the phrase has become a cheap cliche and really needs to be dropped. You may think it sounds clever, but trust me: it doesn't. It belongs on the scrap heap along with "smart as a whip", "raining cats and dogs", "Where's the beef?" and all the others.

The picture, by the way, is of Clinton meeting a 6-9 Nevada state Assemblyman, Harvey Munford.

gender, cliches, pantsuit, politics, midtopia

World roundup

We'll finish off the evening with a quick roundup of notable events.

IRAQ
The British will cut their troop presence in Iraq in half -- events permitting -- by the end of the year. Though apparently Prince Harry will still be going there if the Daily Mirror is to be believed.

GUANTANAMO
A federal appeals court has ruled (in a decision that will be appealed to the Supreme Court) that Gitmo detainees can't challenge their internment in U.S. courts, thanks to the Republican Congress stripping that power from them last year. They can thus be held indefinitely until they are tried before the flawed military commissions that Bush has set up. Congressional Democrats have said they will revisit the commission law to fix the most glaring problems. If they plan to do that, they should get to it; it's an affront to liberty to hold people for years without charge, or try them in a court that doesn't afford them full rights.

IRAN
Iran, in a mirror image of recent U.S. charges, has accused the United States of supplying Sunni militants who last week car-bombed a bus of Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Their claim comes complete with bullet cartridges bearing U.S. markings. Does this prove U.S. involvement? No. But it's interesting to note that the Iranians have roughly as much evidence backing up their claim as we have of Iranian involvement in Iraq. And just as it's very likely Iran is meddling in Iraq, would anyone be surprised to discover that we're supporting anti-Iran militants? That is not a reason to turn a blind eye to Iranian meddling; but it is a reason to look askance at the moral outrage the White House has tried to generate over the issue. Meanwhile, there are no updates on the sniper rifles allegedly supplied by Iran. The smoking gun remains elusive.

Separately, Iran is making noises about stopping its enrichment program -- if Western countries do the same. The non-offer comes a day before the International Atomic Energy Agency is expected to issue a critical report that will trigger even harsher U.N. sanctions against the country. Iran once again demonstrates it is not serious about negotiating, and the IAEA report will show that it has expanded, rather than slowed, its enrichment activities. The question is what sort of measures Russia and China will allow the U.N. to take.

MITT ROMNEY
Mitt Romney is somewhat ironically attacking John McCain for being inconsistent on abortion. For my money, though, the funniest thing is that Mitt's guy in charge of conservative outreach is named Marx.

SOMALIA
Finally, the U.N. approved an 8,000-strong African Union peacekeeping force for Somalia, a measure that allows the AU to deploy troops and relieve the Ethiopians that have been propping up the provisional government there. It remains to be seen if such a force will be enough to stop the spiraling violence in Somalia, but it demonstrates the renewed international attention being paid to that country after years of neglect. Let's hope they pull it off.

Gitmo, Romney, Somalia, Iraq, Iran, politics, midtopia

New Jersey grants gay civil unions

New Jersey becomes the third state to allow either civil unions or marriage.

Meanwhile, a Michigan court ruled earlier this month that the state's recent gay-marriage ban also outlaws domestic-partner benefits to government employees, including those who work for public universities. The logic: health benefits cannot be provided if doing so is based on treating same-sex relationships similar to marriage.

And so while New Jersey expands freedom and fairness, Michigan trips into the minefield of litigation and unintended consequences caused by a hastily passed, too-broadly drawn constitutional amendment that singles out a minority for discrimination. Another 20 states with similar bans probably will face similar troubles -- unless they take the route Alaska took and decide the law doesn't apply to such benefits.

Of course, some people are happy that this will hurt gay families. Take Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association's Michigan chapter:

“For the average Michigan taxpayer whose family does not receive government-paid insurance of any kind, this was a victory because Michigan taxpayers will no longer be forced to subsidize homosexual relationships among government workers as if those relationships are equal or similar to marriage,” he says.

That logic is so disingenuous, not to mention mean-spirited, I don't even know where to begin.

The AFA, by the way, also warns against witchcraft, specifically attacking a middle school newspaper for publishing an 8th-grade girl's article on her Wiccan aunt and Wiccan beliefs. This is a little ironic, considering they have a "religious freedom" section of their Web site where they purport to stand up for religious expression.

Such routine hypocrisy aside, it'll be interesting to see if there is a second wave of constitutional amendments amending the gay-marriage bans. I wouldn't expect outright repeals, but at the very least we might see language exempting domestic partner benefits or allowing civil unions. And the lessons of these first states -- moral as well as legal -- will likely slow the rush to adopt similar measures in the remaining states.

I stand by my prediction that in 20 years, the country will largely look back on this brouhaha and ask "what was the big deal"? Gay marriage laws will go the way of sodomy laws, falling state by state until the Supreme Court repeals the last few holdouts. Because manifest unfairness rarely survives for long, even when it involves something as visceral as homosexuality.

gay marriage, politics, midtopia

Right-wing silliness, continued

More "teachers are terrorists" rhetoric, this time from Neal Boortz and Sean Hannity.

I get Boortz's point, and I agree that the NEA can be part of the problem in some places. I also agree that we should be worrying relatively more about education than about terrorism. But "worse than Al Qaeda?" Sheesh.

education, politics, midtopia

Democrats gone wild

I've been slamming Republicans fairly heavily over the last few days. Time to even up the score a little.

In Fredricksburg, Md., 23-year-old Andrew Stone went to the home of a person listed on a Republican Web site. He argued with the person and his two roommates, then attacked them.

We'll presume he was a Democrat, though that's not clear from the story.

In case any of you need the reminder: don't go to people's homes and attack them for their political beliefs. It makes everyone cranky.

politics, midtopia

Pelosi plane update

The "Pelosi One" plane scandal was always about nothing, and died despite a week of Republican flogging.

Now the main Republican flogger, Florida Rep. Adam Putnam, admits he had no actual evidence to back up his claims -- and he doesn't care.

Putnam now acknowledges he had no personal knowledge of any Pelosi request. He said he was commenting on an anonymously-sourced story in The Washington Times and additional coverage from CNN.

"This was a classic case where the media got out in front of us," Putnam said. "Did we jump on it? Yes."

And he is unapologetic about that. He calls the Pelosi plane story, whatever its legitimacy, "the first break [Republicans] have had from the media in driving our message since before the Mark Foley story broke."

Got that? Republicans' "first break... in driving our message" was a made-up nonscandal.

What exactly is that message, again? Because surely "we're a bunch of liars" isn't it.

Pelosi, Adam Putnam, politics, midtopia

Another terror myth exploded

Terrorists want Democrats to win, right?

Not always, apparently.

A New York man accused of trying to help terrorists in Afghanistan has donated some $15,000 to the House Republicans' campaign committee over three years.

Abdul Tawala Ibn Ali Alishtari pleaded not guilty Friday in U.S. District Court in Manhattan to charges that include terrorism financing, material support of terrorism and money laundering.

From April 2002 until August 2004, the man also known as "Michael Mixon" gave donations ranging from $500 to $5,000 to the National Republican Congressional Committee, according to Federal Election Commission reports.

Does this mean terrorists support Republicans? Of course not. For one thing, you'd have to examine the motive behind the donations, which could include such things as buying protection, buying access or simply trying to look innocuous.

But it does point up the intellectual emptiness of pointing to such behavior -- or the fact that both terrorists and Democrats say mean things about President Bush -- and claiming an ideological link. At risk of running afoul of Godwin's Law, Hitler disliked abstract art; does that make everyone who hates abstract art a Nazi? No.

When you get down to the facts of this case, by the way, it appears that Alishtari is little more than a scammer who was involved in suspicious money transfers for financial reasons, not ideological ones. So maybe terrorists don't support Republicans; maybe they've got the thieves and liars vote instead....

Alishtari, terrorism, politics, midtopia

The genetics of altruism

Are humans innately good, or innately selfish?

That's a fundamental question when it comes to discussing morality, law and society. If humans are innately selfish, then the only way society functions is by the majority forcing everyone to behave, through tools of social control like government, religion and culture. Without such control, the argument goes, society would disintegrate into a Darwinian anarchy where the strongest reigned through force and cruelty.

In addition, this worldview lends weight to the idea that only an extrahuman authority -- such as God -- can effectively impart a moral code, for if humans are naturally immoral or amoral they simply would not bother to develop one. In such a view, religion is not merely a tool for enforcing whatever society defines as morality; it is an essential source of morality that transcends society.

If humans are generally good, however -- if they are hardwired for altruism, for example, or if our social nature makes us seek approval, and render cooperation and compromise common and successful survival strategies -- then the importance of religion and tradition and government all shrink. They are still useful as founts of distilled wisdom and as a way to enable or compel group behavior. But they are not in and of themselves a necessary component of virtue.

The reality, of course, is as variable as the human experience. Like any other distribution, human behavior follows the bell curve. So even if most humans are innately good, there will be some that misbehave. And if our natural state is despotic anarchy, there would still be a few selfless saps trying to help others. Throw in other considerations, like love of family or economic ties, and the picture becomes more muddied still.

That said, a couple of recent developments shed some interesting light on the subject.

Last year, molecular researchers identified what they called an altruism gene that is present in almost all living things. It's not a gene that makes people give to charity; it's a gene that appears to explain why some cells in a multicellular organism give up their ability to reproduce -- and thus commit genetic suicide -- in order to help the organism as a whole function better. Their conclusion? The function arose for a separate purpose -- letting cells shut off temporarily useless processes to conserve energy -- and was then co-opted by evolution in multicell organisms, in something of a biological bait-and-switch. The resulting combination was so successful that all later organisms retained it.

Another study around the same time found that altering a single gene in a species of bacteria turned resource "cheaters" into cooperative organisms. Further, the genetic change occurred naturally in response to environmental stress. In other words, the stress apparently promoted a genetic change that favored cooperation.

Couple that with demonstrated examples of altruism in the animal kingdom, and it's clear that altruism is compatible with evolution.

If altruism can arise spontaneously on the cellular level and among lower animals, it seems obvious that it can arise naturally at the behavioral level of intelligent species, which have an advantage that bacteria do not: the ability to calculate the costs and benefits of cooperation.

It could start out as loyalty to a family group, wherein a parent, for example, sacrifices itself to save its mate or offspring and thus protect its genetic legacy. As populations grow that definition could be expanded to include clan or tribe, based on a reciprocal economic calculation: I'll come to your defense if you come to mine, increasing our overall chances of survival.

Society would eventually develop ideals and traditions that enforce such altruism, allowing it to apply to larger and larger groups. It would confer approval, admiration and reproductive success on those who are generous or take risks in its defense. As social creatures we are especially susceptible to "doing what is expected" and seeking the approval of our fellows.

And that, in fact, appears to be the case, as a more recent experiment shows.

The experiment hooked up college students to MRIs and had them make decisions about whether or not to give money to various charities. What they found was that deciding to give money produced activity in two different areas of the brain: the part responsible for social attachment, and the same pleasure centers stimulated by food, drugs, money and sex. In other words, acting altruistic made them feel good, as well as involving a bit of social calculation.

Such altruism may be learned rather than innate; the study doesn't attempt to establish a root cause. But it demonstrates that good behavior does not necessarily need ongoing external enforcement. People do not have to be coerced or scared into doing good; they simply need to be attached to a society or family group that prizes such behavior.

This also demonstrates that altruism can in fact be quite selfish. Altruistic acts can lead to very real individual benefits, such as increased reproductive success, enhanced social stature or simply feeling good about oneself.

But such benefits must be weighed against the potential cost. At the extreme, altruism is detrimental: the warrior who is killed in combat never gets a chance to enjoy the fruits of his sacrifice. He may still consider the risk worth it, but how can we explain the person who deliberately sacrifices himself to save others, like the soldier who throws himself on a grenade?

In some cases, even such extreme decisions can be selfish, genetically speaking. A suicide bomber, for instance, knows that his family will probably be taken care of. A soldier's family gets a government pension and the thanks of a grateful nation.

But absent those scenarios, I think such examples demonstrate the power of societal expectations. People raised in a given society often internalize that society's values. The stronger their attachment to the society, the stronger the internalization. Further, people who live when others die often experience "survivor's guilt." Many people talk about how they "couldn't live with themselves" if they behaved in a way society disapproves of. The cost-benefit analysis is different for every individual, of course, but many people would apparently prefer to risk near-certain death than live with the knowledge that they chickened out, or let others die so that they could live.

So it turns out the question I posed at the beginning of this article is a bit misleading, because in many cases being good and being selfish are the same thing. But overall I think the evidence points to morality and altruism being biologically based but socially defined. Religion is a part of society, and thus contributes to defining society's morality just like any other philosophical system. Religion is also a singularly powerful social tool for enforcing that morality -- though like any tool it can also be used for ill. But morality can flourish absent religion, just like religion can flourish absent morality.

evolution, ethics, genetics, morality, religion, politics, midtopia

A threefer: Creationist Jew-bashing Republicans

It started in Georgia....

The Anti-Defamation League is calling on state Rep. Ben Bridges to apologize for a memo distributed under his name that says the teaching of evolution should be banned in public schools because it is a religious deception stemming from an ancient Jewish sect.

Bridges (R-Cleveland) denies having anything to do with the memo. But one of his constituents said he wrote the memo with Bridges’ approval before it was recently distributed to lawmakers in several states, including Texas, California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Ohio.

“Indisputable evidence — long hidden but now available to everyone — demonstrates conclusively that so-called ‘secular evolution science’ is the Big-Bang 15-billion-year alternate ‘creation scenario’ of the Pharisee Religion,” the memo says. “This scenario is derived concept-for-concept from Rabbinic writings in the mystic ‘holy book’ Kabbala dating back at least two millennia.”

The memo calls on lawmakers to introduce legislation that would end the teaching of evolution in public schools because it is “a deception that is causing incalculable harm to every student and every truth-loving citizen.”

It gets better.

It also directs readers to a Web site www.fixedearth.com, which includes model legislation that calls the Kabbala “a mystic, anti-Christ ‘holy book’ of the Pharisee Sect of Judaism.” The Web site also declares “the earth is not rotating … nor is it going around the sun.”

It gets better.

The letter was written to Texas lawmakers, and one of them -- House Appropriations Chairman Warren Chisum -- distributed it to colleagues.

In his apology, Chisum (like Bridges) says he didn't bother to read the memo distributed under his name.

That should play well. "I'm not anti-Semitic; I'm just stupid!"

evolution, politics, midtopia

Earmark discipline

You want a Congressional achievement? Here's one.

The spending bill passed by the Senate on Wednesday contains not one shred of new pork. And the bill is not accompanied by a report, which in the past is how many earmarks found their way into the budget.

It's not that simple, of course. Sen. Tom Coburn charges that the bill still contains between $11 billion and $17 billion in hidden earmarks, and there apparently is a growing campaign to keep funding previous earmarks. And Congress has not yet done away with narrowly targeted tax breaks that by some measures cost up to three times as much as earmarks.

But even $17 billion is better than the $64 billion in earmarks that was larded into the budget bills that died with the 109th Congress. That cut dwarfs Bush's call to cut the number and value of earmarks in half. And while keeping previous earmarks alive is odious, at least Congress isn't adding more to the pile.

Even better, the White House is doing more than talking about earmark reform. The Office of Management and Budget has ordered federal agencies to ignore earmarks that are not written into law. That would appear, in one fell swoop, to solve the problem of hiding earmarks in reports, as well as eliminating the pressure to keep funding previous years' earmarks.

A previous OMB memo carefully defined earmarks and made rules for cataloging them, making them that much harder to hide.

Both are moves the administration could have made any time in the past six years, so let's mute the applause a little bit. And it's executive branch policy, not law, so it's rescindable at any time. But give credit where credit is due: it's a powerful and practical move that plugs the holes in Congress' earmark rules. I'll take this sort of hypocrisy any day.

budget, earmarks, politics, midtopia

House leads, Senate follows

The current Congressional session is still young, but already I'm seeing an interesting phenomenon: the Senate is dancing to the House's tune.

On two pieces of major legislation, the Democratic leadership in the Senate has gotten sidetracked or bludgeoned with its own versions, and ended up adopting the House versions. It happened on ethics, and it most recently happened with the anti-surge resolutions.

There are, of course, counterexamples. Congress will likely adopt the Senate version of the minimum-wage bill, for example, though there will be a debate over the size of the small-business tax breaks that will be included.

Why is the House leading? Some of the blame can be traced to the byzantine procedural rules in the Senate, which make it easy for a minority to tie things in knots and encourages all sorts of complicated proposals. As well, the Senate is supposed to be the more deliberative body, and it's commonplace for it to add superstructure to a too-simple House bill -- ideally turning a legal club into a scalpel. It's a good internal check within the legislative branch.

Further, the House speakership is a far more powerful position than Senate majority leader, so it makes sense that Nancy Pelosi is driving the legislative train.

But some of it seems to be either miscalculation or mistakes by Harry Reid. In both cases the House versions were simpler than the Senate ones, and in the case of the ethics bill the House version was stronger, as well. At a minimum the House leadership appears to be better at bill-writing. On top of that, Reid seems to have misunderstood what sort of compromises were necessary to get the Senate version passed, and not be as good as he needs to be at counting noses.

It'll be interesting to see how the push-pull develops through the remainder of the session.

Reid, Congress, politics, midtopia

The House passed it's anti-surge measure.

The vote was 246-182. In the end, despite fears of massive Republican defections, only 17 Republicans crossed over and voted for the resolution.

The Senate vote on an identical measure is scheduled for Saturday, but Senate Republicans have promised to block it until their alternative resolutions are considered.

Iraq, politics, midtopia