Last week Ben Carson said, "I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation." Today Jake Tapper grilled him about that, and Carson made it clear that he was primarily talking about adherence to sharia law:
CARSON: I would have problems with somebody who [is] not willing to reject sharia and all the portions of it that are talked about in the Quran....You have to make a specific declaration and decision to reject the portions of it.
TAPPER: What portions of it?
CARSON: The portions of it that tell you how you treat women. The portions of it that indicate that the kafir, who are the people who are not believers, are subject to different rules. That they can be dominated.
Very famously, in early 2001 a chamber of the European Court of Human Rights agreed about this:
The Court considers that sharia, which faithfully reflects the dogmas and divine rules laid down by religion, is stable and invariable....It is difficult to declare one’s respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia, which clearly diverges from Convention values, particularly with regard to its criminal law and criminal procedure, its rules on the legal status of women and the way it intervenes in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts.
The Court concurs in the Chamber’s view that sharia is incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy.
Carson's main problem, of course, is his apparent belief that there are more than a handful of Muslim Americans who want to impose sharia law on the nation in the first place. There aren't. That said, no less than the European Court of Human Rights agrees with him in principle that sharia is incompatible with the tenets of democracy and, presumably, therefore the Constitution of the United States as well.
As it happens, I agree with the ECHR on this subject—though I wouldn't restrict my reservations about religious doctrine and democracy solely to Islam. Therefore, I suppose I agree with Carson in a narrow kind of way. I wouldn't support a Muslim for president who said that he'd like to see the United States adopt sharia law. I think I'm hardly alone in this. Therefore, instead of endlessly badgering Carson about whether he thinks that every Muslim would "automatically...put their religion ahead of the country," how about just cutting to the chase and asking him this instead:
If a Muslim candidate said that he followed the principles of sharia in his private life but had no desire to impose it on the country, would that satisfy you?
As a Christian, can you assure us that you follow Christian precepts in your private life but have no desire to impose them on the country?
This seems fair, what with the Constitution not favoring one religion over another. In fact, I'd suggest versions of these questions would be fair for any candidate of any faith. And regardless of that faith, once the assurance is given, that should be the end of it unless there's some very specific reason to believe there's more to the story.
Volkswagen has blamed its emissions scandal on a “small group” of people and has suspended a number of staff as Matthias Müller was unveiled as its new chief executive.
....Berthold Huber, the acting head of VW’s supervisory board, called the crisis a “moral and policy disaster”....“The test manipulations are a moral and political disaster for Volkswagen. The unlawful behaviour of engineers and technicians involved in engine development shocked Volkswagen just as much as it shocked the public.”
This is ridiculous. What incentive do low-level engineers and technicians have to do this on their own? Hell, they couldn't even take on a project like this unless their managers OKed the time to do it, and their managers wouldn't do it unless they were being pressed by higher-ups. Anybody who's ever worked at a big corporation knows this perfectly well. And according to Bloomberg, that's exactly what happened:
Volkswagen AG executives in Germany controlled the key aspects of emissions tests whose results the carmaker now admits were faked, according to three people familiar with the company’s U.S. operations.
....Their accounts show the chain of command and those involved in the deception stretched to Volkswagen headquarters.... Ulrich Hackenberg.... Wolfgang Hatz are among those who will leave the company in the wake of Winterkorn’s resignation two days ago, two people familiar with the matter said. The two previously ran units at the heart of the affair — Hackenberg, a Winterkorn confidant, was responsible for VW brand development from 2007 to 2013, while Hatz ran the group’s motor development from 2007 to 2011.
Will it go even higher? Stay tuned. However, I'll call BS on UBS, which apparently thinks this scandal "could signal the eventual end of the combustion engine." Please. There's no difficulty "amassing accurate data" on engine emissions, as one of their analysts suggests. VW amassed very precise data. They just chose to hide it by means of a calculated, premeditated, multi-year fraud. Anyone who hasn't done the same should be in fine shape.
Last night the Mother Jones site suddenly went crazy—but only on Firefox on my tablet. Every other combination of site, browser, and platform works fine. This morning, AdBlock suddenly stopped working. Everywhere. Have gremlins invaded my house? I guess I'll just wait a day or two and see if everything spontaneously fixes itself, as so often these things do.
UPDATE: Apparently AdBlock wiped out my filter subscriptions on every device. Why? Gremlins, perhaps. I added another one and now it works again. But I still have weirdo rendering on the MoJo site, on my tablet. Perhaps some strange difference between Firefox on Windows 7 (desktop) and Windows 8.1 (tablet)?
UPDATE 2: Now the New York Times crossword puzzle site is broken on my desktop, but works fine on my tablet. It was fine yesterday. WTF?
UPDATE 3: Huh. The NYT crossword works if I disable AdBlock. Something related to the new filter subscription?
Here's the Real Clear Politics take on the Republican primary race as of Friday. I've modified it to show only the top six candidates—which, let's face it, are the only ones we're really interested in at this point. Note that this is not a single poll, but an aggregate of the most recent four national polls, all taken after last week's debate.
Needless to say, you shouldn't treat this as gospel. Other poll aggregators may show slightly different results. Still, it's a pretty good roadmap to the current state of play.
The Obama administration has discovered a chain of emails that Hillary Rodham Clinton failed to turn over when she provided what she said was the full record of work-related correspondence as secretary of state, officials said Friday, adding to the growing questions related to the Democratic presidential front-runner's unusual usage of a private email account and server while in government.
This is the kind of thing that really could hurt Hillary Clinton. But when you scroll down to the details, it looks a lot less sinister:
The messages were exchanged with retired Gen. David Petraeus....They largely pertained to personnel matters and don't appear to deal with highly classified material, officials said.
....The State Department's record of Clinton emails begins on March 18, 2009 — almost two months after she entered office. Before then, Clinton has said she used an old AT&T Blackberry email account, the contents of which she no longer can access. The Petraeus emails...start on Jan. 10, 2009, with Clinton using the older email account. But by Jan. 28 — a week after her swearing in — she switched to using the private email address on a homebrew server that she would rely on for the rest of her tenure. There are less than 10 emails back and forth in total, officials said, and the chain ends on Feb. 1.
In other words, we're missing the very tag end of an innocuous email chain from Hillary's Senate days that spilled over into her tenure as Secretary of State. That's a little hard to get too exercised about.
I don't know what the broader picture is here. Clinton has consistently said she switched to her new email address on March 18, but the Petraeus emails make it look like she might have switched by January 28. Or maybe she partially switched? Or else emails started getting forwarded to the new account as a test for a few weeks, and then got deleted on March 18 when she began using it for good? Beats me.
Either way, this seems typical of this whole affair. Substantively, it's hard to believe anything shady is going on here. After all, it's unlikely there's anything to hide from her first few weeks in office, and certainly not the Petraeus emails. But optically, it certainly looks bad. It seems like another example of Clinton handling her email issue awkwardly and defensively when she doesn't really need to.
On the bright side for Hillary, this news was released on a day when the media was preoccupied with popemania and John Boehner's resignation. So at least she's not getting another round of dismal front-page headlines out of it. Yet.
A few weeks ago Hopper got her picture taken in the bathroom sink, so naturally Hilbert immediately decided he wanted his picture taken in the bathroom sink. He doesn't fit quite as nicely, but he seemed pretty happy. He never went back, though. Once he'd evened things up with Hopper, he moved on to other attention-demanding exploits.
If it is correct that the speaker, before he resigns, has cut a deal with Nancy Pelosi to fund the Obama administration for the rest of its tenure, to fund Obamacare, to fund executive amnesty, to fund Planned Parenthood, to fund implementation of this Iran deal — and then, presumably, to land in a cushy K Street job after joining with the Democrats to implement all of President Obama's priorities, that is not the behavior one would expect of a Republican speaker of the House.
Following Boehner’s announcement, House Republicans said there was agreement to pass a clean spending bill to keep the government open. Several members of the Freedom Caucus, the conservative group which led the revolt against Boehner’s leadership, said they will now support the spending bill without demands that it include language to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood.
So no deal with the evil Nancy Pelosi was necessary. Imagine that. I guess we'll have to wait and see about the cushy K Street job, though.
Julian Sanchez draws my attention to a YouGov poll from last month about civil asset forfeiture, the practice of confiscating money that police merely believe to be connected to a crime. What do Americans think of this?
I suppose I should be happy: 71 percent of the respondents think that police should only be able to seize your money if you've been convicted of a crime. But what about the other 29 percent? It's sort of discouraging that nearly a third of the country doesn't think that conviction is necessary.
Then again, I've seen polls showing that a third of Americans don't really believe in free speech or fair trials or other bedrocks of democracy, so maybe this isn't bad. Now if we can just mobilize that 71 percent to care enough to make it an issue, maybe this poll will actually mean something.
Ryan Cooper wants more debates. Before we boo him off the stage, though, note that he's asking for more Democratic debates. And he thinks Hillary Clinton ought to be in favor. Here's why:
It would stop Republicans from dominating 2016 coverage....While a lot of the attention is negative due to half the candidates being strap-chewing lunatics, it's still building a sense of excitement.
....It would give the political press something to talk about besides the endless, pointless Clinton email story.
....Clinton could probably use the practice. I still remember the first presidential debate in 2012, when President Obama was roundly defeated by Mitt Romney. Obama looked like a very powerful man who was not used to being sharply challenged, and came off as simultaneously haughty and unsure of himself. Hillary Clinton is a smart, capable person, but sycophantic courtier syndrome is a real thing, and a square debate on equal footing is one of the few ways someone of Clinton's fame and standing can work against it.
Let's examine this. More debates would be fun. On the other hand, it would mean yet more long nights of liveblogging for me. On the third hand—wait a second. I'm curious about something. Do other countries have debates? According to Wikipedia, yes. The following countries have regular campaign debates:
That's not very many. Thirteen countries out of 200—and only seven that aren't part of the old British Empire. It's a little odd that the Anglo-Saxon bloc is so gung-ho on debates, considering that Mother Britain didn't have its first televised debate until 2010. Of course, they only held a grand total of three, but then again, their campaign season only lasts six weeks. At that rate, we'd have 30 or 40 debates in America.
Anyway, what were we talking about? Oh yes: should Hillary Clinton welcome more debates? I'm going to say no. A presidential campaign is obviously a zero-sum affair, and all her competitors want more debates. Unless they're idiots, that's because they think it will benefit them—which it would, by giving them priceless exposure. Obviously Hillary has no interest in that, so like most front runners she wants fewer debates.
All other arguments aside, then, the DNC is unlikely to change its mind on this. So tune in on October 13 for the first Democratic debate, held at the fabulous Trump Las Vegas. Just kidding. That would be a hoot, though, wouldn't it? It will actually be held at the fabulous Wynn Las Vegas, owned by a Democratic billionaire rather than a Republican one.