Some options on global warming

Here's a decent roundup on global warming -- what scientific consensus is regarding what will happen, what might happen, and what we can do about it.

The upshot: It's too late to stop global warming, but not too late to avoid the worst-case scenarios.

Scientists say it's too late to stop people from feeling the heat. Nearly two dozen computer models now agree that by 2100, the average yearly global temperature will be 3 to 6 degrees Fahrenheit higher than now, according to Gerald Meehl, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

Even if today the world suddenly stops producing greenhouse gases, temperatures will rise 1 degree by 2050, according to NCAR.

A British conference on "avoiding dangerous climate change" last year concluded that a rise of just 3 degrees would likely lead to some catastrophic events, especially the melting of the Greenland's polar ice. A study in the journal Science last month said the melting, which is happening faster than originally thought, could trigger a 1- to 3-foot rise in global ocean levels.

So the idea now is to accept that we'll have at least a century of global warming, but take immediate steps to avoid the extreme cases while taking long-term steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Even naysayers are coming around, sort of:

Many of the scientists who have long been vocal skeptics of global warming now acknowledge that the Earth is getting hotter and that some of it is caused by people. Even so, this minority of scientists, such as John Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville, contend that the warming is "not on this dangerous trajectory."

Okay. Forgive me if your credibility on this isn't the highest at the moment.

environment, global warming, politics, midtopia

Priorities

In today's Star Tribune, the legislative roundup notes that this week two major pieces of legislation will be considered.

What are they, you ask? Perhaps a budget bill. Perhaps a transportation bill. Or an education bill. Or perhaps something truly revolutionary, like a proposal to implement instant-runoff voting or apportion our electoral college votes between candidates, rather than give them all to whoever polls the most votes in the state.

Nope. None of that. The "major" legislation? A stadium for the University, and the gay-marriage amendment.

How did our priorities get this screwed up?

legislature,Minnesota,politics, midtopia

NATO expands in Afghanistan -- but will it help?

NATO commander Gen. James Jones said the alliance can expand its peacekeeping operations throughout most of Afghanistan by August.
That's good news, and about time. But there is some doubt about how effective such a move will be, since a lot of it will involve merely absorbing U.S. troops that are already in the country.

Only 98 U.S. troops died in Afghanistan last year but the ratio of casualties to overall troop levels makes Afghanistan as dangerous as Iraq. While Iraq's violent disintegration dominates the headlines, President Bush touts Afghanistan as a success. During his recent visit, the president told Afghans their country was "inspiring others ... to demand their freedom."

But many features of the political landscape are not so inspiring -- one is the deteriorating security situation. Taliban attacks are up; their tactics have become more aggressive and nihilistic. They have detonated at least 23 suicide bombs in the past six months, killing foreign and Afghan troops, a Canadian diplomat, local police and, in some cases, crowds of civilians.

Kidnapping is on the rise. American contractors are being targeted. Some 200 schools have been burned or closed down. Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, senior American military officer here, expects the violence to get worse over the spring and summer.

The backdrop to this gathering crisis is Afghanistan's shattered economy. The country's 24 million people are still totally dependent on foreign aid, opium poppy cultivation and remittances sent home by the 5 million Afghans abroad. Afghanistan ranks fifth from the bottom on the U.N. Development Program's Human Development Index. Only a few sub-Saharan semi-failed states are more destitute.

The article goes on to mention that the United States is slashing reconstruction spending and reducing its troop presence, sort of regardless of the actual situation on the ground.

NATO, Afghanistan, politics, midtopia

Civil war in Palestine?

A Hamas militant died in a car bombing on Friday, and Hamas blamed forces loyal to Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas. Four people died in the ensuing unrest.

The setup is almost novelistic:

About half the gunmen are allied with Hamas, including Abu Quka, and the other half with Fatah. Abu Quka's supporters blamed the Fatah-dominated Preventive Security Services for his assassination; a shootout at the militant's funeral killed the three others and wounded more than 20.

Hamas took control of the Palestinian Authority on Wednesday after trouncing Fatah in legislative elections in January. It has pledged to restore order in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, but Palestinian security forces, most of them affiliated with Fatah, are involved in the violence, and Hamas has little control over them.

Abbas, a moderate who favors peace talks with Israel, is a vocal critic of violence but has struggled to gain control over the security forces since his election last year.

The forces are evenly matched. One is highly militant, the other is only loosely controlled by its nominal boss.

That's a perfect recipe for a long, intractable civil war that neither side can win. Perhaps such a step is necessary to settle the internal contradictions among the Palestinians and produce a leadership that can finally reach a lasting settlement with Israel. But it could just as easily lead to a Lebanon-style conflict that benefits no one.

Let's hope cooler heads prevail -- and that Hamas gets around to recognizing Israel.

UPDATES
Fatah gunman defy Hamas, take to streets
Gaza strongman nixes gun control


Abu Yousef,civil war,Abbas,Hamas,Palestine,politics, midtopia

John Dean on impeachment

Nixon's White House counsel, John Dean, told the Senate Judiciary Committee that Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program >deserved censure and possibly impeachment.

"Had the Senate or House, or both, censured or somehow warned Richard Nixon, the tragedy of Watergate might have been prevented," Dean told the Senate Judiciary Committee. "Hopefully the Senate will not sit by while even more serious abuses unfold before it."

Testifying to a Senate committee on Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold's resolution to censure Bush, Dean said the president "needs to be told he cannot simply ignore a law with no consequences."

Strong stuff. And coming from a former White House counsel that witnessed another impeachment process firsthand -- and a Republican to boot -- it's powerful.

That said, it doesn't really move the ball any. Feingold's resolution serves a purpose: it keeps the eavesdropping alive and in front of voters and Congress. But I agree with the Democratic leadership that the resolution is otherwise premature. Keep the pressure on to make sure the investigation goes forward; but wait for the investigation to finish before discussing possible sanctions.

Not to let the Republicans off the hook:

But Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said that passing a censure resolution would do more harm than good. "Wartime is not a time to weaken the commander-in-chief," he said.

That's a weak argument. Does the "it's a war" excuse mean the president can do anything he wants and the nation should do nothing? Arguably wartime is a time for closer monitoring of presidential actions, because a president's wartime powers are so extensive and abuse so much easier.

Hatch is essentially arguing for abandoning Congress' oversight responsibility. Not a good idea.

His comment is also yet another example of why viewing the "war on terror" as a traditional war is a big mistake.

Feingold, Bush, eavesdropping, John Dean, politics, midtopia

An agnostic defense of religion

You may not know it to look at me, but I am an enemy of religion.

Well, some people say that anyway, based on two simple facts: I'm agnostic, and I believe the government should stay as far away from religious speech as it can.

This seems to be a sectarian version of "if you're not with us, you're against us." To true believers even a declared neutral on religion is an adversary. By such logic, there is no such thing as neutral. "Neutrality" is simply code for "doesn't support", which of course means "opposes."

That may be helpful when trying to construct an "us against the heathen hordes" mindset, but it doesn't really comport well with reality. I send my children to Lutheran preschools; I have written frequently about Abdul Rahman, and will write about other religious freedom cases in the future; I strongly support individual religious liberty. I respect the role of religion in society. I have tossed change into Salvation Army kettles.

I just happen to think that religion is not a government concern. It's one of a whole host of things -- like, say, clothing styles -- where government should not have a role. As citizens, we all have a right to practice our religion as we see fit. What we do not have is the right to use the government to promote our religion.

An agnostic who supports religion
I was raised Presbyterian, so I have more than a passing familiarity with Christianity. But I'm an agnostic for the classic reason: I don't believe the existence or nonexistence of God can be proven, so why waste time on an unsolvable puzzle? It's fun to noodle on, but not really worth the investment of serious study. If He exists, great. If He doesn't, okay. I guess I'll find out when I'm dead.

Same thing with "Is there an afterlife?" Nobody knows, so any attempt to reason it out or "prove it" inevitably devolves into finding an explanation that is comforting to you. I sincerely hope there is an afterlife, and we all owe religion a "thank you" for coming up with the concept; but believe in it? Can't do it.

Does that mean I think believers are gullible, easily deluded saps? Hardly. Just because they cannot prove to me that God exists doesn't mean that they have not had His existence proven to their own satisfaction. Perhaps they've had a personal experience with God. Perhaps they see God's presence in the structure of the world around them. Who am I to say they're wrong?

So though I'm agnostic, I'm not hostile to religion. We discuss religious topics with our children, including the main tenets of the major religions. Why? Because I want my children to be able to make their own religious choices. As they get older we'll discuss religion in greater detail, even take them to church/synagogue/temple if they want. I see my role as providing information, not telling them what to believe.

Government, belief, and public policy
I think people should be free to worship as they please. And I respect religion's role in society. Why, then, do I think government should be studiously neutral on religion?

Two reasons: public policy must have a rational, logically defensible basis; and government is for all people, not just the adherents of any single religion or group of religions.

Public policy: Personal, untestable, unprovable beliefs have no place in formulating government policy. As an individual, I'm free to believe that redheads are agents of God's evil twin. Does that give me the right to enact anti-redhead laws? Not in a country that respects individual rights. In order to discriminate against a group or behavior, I must mount a logical public-policy case for doing so. Religious belief may inform my views as a voter or a legislator, but it cannot by itself be a basis for law.

Government for all people: If the government expresses a preference for certain religions, it is by necessity excluding those who believe differently. Our government belongs to all of us, in all our myriad beliefs or nonbeliefs; and thus it should not express a preference for any particular religion.

Blue laws -- which force businesses to close on Sundays -- are a perfect example of laws with no rational reason for existing, and which put government muscle behind one particular religion. If you don't believe in working on the Sabbath, then don't -- but don't use the government to force everyone else to take the day off, too.

Does this mean I'm trying to push religion out of the public square? No. Because individuals are free -- nay, encouraged -- to keep religion in the public square. Only the government should remain neutral and silent.

An analogy: If I don't want cars driving on the sidewalk, am I anticar? No. I just believe they belong on the road, not on the sidewalks. Similarly, religion belongs in individual discourse, not government discourse.

There are gray areas, of course. Religion should not be discriminated against, either. Religion plays a role in our society; its contribution can be recognized and acknowledged by the government just like the government recognizes the contributions of other groups. But the emphasis should be on recognizing the contribution, not the religion.

This, by the way, is why I generally support Bush's push to make faith-based organization eligible for government grants. Religious groups should be treated just like everybody else; they should receive neither favorable nor unfavorable treatment merely because they are religious.

As the above example demonstrates, trying to find the proper place for religion in a religiously diverse society is not an "attack on God." It's common sense, the accomodations that allow us to coexist peacefully with our neighbors as equal citizens.

Religious issues
Being agnostic, or defending everyone's right to believe what they want, doesn't mean I lack opinions on religious issues. I frankly enjoy religious discussions because of the big questions they raise. But these are debates about the shape of religion, not its existence.

For example, I'm not a huge fan of organized religion. Organized religion is all about claiming stewardship of the One True God. Since that's an unprovable claim on the face of it, they have to resort to secondary measures to attract and keep a following. Eventually the church's continued existence becomes an end in itself -- an end that while not totally separate from honoring God is at least distinct from it.

The whole concept of Hell is a great example. Many religions claim something along the lines of "we are the one true faith; believe in us or suffer for all eternity." This has always struck me as a transparent organizational tactic, not something that God would do. What kind of God would create a world that contains thousands of religions, and then say to each of us: "Pick wisely, because only one of them will get you into heaven"? If that is indeed the kind of God we have -- petty and sadistic -- then I for one choose not to worship Him even if He exists. No God worth the name plays shell games with people's souls.

I choose to believe that if there is an afterlife, and the entrance requirement is based on what you do on earth, then the criteria will be things like living a good, honorable life, regardless of what particular creed you subscribe to.

(To be fair, I think the common depiction of Hell is a distortion. The most reasonable definition of Hell I've come across describes it simply as "the absence of God." That's simply a truism: If I don't believe in the Christian God, then when I die I will not go to the Christian heaven. It does not imply, however, that Hell is unpleasant: fire, brimstone, devils, demons. And it leaves open the possibility of me going to a different heaven, or the Elysian Fields, or Limbo, or whatever. Or being reincarnated.)

Or you can get into a discussion of why we should worship God. Doing so voluntarily out of simple joy or gratitude makes sense. But few religions present worship as merely an option; it's the whole point, and often demanded by the God in question. Yet it seems to me that any God worth having wouldn't care a whit about being worshipped, and thus Gods that demand worship probably don't deserve it.

Is evolution opposed to God? Only if you think that God couldn't have chosen evolution as one of the mechanisms of creation. Is science opposed to God? No; science looks at the how of things, not the who or the why behind it. It's only a conflict if your faith requires belief in easily disprovable things.

The questions go on and on. They're great; they're interesting; they make us think. They are why religion exists: to try to tackle the big questions, explain the unexplainable. It's an ambitious undertaking, and it produces some first-class philosophy. And the redemptive power of religion has transformed lives and societies.

That is what religion does for us, and why it is valuable.

But religion, like any social tool, can also be used for ill. The religious wars that wracked Europe, the Crusades, the Inquisition, witch burnings, Islamic terrorism, militant Jewish settlers -- all show belief being twisted to bad ends. And it usually occurs when one religion gains undue influence in secular government and starts using that government to further its own agenda.

So let each religion compete in the public marketplace of ideas. Let us build a society that knits together fervid and disparate beliefs into a vibrant whole. But let us agree that for any of us to be free, all of us have to be free. And that means keeping the government out of religion. For the government that today promotes your religion can tomorrow suppress it -- and society will be the poorer for that.

church and state, establishment of religion, religion, politics, midtopia

Global warming evidence No. 10,512

Coral reefs are dying at a record pace, as disease moves in on reefs weakened by rising ocean temperatures.

"It's an unprecedented die-off," said National Park Service fisheries biologist Jeff Miller, who last week checked 40 stations in the Virgin Islands. "The mortality that we're seeing now is of the extremely slow-growing reef-building corals. These are corals that are the foundation of the reef. ... We're talking colonies that were here when [Christopher] Columbus came by have died in the past three to four months."

I'm a scuba diver, so I've seen coral reefs up close. Besides being the basis for multibillion-dollar tourism and fishing industries, they are islands of incredible biodiversity. And large reefs help protect shorelines from storms and waves.

But most corals require relatively cool water to survive, and it takes millennia to build up the massive reefs. Once they're gone, they won't be coming back any time soon.

Take global warming seriously, because it's real. There are reasonable questions about what we can or should do about it, but simply ignoring it is no longer a responsible option.

coral reef, global warming, midtopia

Women in politics

Great Plains View, another Minnesota blog, has an informative look at female possibilities for president. Hillary Clinton may be the most powerful woman in politics right now, but Great Plains argues that she's not the most qualified, not to mention what a polarizing figure she is.

Among the names tossed out: Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell.

And looking to the future, keep your eye on Rep. Stephanie Herseth, D-S.D.


Clinton, Rell, Napolitano, Sebelius, Herseth, president, women, politics, midtopia

Ann Coulter's legal troubles, update

We finally have an update in Ann Coulter's voter fraud case, which I posted about way back when Midtopia was barely knee-high to a grasshopper -- or perhaps a cockroach in this case.

Palm Beach County's elections supervisor has given the right wing's unofficial mouthpiece 30 days to explain why she voted in the wrong precinct.

In a registered letter scheduled to be sent to her this week, Coulter is asked to "clarify certain information as to her legal residence," elections boss Arthur Anderson said.

"We want to give her a chance," Anderson said. "She needs to tell us where she really lives."

Or else? He could refer the case to State Attorney Barry Krischer for criminal charges, Anderson said.

Remember: root for the jail term, not the fine.

Palm Beach, fraud, Ann Coulter, politics, midtopia

On the front lines, patience wears thin

A story from the Christian Science Monitor about U.S. troops in Mosul underscores a few points I've been making in the last couple of weeks.

"Please don't take our weapon," the mother of four pleads in Arabic when US Army Staff Sgt. Josh Clevenger comes across an AK-47. "We need it to defend ourselves. It is not safe, anything can happen."

As he stands in the living room, Sergeant Clevenger has no intention of confiscating their rifle - nor any comprehension of the woman's plea. With his platoon's lone interpreter elsewhere, he is effectively rendered speechless.

"Your weapon is filled with blanks," Clevenger, from Muncie, Ind., says to the woman, his voice unwittingly rising as he tries to convey helpful information. "These aren't real bullets - they won't protect you."

For US soldiers who don't grasp the language or the culture here, a central part of their mission - generating goodwill and support - remains far more difficult than capturing insurgent leaders.

(snip)

While US soldiers are practiced in the art of firepower, the sort of counterinsurgency campaign under way at the moment has demanded a far more nuanced approach to battle. Defeating the insurgency is as much about reaching ordinary Iraqis as it is about capturing terrorists.

"The fight is really for the people and their mind-set," says Lt. Col. Richard Greene of Germantown, Md., the battalion's executive officer.

As I argued in my Reaction guest post, pacification is a totally different kind of battle than a straight up force-on-force war. And it reaches a point where our presence does more harm than good, as more people die, civilian patience wears thin, and language and cultural barriers remain.

The story also notes how unhappy many of the troops were to hear President Bush say they'd be there for at least another three years. It isn't yet dissuading them from re-enlisting, but as the headline says, patience is wearing thin.

occupation, Iraq, politics, midtopia

Abdul Rahman backlash?

In a comment on my last post on this topic, KnightErrant reports that more Christians are being harassed or arrested in Afghanistan.

US-based Christian news source, Compass Direct, reports that more Christians have been arrested for their faith in Afghanistan in the wake of the release of Abdul Rahman. Compass, a news service that tracks persecution of Christians mostly in Islamic countries, says harassment of the Christian community has been stepped up.

Compass says two more Christian converts have been arrested in other parts of the country, but further information is being withheld in the “sensitive situation” caused by the international media furor over Rahman.

Reports of beatings and police raids on the homes of Christians are filtering out of the country through local Christian ministers.

The reports are uncorroborated, and the linked site is anything but unbiased. So take it with a grain of salt. I'd put it in the category of "news to watch for".

Christianity, religion, Afghanistan, Abdul Rahman, midtopia

Tell me about yourself

The site had its 1,000th visitor last night -- not bad for a blog that launched just over a month ago. Thanks to the various sites that have linked here, and thanks especially to all the readers who chose to make Midtopia part of their day.

I get very curious, though, about who those readers are, since so few of you leave comments. So I'd like to invite all of you to add a short comment to this post telling me a little about yourself. It'll help me get a mental image of just whom I'm writing for.

Feel free to chime in on any other post, too, of course, or continue reading without commenting. And as always, if there are things you'd like to see added, removed or changed on the site, e-mail me. I hope for this to become an interactive blog that readers have a stake in. I can't do that without your comments.

Sideshows and substance

First we had Dean Johnson "sanding off" the truth. Now we have Gil Gutknecht in "Gettygate."

During a campaign appearance last week in Mankato, Gutknecht, a Rochester Republican, told a group of college students they could play as pivotal a role in defending Republican control of Congress as the 1st Minnesota did at Gettysburg, according to a report published Tuesday in the MSU Reporter, the Minnesota State University-Mankato student newspaper.

The 1st Minnesota saved the field for the Union forces July 2, 1863, by stepping into a breach in their line and repelling a Confederate assault. The unit lost 82 percent of its men in the process, the highest casualty rate of any Union regiment in any battle.

"To compare beating Democrats to defeating the Confederate Army is either an absurd display of historical ignorance or an insult to the intelligence of Minnesota," Melendez said in a news release under the headline "Gutknecht likens DFL Party to slaveholders." David Ruth, the party's communications director issued the release.

Oh, please.

There are times when both parties try to tar the other with racist associations. The most egregious is the use of "plantation" imagery, which Republicans often use to describe Democrat domination of the black vote, and which Hillary Clinton used to describe Republican control of the Senate.

But a reference to a pivotal battle in the Civil War hardly likens DFLers to slaveholders.

Personally, if I were one of the college students so addressed, I'd be a bit concerned by that 82 percent casualty rate. I didn't realize human-wave attacks were part of the Republican electoral strategy. And don't Democrats support gun control? I had no idea Dems could do so much damage with their bare hands.

While the parties distract everyone with sideshows like this, a state House committee approved a University of Minnesota stadium plan that includes a $50-per-year fee increase for students, and both the Senate and the House are considering bills to keep the identity of University presidential candidates secret, among all the other bills awaiting action this session.

Dustups are fun, but they're not important.

Gettysburg, Gutknecht, Minnesota, politics, midtopia

Abdul Rahman, religious refugee

Abdul Rahman has turned up in Italy, which has granted him asylum.

I suppose we should be glad that he will live, instead of being executed by the Afghan government or lynched by people inspired by the bloodthirsty calls of Afghan judges, mullahs and legislators.

Of course, he now has to start his life over in a strange land. And -- coincidentally, of course -- the family members that turned him in will now get default custody of his children -- which, you may recall, is how this whole case got started.

Religious law leads to all sorts of stupid things, like this case of a man divorcing his wife while he slept. But what separates the Abdul Rahman case is the response. In the divorce case, everyone criticized the move; one Islamic scholar called the elders "totally ignorant." In the Rahman case, authority figures all across the country supported the concept of executing someone for their religious belief.

It's going to be real embarassing when the United States is forced to put Afghanistan and Iraq on its list of human rights violators.

religion, Italy, Afghanistan, Abdul Rahman, politics, midtopia

Hunting, with a helping of guilt

In Sunday's New York Times magazine, Michael Pollan takes what might be the most tortured excursion into hunting that I've ever read.

Pollan, who had never hunted before in his life, says he wanted to prepare a meal from the ground up: kill the food, prepare it, eat it. His goal was to experience the full karmic consequences of the food chain.

What followed was a sort of "Gomer Pyle goes hunting" escapade, infused with atavistic thrills, guilt and disgust.

Very few things, least of all hunting, lend themselves to overanalysis. And the article, while it contained some interesting points, had overanalysis in spades.

I grew up hunting squirrels and deer with my dad and brothers. I didn't always look forward to it, because it meant getting up before dawn and heading out into the cold woods to wait for first light. And during deer season there were so many other hunters that it felt a bit like a war zone. That's what made us eventually give it up: walking along just below a ridge line and listening to bullets whizzing overhead. Venison steak just wasn't worth the risk of being shot by morons.

But once the sun came out and it warmed up, hunting was full of simple pleasures. Companionship, for one; the challenge, for another: spotting game, walking quietly, sitting so still that the animals forget you're there, and of course shooting accurately. A walk in the woods on a beautiful fall day, but a walk with a purpose -- something that was very appealing to me as a teenager.

But the ultimate purpose was food, not killing. I've never understood simple sport hunting, killing things for the sake of killing things. But I've always been comfortable about my place atop the food chain. Shooting a squirrel is little different from catching a fish or buying a steak. You catch it, you gut it, you eat it. I see little moral difference between buying a roast in the supermarket and killing the roast myself.

Pollan goes on about how disgusting it was to gut the pig and see its insides, and cites some credible arguments about the evolutionary advantages of disgust. But I think he overprojects from his single experience. The first time I had to gut a fish, it was disgusting. The 50th time, it was routine. When my dad and I gutted a deer for the first time, he pointed out all the organs as we worked. It was a biology lesson, not a moral one.

I wonder if Pollan could write such a lengthy self-examination on fishing, and for some reason I think no. Shooting a pig (as Pollan does) has some moral attraction/repellant for him that catching and gutting a bass would not. But they are the same act, just with different tools. A deer rifle isn't any more or less immoral or mysterious than a fishing pole. But it seems to hold a lot more mystique for people unfamiliar with either. Which leads me to think that Pollan's discomfort has more to do with guns than hunting.

Pollan makes one good point: hunting makes you appreciate where your food comes from. You understand why ancient hunters all over the world considered hunting almost a religious experience, and gave thanks to their quarry for giving up its life so the hunter could live. Supermarkets let us take for granted what perhaps shouldn't be, both because we don't appreciate it and because the hidden nature of the modern food chain gives rise to things like factory farms -- things that produce far worse moral dilemmas than gunning down a mammal.

I haven't hunted since I became an adult, not because of any moral qualms but because of lack of opportunity or abiding interest. I still fish, though, and the reason remains the same: I am an omnivore, and nothing tastes better than fresh-caught fish, lightly breaded and cooked over a fire. And the day spent walking the shore or drowsing in a canoe, line dangling in the water with a worm or casting a lure toward likely hiding spots, is a day of relaxation and being a part of nature, not just an observer of it.

Update: Here's what another blogger thought of Pollan's piece.

Michael Pollan, food chain, hunting, fishing, midtopia

Short-term gratification, but what long-term effect?

Nigeria has bowed to demands from the United Nations and turned former Liberian dictator Charles Taylor over to a U.N. war crimes tribunal.

A plane carrying Taylor left from Maiduguri, capital of northwestern Borno state, for Liberia, a senior police official told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity.

Desmond de Silva, the top prosecutor at the U.N.-backed Sierra Leone war crimes tribunal that will try Taylor, told The Associated Press that U.N. forces in Liberia should then transfer Taylor to Freetown, Sierra Leone.

This will undoubtedly make a lot of people feel better, seeing the man responsible for so much death and destruction finally standing trial for his crimes.

But one has to wonder if the world is buying long-term trouble with this move.

Nigeria agreed to grant Taylor asylum in 2003 as part of a pact to end the civil war in Liberia, which had dragged on for 14 years and pretty thoroughly destroyed the country. By surrendering voluntarily Taylor helped ensure that his troops laid down their arms instead of continuing a destructive guerrilla war.

It's unlikely Taylor would have agreed to go into exile if he knew that three years later he would be arrested and put on trial.

Hard-edged diplomacy requires credibility. If the United States is going to threaten someone with military action, it's only effective if the target believes we're serious and not just bluffing. Similarly, offers of asylum are only effective if the recipient believes that the offer will be honored, not rescinded as soon as they've given up power.

Will future tyrants look at what happened to Taylor and reject all offers of asylum? If they do, the world will face two choices: let the tyrant remain in power or bring him down by force -- with the on-going messiness such solutions often bring.

Lasting peace often requires forgiving the unforgivable. Witness what has happened in South Africa, where the government wisely determined that exposing the truth of what happened under apartheid was more important than seeking revenge for past crimes. Such revenge-seeking might have sparked armed resistance among white groups and led to yet another civil war; at the least it would have fractured the country politically. The government recognized that they would have to forgo the satisfaction of revenge in order to forge a peaceful and unified future.

It will be a sad result indeed if indulging the satisfaction of seeing Taylor punished makes future conflicts longer and bloodier than they otherwise might have been.

asylum, war crimes, Nigeria, Africa, Charles Taylor, Liberia, politics, midtopia

Bin Laden's driver: terrorist or camp follower?

The Supreme Court hears arguments today in the case of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, who worked for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

The case bears on two points: the constitutionality of the military tribunals Bush wants to use to try Guantanamo detainees, as well as a broader question of what constitutes a terrorist -- a term thrown around all-too-freely these days.

Hamdan says he took a job with bin Laden in order to feed his family. The Bush adminstration calls him a trained terrorist who should be tried for war crimes.

Try him, by all means -- but in an impartial court, and with a definition of "terrorist" and "war crimes" that doesn't include performing menial services for the bad guys. Justice is not served by locking up anyone who ever cooked a meal for Al Qaeda.

It doesn't aid our fight against terror, either. And it's downright unhelpful when the tables are turned.

"I've never asked for more for my client than a full and fair trial," one of Hamdan's lawyers, Navy Lt. Cmdr. Charles D. Swift, told an audience Monday at the Cato Institute. "When our citizens are abroad and these things are done, how will we say it was wrong?"

There is only one just way to deal with the detainees. If they are terrorists, put them on trial. If we win a conviction, we can lock them up for a very long time. If they are combatants, then treat them in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, and specifically define the conflict they are being held until the end of. No one should have to spend the rest of their life in jail for the "crime" of being a Taliban foot soldier, for example.

For more on the subject of detainees, here's an essay I wrote.

tribunals, terrorism, Guantanamo, Hamdan, Supreme Court, politics, midtopia

State Senate passes eminent domain bill

As part of the continuing backlash over the recent Supreme Court decision on eminent domain, the Minnesota legislature is considering bills that would limit the use of the government's property-taking power. The Senate version passed yesterday; the House version is expected to reach the floor in a week or so.

The bill would bar cities and counties from taking private property simply to increase their tax base or create jobs.

Local governments still could condemn property for "public use," such as roads, parks or school buildings. They also could use eminent domain to redevelop blighted urban and environmentally contaminated areas. But such areas would be much more tightly defined in law.

The bill is sponsored by a DFLer, Thomas Bakk, but has strong bipartisan support; it passed 64-2.

Eminent domain can be a delicate subject, because while the power is clearly needed and appropriate in most cases, it can easily be abused. The developing consensus seems to (rightly) be that taking private property simply to increase a city's tax base is an inappropriate use.

But it shouldn't be taken too far. When buying up multiple parcels of land for a project, for example, one holdout landowner with unreasonable price demands should not be able to hold the entire project hostage. Sellers should expect a premium on their property, but extortion should not be rewarded.

The first step should be attempting to build the project without the holdout property. Failing that, cities ought to be able to use eminent domain to take the property and compensate the owner with a reasonable premium over fair market value.

Bakk's bill seems to recognize the difficult balance of interests at play. It seems carefully crafted and deserving of support. It may make redevelopment more difficult for some cities, but that's just too bad; if property rights are to mean something, government will often be inconvenienced.

Bakk, eminent domain, Minnesota, politics, midtopia

Asteroid mission is a go

NASA has reversed itself, restarting the $446 million Dawn mission to orbit Ceres and Vesta, two of the largest asteroids in the solar system.

The mission is well worth the money. Besides the scientific benefits of studying two of the largest chunks left over from the creation of the solar system, it will be another test of an ion engine, and thus one more step toward bootstrapping ourselves into a more permanent and widespread presence in space.

To find out a lot more about the Dawn mission, visit the Dawn home page.

Vesta, Ceres, asteroid, exploration, space, NASA, midtopia

Hands off the blogs

The Federal Election Commission yesterday decided to regulate online political advertising, but not the content of political blogs like this one.

The decision means that bloggers and online publications will not be covered by provisions of the new election law. Internet bloggers and individuals will therefore be able to use the Internet to attack or support federal candidates without running afoul of campaign spending limits.

Unsurprisingly, this was one of those rare issues that united bloggers of all stripes in opposition to any regulation of blogs.

But I don't see how the FEC could have ruled any other way. How does one measure the worth of a blog entry? Not by the money spent to post it; most bloggers work for free. Readership would have to play a part, as well as value judgements about what constitutes support for a given candidate. With millions of blogs that at least occasionally discuss politics, It would have been a nightmare.

Never mind how such a rule would deal with online discussion forums.

if bloggers are paid to support a particular candidate, as happened in South Dakota in the last election, those payments should show up in campaign reports, and the bloggers should have to disclose the payments. But absent such direct involvement, the only real option is to leave the blogosphere alone.

FEC, campaign finance, politics, midtopia