Iran: the nuclear option

Seymour Hersh reports that the Bush administration is making plans for a massive bombing campaign in Iran.

That in itself is not particularly surprising. Such contingency plans are standard fare in military circles, and as I've said before, a bombing campaign may well be necessary to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

And before getting too excited, we should note that all the sources are anonymous. Hersh is a solid investigative journalist, so he gets the benefit of the doubt from me. But don't jump on this as proven fact just yet.

That said, the report contains two remarkable and worrisome details:

There is a growing conviction among members of the United States military, and in the international community, that President Bush’s ultimate goal in the nuclear confrontation with Iran is regime change. Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has challenged the reality of the Holocaust and said that Israel must be “wiped off the map.” Bush and others in the White House view him as a potential Adolf Hitler, a former senior intelligence official said. “That’s the name they’re using. They say, ‘Will Iran get a strategic weapon and threaten another world war?’ ”

Adolf Hitler? Even if Ahmadinejad had aspirations to be a new Hitler, he wields little actual power withint Iran -- and Iran is no Germany in terms of military strength. Bandying that term about so readily indicates a moralistic drive behind the planning, and calls up two bad associations I had hoped were dead and buried. It's very neocon language, and in the runup to the invasion of Iraq the administration repeatedly invoked Hitler in relation to Saddam Hussein. They can't seriously be contemplating the same thing with Iran.

And regime change through bombing? Has that ever worked? Apparently the administration thinks it will this time:

One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.” He added, “I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’ ”

Every conflict I can think of teaches the opposite lesson: that bombing rallies a population behind the government, however despised it may be otherwise. Iranians may dislike the mullahs, but they will dislike American bombs even more. It may be necessary to send in bombers to disrupt their nuclear capacity; but sending in bombers in hopes of toppling the mullahs is pure fantasy.

If this report is true, it means the same strain of naivety and wishful thinking that led to the botched Iraqi occupation is still in control of administration thinking -- which means besides being naive they're also incapable of learning from experience.

The second notable thing is that the administration is reportedly considering using tactical nuclear bunker busters to get at deeply buried facilities. On one level this is simply practical: If the facility is buried deeply enough, like the main Iranian centrifuge plant at Natanz, a nuke may be the only way to destroy it. But the political fallout from America using nuclear weapons again, as well as the irony of using nuclear weapons to keep Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, should give planners serious pause. But apparently it's not.

The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he added, and some officers have talked about resigning. Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran—without success, the former intelligence official said. “The White House said, ‘Why are you challenging this? The option came from you.’ ”

We should avoid nukes if at all possible. Maybe we can simply deny use of deeply buried facilities by destroying the entrances, ventilation shafts and the like. Maybe we can simply target and destroy any vehicles moving in and out of it, so that whatever is in the facility stays there. It may take more work, and be less certain of success. But that is probably preferable to the huge downsides of using nukes.

Here's what I worry about:

Speaking of President Bush, the House member said, “The most worrisome thing is that this guy has a messianic vision.”

That's what got us in trouble the first time. And it's impervious to reason.

A bombing campaign to eliminate Iran's nuclear capability is one thing, and something I will support once it's clear the diplomacy is going nowhere -- as I think it is. And if the preparations are part of a campaign to put pressure on Iran and show them that we're serious about using force if necessary, so much the better. Diplomacy based on the threat of force requires that the threat be credible.

But the principles underlying the reported planning go far beyond that -- and are a huge mistake.

nuclear, Bush, bombing, Iran, politics, midtopia

Hamas hints it might recognize Israel

Apparently the responsibility of having to govern -- and the prospect of bankruptcy -- is having an effect on Hamas.

A senior Hamas official said Friday the group is ready to accept a "two-state" solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but the Hamas prime minister said he is unaware of plans by the Islamic militants to change their hard-line government platform.

The senior Hamas official said the two-state idea was to be raised by Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh in a meeting Friday with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, a moderate who advocates negotiations with
Israel.

The meeting was preceded by a series of contradictory statements from Hamas officials about whether a new government would recognize Israel in some fashion.

There's a lot of waffling there, so I'll believe it when I see it. But the fact that they're even willing to float the idea shows the pressure they're under. Not from the outside so much as internally: now that they're in charge, they have to act responsibly.

Apparently even Hamas can be tamed -- not by us, but by the Palestinian people.

Israel, Hamas, politics, midtopia

A threat to the fabric of freedom

The Bush administration continues to play by its own set of rules, to the detriment of truth and liberty.

First we have the big news of the day, that Bush himself authorized Lewis Libby to discuss classified information with reporters.

As the Washington Post notes, this is legal by definition -- the President, after all, has the ultimate authority to declassify information -- but was "highly unusual and amounted to using sensitive intelligence data for political gain."

This doesn't directly implicate Bush in the Plame case; he authorized discussion of a National Intelligence Estimate, not Plame's identity. But it does expose Bush's hypocrisy, since he complained about leaks of classified information while leaking such information himself. So his real position is that he should be the only one allowed to leak information. This is legally correct, but ethically it stinks.

But almost lost in the hubbub over the leak revelation is this little gem from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales:

Gonzales left open the possibility yesterday that President Bush could order warrantless wiretaps on telephone calls occurring solely within the United States -- a move that would dramatically expand the reach of a controversial National Security Agency surveillance program.

In response to a question from Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) during an appearance before the House Judiciary Committee, Gonzales suggested that the administration could decide it was legal to listen in on a domestic call without supervision if it were related to al-Qaeda.

"I'm not going to rule it out," Gonzales said.

Translation: there is no legal line that the administration will not cross on its own authority. Warrants? We don't need no stinkin' warrants. FISA? Nothing but a toothless scrap of paper.

Whatever you think of the administration, giving one branch of government the right to decide for itself whether its actions are legal is a really, really, really bad idea. The whole reason warrants exist is to protect citizens from the government. What Gonzales has just suggested is that such protection doesn't exist if the executive branch, on its own sole authority, decides it wants to eavesdrop on you.

I have no objection to wiretapping suspected terrorists; I want them caught and foiled just like everybody else. Just get a warrant first. If the evidence of terrorism involvement isn't strong enough to survive scrutiny by a court as compliant as FISA, then the wiretap is probably unjustified.

You know, Democrats may be a threat to my wallet (though given the fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush administration, I don't know how anyone can make that case anymore). But they don't scare me. Republicans under Bush, on the other hand, are a threat to the fundamental fabric of freedom. Warrantless wiretaps. Pre-emptive war based on the thinnest of reasoning, followed by stunning incompetence in the occupation and here at home. Massive deficits. Politicizing science. Corruption. Shifting the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class. Unfunded mandates for the states. Band-aid solutions for big problems like health care. Ignoring AMT. The list goes on and on and on. Their carelessness and hubris is not just incredible; it's actively harmful.

Find a set of principles, Mr. President. Respect the law, Mr. President. Do your job, Mr. President.

And Congress, you do yours. Stand up for the country and actually serve as a check on the executive branch, rather than playing the patsy or accomplice.

You won't see me rant very often. But stuff like this makes my blood boil.

warrant, wiretaps, eavesdropping, Gonzales, Libby, leak, Bush, politics, midtopia

Bob Woodruff goes home

Bob Woodruff, the ABC anchorman seriously injured in a roadside bomb blast in Iraq, appears to be well on the way to recovery. He sent a note to his ABC colleagues thanking them for all the support they've shown.

I am moving on to outpatient treatment and I can’t tell you what a blessing it is. Though I know there is still a long road ahead, it’s nice to be feeling more like myself again – laughing with family, reading bedtime stories and reminding my kids to do their homework.

The photo of Woodruff was taken today, and he looks very well.

His cameraman, Doug Vogt, was released from the hospital in February.

Woodruff, midtopia

Low class on both sides of the aisle

First you have Democratic Rep. Cynthia McKinney claiming racial bias when she's stopped by a Capitol police officer -- whom she subsequently hit -- and apologizing only when the case is referred for possible criminal prosecution.

Then you have DeLay supporters shouting down Nick Lampson, the Democratic candidate for his seat.

Were these people raised by wolves?

Update: Let's add Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., to the list. He decided to make a political issue out of where his opponent is having his daughter's cancer treated.

Weldon, DeLay, Lampson, McKinney, politics, midtopia

Islam's Reformation

I recently had an e-mail exchange with a reader who said that the problem facing the world today is Islam. Not radical Islam, not Islamic terrorists, but Islam itself.

He pointed out, correctly, that much of the violent behavior is justified by either the Koran or the Hadiths (collections of sayings and deeds attributed to Muhammad). His main thesis was that Islam is not a peaceful religion, it is a violent one, and thus cannot be accomodated; it must be opposed.

Even if you believe this, there are lots of reasons not to act on that belief -- not making instant enemies of the world's 1 billion Muslims, for example. I know moderate Muslims, so they do exist. Even "battle of civilizations" proponents should want such Muslims on their side, simply because it makes the battle more winnable.

But that's not the point of this article. What I'm reaching for here is historical context. I do not pretend to be a religious scholar, but this is what I see unfolding in Islam today.

Most major religions are born out of conflict and tribulation. Judaism arose from the beliefs of the wandering tribes of Israel; Christianity arose from the torture-death of a Jewish heretic and rabblerouser; Islam arose among the warring nomadic tribes of the Middle East. The notable exception to that rule is Buddhism -- which is also, not coincidentally, the most peaceful of the major religions.

Thus Jewish scripture is full of stories of conquering land, slaughtering enemies, condoning polygamy and slavery, and horrific punishments for violation of minor religious laws. Christianity, being an offshoot of Judaism, adopted those same stories, renaming them the Old Testament. And despite the New Testament being a modification or even wholesale replacement for the Old, the Old Testament is still cited on such matters as homosexuality and adultery, as well as when invoking the awesome power of God and the penalties for defying him.

Islam, too, contains a contradictory mix of violence and peacemaking, a product of the tribal culture it sprang from, as well as the practical realities that Muhammad straddled the secular/sectarian line. He founded a major religion, but he was also heavily involved in efforts to unite the tribes and turn their violent energies outward, into a conquering force that swept the region. It's no coincidence that the Koran is more forgiving and peaceful than the Hadiths. The task is trying to separate the words of Muhammad the prophet from the words of Muhammad the general and tribal nationalist.

Admittedly, it's more complicated than that. The Koran and the Hadiths are somewhat similar to the Jewish Torah and Talmud. One is the core religious text; the other is a collection of explanations and traditions. But in the case of the Hadith, the authenticity of many sayings is suspect, and as a result there are many different Hadiths. Reconciling them will be a major challenge. But the main point is that the Hadiths are less authoritative than the Koran.

From those usually violent beginnings, most religions seem to undergo a predictable growth arc -- from persecuted sect to evangelical expansion to established religion that persecutes its own sects in turn. At some point there is a schism among believers, which is either settled -- violently, for the most part -- or results in a split, such as the Protestant/Catholic split in Christianity or the Sunni/Shiite split in Islam.

Eventually a religion has to reconcile its violent, expansionistic origins with the reality of being part of the establishment. And that means repudiating the more extreme aspects of their origins. Hence no mainstream Christian denomination follows Jewish dietary law, even though Jesus was a devout Jew. No Jew or Christian thinks slavery is divinely approved, even though the Old Testament had no problem with it. Most of Leviticus has been discarded wholesale.

In addition, most religions discover that religion and secular power don't mix well, nor does intolerance and enforced orthodoxy. So over time most religions get out of the governing business, and allow all believers to follow their conscience. Christianity managed that trick just a couple of centuries ago -- and still hasn't shaken the impulse entirely.

Such growth didn't happen easily, and it didn't happen overnight. It takes a long time for a religion to mature. It's no coincidence that the oldest major Western religion, Judaism, is also the least evangelical and most tolerant; Jews resolved their major schism thousands of years ago. Christianity is younger, and resolved its contradictions just a few hundred years ago, although the effects linger in certain quarters.

Islam is the youngest of the three. I submit that what we are seeing today is Islam passing through the same painful adolescence that both Judaism and Christianity endured centuries ago.

Let's look at the timeline. Christianity was born in the 1st Century. The Reformation came 1,500 years later, and took a century of warfare to resolve -- and was preceded by centuries of religious warfare, such as the Crusades.

Islam was founded in the 7th Century. And now, 1,500 years later, it is at the same stage of development as Christianity was 600 years ago.

The parallels are striking. The 1400's began with the Spanish Inquisition, which eventually led to the expulsion of Jews and Muslims from Spain. Elsewhere there was a brisk business in burning heretics at the stake, notably John Huss and Jerome of Prague, burned for spreading the writings of John Wycliffe.

This led to the rise of the Hussites, which in turn prompted the first interChristian Crusade, a 13-year war between the church and the Hussites that the Hussites won.

All this bloodshed merely laid the foundation for the Reformation, which would convulse the entire 16th Century in violence and horror. And religious wars also marked the 17th Century, notably the Thirty Years' War that began in 1618.

But Christianity emerged from all that a more mature religion. Split, of course, between Catholics and Protestants, but with armed force no longer a desirable option for enforcing orthodoxy. Two centuries of war had, quite simply, worn everybody out. They were ready to embrace tolerance if that was the price of peace.

And so it is, I believe, with Islam. We are unfortunate enough to be alive during Islam's bloody transition from its medieval origins to modernity. The good news is that eventually moderate theology should win the day: the more violent parts of the Koran will be devalued, and any conflict between the Koran and the Hadith will be resolved in favor of the Koran, since the Koran is God's word and the Hadith is not.

The bad news is that it could take 100 years or more, and the fallout and human cost could be very, very high.

There is reason for optimism. The world is not as backward a place as it was in the 15th Century. The West has learned the lessons of religious violence, and can serve as an example and guide for resolving Islam's internal conflicts. So while the Islamic Reformation is and will be violent, it can be expected to take less time than the Christian Reformation did.

Our job, therefore, is to encourage and support the moderate reformers while opposing and undermining the medievalists. It will take patience, money, intellectual firepower and an acknowledgement that it will proceed in fits and starts. But the entire world will benefit from Islam shedding its medieval past. If ever there was a project well worth undertaking, this is it.


terrorism, history, Reformation, religion, Christianity, Islam, politics, midtopia

Creative professions oppose gay-marriage ban

The Twin Cities is one of the few nationally recognized centers of the ad industry outside of New York and Los Angeles. Twin Cities ad offices have billings of about $2 billion a year, and provide thousands of well-paying jobs.

That's why we should care about the letter that 50 local ad agencies sent to Gov. Pawlenty.

The letter says that such a constitutional amendment could undermine a creative business climate, stifle recruitment and send the wrong message to potential clients.

The agencies are self-interested to a degree, since many creative fields such as advertising have a higher-than-average percentage of gay employees. But when that industry is a major part of the state economy, we all have an interest in it.

There's research that shows a correlation between a region's gay population and its cultural and economic vibrancy. One can debate the causality -- do concentrations of gays create such vibrancy, or does the vibrancy create an environment that is attractive to gays? -- but the correlation is clear.

A gay marriage ban is not only unjust; it would be economically damaging to the state, chasing away the sort of high-paying jobs that we should be trying to attract.

creative class, gay marriage, politics, midtopia

Split brain

How do you know if you're a moderate? When stuff like this happens:

Right now the site is getting a stream of (presumably) conservative/Republican readers, thanks to a link from Hugh Hewitt to the post on health insurance and Mitt Romney.

At the same time, another stream of visitors is coming in from the Daou Report, to read why we have no reason to trust the GOP on ethics or budgetary matters.

It's good to be in the middle.

politics, midtopia

Democracy advances in the Mideast

Kuwaiti women went to the polls for the first time on Wednesday, in a by-election viewed as a test case for the full parliamentary elections in 2007.

The election also featured another first: female candidates.

The May 2005 decision [to let women vote] sparked widespread debate about women's roles in politics, with some conservative Islamist members of Parliament arguing that women should not be allowed in Parliament without wearing the Islamic hijab, or head covering.

The landmark political participation of women in Kuwait's election Tuesday is part of a regional trend in the Arab Gulf states, where women are growing more publicly vocal about political matters.

Qatar recently announced that it would hold first ever parliamentary elections in 2007, in which women will be allowed to vote. These modest political gains mark a dramatic shift for a region where many women still cannot even leave their homes, take a job, or go to school without the permission of their father or husband.

These are baby steps, to be sure. Both Kuwait and Qatar are still ruled by unelected emirs, and there are still plenty of obstacles to overcome:

32-year-old chemical engineer Jenan Al-Bousheri has taken a modest approach to her campaign, refusing to visit the all-male diwaniyas, or gathering places. Another female politician, Ayesha Al-Reshaid, who already announced plans to run for parliament in 2007 and has visited male diwaniyas, recently received a death threat warning her to stop campaigning.

Ms. Bousheri, who wears the Islamic hijab and has worked for the municipality for 10 years, says she doesn't feel threatened but instead is simply being respectful of the country's conservative nature. In addition to not visiting the diwaniyas, she refused to include her photo on campaign billboards, which could be considered indecent.

Still, this demonstrates two important things: that there is such a thing as "moderate" Islam and relatively moderate Arab states, and that gradual change is possible. Both Kuwait and Qatar would likely have taken these steps without our invading Iraq; and by doing it on their own they become true examples of freedom flowering in the Middle East.

Our job now is to support these countries -- using aid and trade agreements to demonstrate the tangible benefits of moving toward democracy and tolerance -- while gently pressing them to adopt true democracy and hold elections for top leadership posts. That approach has risks: the current Western-friendly emirs could be replaced by more hostile radical Islamists, as happened in Palestine. But the Gulf emirates are not Palestine, and if we cannot persuade them to move forward instead of backward, we have lost the war of ideas.

At any rate, the only principled approach is to try. Decades of blindly supporting "our" dictators is one of the things that helped create the current mess in the Mideast. At least this way, if the Mideast descends into a new Dark Ages the blood isn't on our hands.

Update: A male candidate won the election. But one of the two female candidates, Jinan Boushahri, came in second. A distant second, to be sure -- 1,807 votes to the winner's 5,436 -- but she beat out three male candidates.

suffrage, women, elections, Kuwait, politics, midtopia

Massachusetts tries health insurance for everyone

The Massachusetts legislature has passed a bill requiring everyone in the state to buy health insurance, much the way car insurance works in most places.

Under the bill, the state would offer subsidies to private insurers to cover more low-income families. Companies with more than 10 workers that don't offer health insurance to their workers would pay $295 to the state for each worker, money that will be used to subsidize the health insurance of others.

Something to watch; it's one of several models of universal health care being bandied about. This is one of the most market-oriented ones. And being pushed by Mitt Romney, a Republican governor in a blue state. If it works, it could find national support -- and could fuel Romney's presidential aspirations.

For a more comprehensive take on health care, here's what I wrote a few weeks ago.

Romney, health insurance, health care, Massachusetts, politics, midtopia

Never mind

The GOP is vowing to tackle ethics reform, among other things.

''We will take steps necessary to plug those areas where problems have erupted," said Boehner, an Ohio Republican, adding that ethics reform will be merely the first of many initiatives this spring, including a new fiscally responsible budget plan.

Translation: "We were sleazy, but we'll be good now, at least in the areas where we've been caught." Also, note the tacit admission that up until now their budget plans have not been fiscally responsible.

Why should we suddenly trust them now?

corruption, DeLay, politics, midtopia

Senate kills gay marriage bill

As expected, the DFL-controlled Senate killed the proposed gay marriage amendment in committee, on a 5-4 party-line vote.

There was only one interesting twist:

Senators altered the proposed amendment so that it wouldn't have asked voters to strictly ban the legal recognition of same-sex relationships. Instead, it would have prohibited judges from defining marriage in Minnesota, reserving that right for state legislators.

Though one Democrat supported that alteration, all five then proceeded to kill the amendment anyway.

That would almost have made the subsequent campaign interesting.

The DFL did the right thing, but of course they were self-interested as well. Without the amendment on the ballot, social conservatives have less reason to turn out on election day. And that's really what this whole thing was about: Republicans trying to use a wedge issue to get their supporters to the polls, and Democrats trying to foil them.

It cannot be said too often: whatever you think about gay marriage, this amendment is premature. Marriage, for better or worse, is still restricted to men and women in Minnesota. If and when that status is threatened, then we can talk about mucking with the state constitution. Until then, this is just noise, smoke and political grandstanding.

Sen. Michelle Bachmann, the amendment's main backer, has become a single-issue legislator. For that reason alone she should be sent packing in November.

As a side note, Bachmann's openly gay stepsister showed up at the hearing with her partner to "show that the issue affects all Minnesota families." That puts Bachmann in an elite group: antigay activists or politicians with gay relatives. The group includes Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, whose son Jamiel is gay. And Alan Keyes, whose daughter, Maya, is gay.

As Dick Cheney (whose daughter, Mary, is gay) demonstrates, having a gay relative usually makes you more sympathetic to their situation. With the exception of folks like Bachmann, it will get harder and harder to find support for antigay policies as more and more people realize that people they know and care about are gay. When someone makes Dick Cheney look sensitive by comparison, you know they have a compassion deficit.

Minnesota, Bachmann, gay marriage, politics, midtopia

Rating Jim Ramstad

I got a newsletter from my Congressman, Jim Ramstad, the other day. He has a reputation as a moderate Republican, no big suprise since he represents a suburban Minnesota district. But is it deserved?

In the newsletter he highlights his stance on various issues, carefully tailored to appeal to his constituents.

TERRORISM AND SECURITY
Expedite the training of Iraqi troops so we can bring our troops home. Supported Patriot Act extension. Supported border security legislation. The first is the only logical course. The second I have more disagreements with, largely in the area of civil liberty protections. The last is simply a mess that I haven't made a decision on yet.

JOBS AND TAX RELIEF
Brags a lot about tax cuts, but curiously mentions nothing about the deficit....

HEALTH CARE AND MEDICARE
Supports altering the Medicare drug program to allow importation of drugs and price negotiations with drug companies. Wants to expand health savings accounts and enact medical liability reform. Amen to the first; the second is fine but doesn't come anywhere close to being a solution for rising medical costs; the third is code for capping damages in lawsuits, which is simply a grudge against trial lawyers, who overwhelmingly support Democrats. For a variety of reasons, an arbitrary cap is a terrible idea.

EDUCATION
Supports requiring full federal funding for federal education mandates. Amen.

ETHICS
Says all the right things, but really vague on the specifics. This is an issue where talk is far, far cheaper than action.

ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
Voted for the energy bill and against ANWR drilling. In Minnesota, supporting ANWR is political suicide. The energy bill wasn't any great shakes. The House version provided *no* incentives for alternative forms of electricity production while providing more than $6 billion for oil and gas incentives and research.

TRANSPORTATION
Supports the Northstar Corridor commuter train project and the Hiawatha light-rail line, both important steps toward a serious mass-transit system.

PROPERTY RIGHTS
Supports legislation limiting the power of eminent domain. Generally a good idea as long as it isn't carried to an extreme.

Reading that list, I became curious about what he wasn't telling us about. So I looked him up on Thomas. Here's what I found.

Ramstad has sponsored 22 bills this session. Among them:

Supporting a free-trade pact with Taiwan;
A private bill to keep a Greek national, Konstantinos Ritos, from being deported;
A whole bunch of tax code and export law changes that appear designed to benefit state businesses;
Various crime-related bills;
Various bills extending health services for retirees.

Not a particularly distinguished list, but nothing really objectionable, either.

Okay, fine. So how did he vote? Let's turn to the scorecards.

ACLU: 9 percent
Public Citizen: 40 percent
League of Conservation Voters: 61 percent
Club for Growth: 50 percent, more or less

A whole slew of others are available at Project Vote Smart.

The summation: Ramstad is a right-leaning moderate, although he swims against the tide in some ways, such as his strong scores on environmental issues and poor scores from the NRA and other gun groups. Naturally I disagree with him on some specific issues, but overall he's the kind of politician I can support -- a moderate who doesn't toe his party line all the time. His legislative accomplishments are a bit lightweight for someone who has been in Congress for 16 years, but I'd rather have a less-active moderate than an overactive partisan.

scorecard, Ramstad, politics, midtopia

Gasohol vs. gasoline

Here in Minnesota, all gasoline is required to contain ethanol. If you're like me, you've probably wondered just what we accomplish by doing so. Is the total energy cost of ethanol lower than gasoline? What about greenhouse gasses?

Which is why I was glad to see a very straightforward commentary by biology professor Peter Wyckoff in Monday's Star Tribune.

The main point of the article is Wyckoff advocating that we start using switchgrass as a source of ethanol instead of corn. But for me the most interesting facts were these:

Weighing all the factors -- the fossil fuel needed to grow and ferment corn vs. the cost of drilling oil, the lower energy content of ethanol vs. gasoline (and the resulting lower mileage) -- ethanol helps, but not a whole lot. Gasoline containing 20 percent ethanol will cut a vehicle's total greenhouse emissions by about 2 percent.

That may not be much, but it's something. Unless ethanol costs significantly more -- and Wyckoff doesn't get into that -- increased ethanol use is worth pursuing.

But it does suggest that the strongest argument for ethanol is energy independence, not global warming. The more ethanol we use the less oil we need, which is an absolute good in my book. Because what we pay at the pump for a gallon of gasoline doesn't reflect the political, military and moral cost of that gallon. The sooner we can stop subsidizing repressively medieval regimes, the better.

E-20, greenhouse, oil, Wyckoff, ethanol, politics, midtopia

Tom DeLay to quit Congress

Yow. DeLay has abandoned plans to seek re-election and will resign his seat by mid-June, setting the stage for a special election to fill the vacancy.

I think that means two elections in very short order, since a special election usually just fills out the remainder of a Congressman's term. I guess the hope is a Republican will win and have the advantage of incumbency come November. With two elections in six months, it also might be a way to leverage DeLay's money advantage.

Why did he drop out? He cites declining poll numbers, but this is the sort of thing that will fuel all sorts of speculation. Maybe DA Ronnie Earle actually has something on him after all, instead of simply harassing him with a politically motivated indictment as many DeLay supporters have claimed. Maybe the two aides who have pleaded guilty to corruption have agreed to testify about his involvement. Maybe the Republican leadership felt his trial was turning into a spectacle that was damaging the party.

Whatever happens, good riddance. DeLay was pure hardball sleaze from the get-go; if he didn't actually cross the ethical line with his funding and lobbying tactics, he sidled right up to it repeatedly. He was one of the people poisoning Congress with unbridled partisanship.

May I dare hope that moderates will step up to fill the leadership vacuum being created by the current GOP troubles?

Texas, Congress, DeLay, politics, midtopia

Lucky 17

This isn't the way these things usually turn out:

A huge military cargo plane crashed shortly after takeoff at Dover Air Force Base on Monday, breaking apart in a belly flop that drenched some of the 17 people aboard with fuel but caused no fire or life-threatening injuries. ...

Military officials said the C-5 Galaxy, the military's largest plane at more than six stories high and 247 feet long, developed problems soon after taking off for Spain about 6:30 a.m.

It crashed just short of the runway while attempting to return to the base and broke in two behind the cockpit. The tail assembly landed several hundred yards away, and an engine was thrown forward by the impact.

Next time I'm buying Lotto tickets, I want one of those 17 to pick the numbers.

midtopia

Zarqawi demoted

Over on Al-Jazeera, an al-Qaeda representative claims that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has been stripped of his position as political head of the Iraqi resistance following "mistakes", retaining only a military role.

Azzam said he regularly receives "credible information on the resistance in Iraq. He said al-Zarqawi had "made many political mistakes", including "the creation of an independent organisation, al-Qaeda in Iraq".

"Zarqawi also took the liberty of speaking in the name of the Iraqi people and resistance, a role which belongs only to the Iraqis," Azzam said.

As a result "the resistance command inside and outside Iraq, including imams, criticised him and after long discussions demanded that he be confined to military action".

Not quite the same thing as repudiating his tactics, such as attacks on civilians. And the claim is totally unconfirmed, so take it with a grain of salt. But it squares with reports of friction between Zarqawi's group and Iraqi insurgents. The good news is that the friction appears to be moderating Zarqawi's tactics; the bad news is that he and the Iraqis are still working together.

Zarqawi, terrorism, Iraq, politics, midtopia

Scalia photographer barred from working for Archdiocese

The photographer who took the picture of Antonin Scalia flipping off reporters has been blacklisted by the Boston Archdiocese.

Scalia had asked the freelance photographer, Peter Smith, not to publish the photo. Instead, he gave it to the Boston Herald, which put it on its front page on Thursday.

Smith, 51, had freelanced for diocese's The Pilot newspaper for a decade, but he said yesterday, “I did the right thing. I did the ethical thing,” according to the Herald. Smith is also an assistant photojournalism professor at Boston University.

I didn't care about Scalia's Sicilian gesture, which is why I didn't write about it. But this is just silly. The Archdiocese has an absolute right to determine who it will buy pictures from, and cutting ties to a freelancer doesn't have the same legal and ethical baggage as firing an employee. But this is petty with a capital P.

Will it have a chilling effect on future coverage of Scalia? I doubt it, especially with the Herald as a willing alternative market for such images. But overall it doesn't help if reporters and photographers have to worry about jeopardizing existing contracts in order to write about or photograph powerful people. Freelancers should be judged on the quality and reliability of their work for the diocese, not the content of unrelated work.

Boston, Peter Smith, Scalia, politics, midtopia

SCOTUS rejects Padilla appeal

The Supreme Court rejected an appeal by "enemy combatant" Jose Padilla, who has been trying to challenge being jailed without charge for three years.

So on the surface, the Bush administration's legal strategy -- charge Padilla with crimes *other* than the ones they used to justify his detention, in order to avoid Supreme Court review -- has worked.

But the details provide reason for hope -- and illustrate why the government was so eager to keep the case away from the Supreme Court.

Three justices said the court should have agreed to take up the case anyway: Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

And three other court members, including Chief Justice John Roberts, said that they would be watching to ensure Padilla receives the protections "guaranteed to all federal criminal defendants."

The other two justices were Kennedy and Stevens. That pretty much serves notice that the government would have had tough sailing in defending its practices before the Court.

It also demonstrates that the Court now has a three-justice conservative bloc whose votes are dogmatically predictable: Scalia, Thomas and now Alito.

enemy combatant, terrorism, SCOTUS, Supreme Court, Padilla, politics, midtopia

Kersten on campus

I was going to write about today's Kersten column, but Great Plains View beat me to it.

The main point: I agree with Kersten. But so what?

protest, Macalester, Coke, Kersten, politics, midtopia

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