MotherJones.com | MoJoBlog - Social Issues and Political Commentary: March 19, 2006

« March 12, 2006 - March 18, 2006 | Main | March 26, 2006 - April 1, 2006 »

March 24, 2006

Christian Groups Ask Bush to Defend Religious Freedom

Earlier this week I posted on Abdul Rahman, a man in Afghanistan who may be sentenced to death for practicing Christianity. Now Christian groups in the United States—the same ones that once applauded when the U.S. ousted the Taliban—are incensed that the President isn’t doing more to protect Rahman’s freedom of religion.

In a letter to President Bush, Tony Perkins head of the ultraconservative Family Research Council declared:

Democracy is more than purple thumbs. Americans will not give their blood and treasure to prop up new Islamic fundamentalist regimes. Religious freedom is not just 'an important element' of democracy; it is its cornerstone. Religious persecution leads inevitably to political tyranny. Five hundred years of history confirm this. Americans have not given their lives so that Christians can be put to death.

Bush has yet to put serious pressure on the Afghan government, but acknowledged that he is "deeply troubled." The Afghan constitution, written in 2004, is very ambiguous about religious freedom, declaring the country to be an Islamic state while also claiming to protect human rights. Now as these contradictions are rising to the surface on an international stage. Ironically, in 2004 the New York Times called Afghanistan’s new constitution "one of the most enlightened constitutions in the Islamic world," embracing its ability to balance "the goal of an Islamic state with the promise to abide by the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."

Earlier this month on his trip to Afghanistan, Bush painted a picture of life before Operation Enduring Freedom:

Under the Taliban and Osama bin Laden, there is no religious freedom. You have no chance to express yourself in the public square without being punished. There is no capacity to realize your full potential. And so we're committed. We're committed to universal values. We believe -- we believe everybody desires to be free. And we know that history has taught us that free societies yield the peace. And that's what we want. We want peace for our children, and we want peace for the Afghan children, as well.

Are we currently looking at a better existence for Afghanistan? Abdul Rahman is sitting in a cell preparing to be a martyr for religious freedom and America is left wondering why so many lives were lost to topple the Taliban. Clearly freedom in Afghanistan has not endured.

Bush Declares Congress Irrelevant

Another day, another tinpot dictator declaring himself above the law:

When President Bush signed the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act this month, he included an addendum saying that he did not feel obliged to obey requirements that he inform Congress about how the FBI was using the act's expanded police powers.

Read this old-but-excellent Dahlia Lithwick piece on the uses and abuses (mostly abuses) of presidential signing statements. In Bush's worldview, "it is for the president—not Congress or the courts—to determine when the provisions of this bill interfere with his war-making powers, and when they do, he will freely ignore the law." And these signing statements can have a real impact.

Long-Term Bases in Iraq?

The Bush administration still can't give a clear answer about its long-term plans for Iraq. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said last week, on Iraqi TV, that the United States had "no goal of establishing permanent bases in Iraq." But that same week the House of Representatives also passed a $67.6 billion spending bill that included funding for… permanent bases in Iraq.

Officials claim that the bases currently under constructed will be turned over to the Iraqi government at some future point. But that leaves ambiguous whether or not the Shiite and Kurdish-dominated Iraqi government could sign an agreement to keep U.S. forces in the country over the long term. Meanwhile, John Abizaid, the commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, told Congress last week, "The policy on long-term presence in Iraq hasn't been formulated."

Now maybe some people can make the case for a long-term U.S. presence in Iraq—it would be nice to hear it. On the other hand, we've heard over and over that the only hope for something resembling stability in Iraq is to bring various Sunni parties into the government. Part of that process will involve a clear statement that we have no long-term designs on Iraq—as is widely feared—in order to defuse Sunni fears. (Indeed, insurgent groups agreed to negotiate with U.S. officials the day after Khalilzad's statement.) But as far as anyone can tell, those long-term designs are still very much unknown—and there's plenty of evidence to suggest that the U.S. really is planning on digging in and keeping some military presence in the country for a long, long time.

New Research on Melting Ice Sheets

The current issue of Science Magazine is devoted to ice—or, more specifically, the accelerating rate at which the world’s ice sheets are melting. "Glacial earthquakes" have reportedly been rocking Greenland of late, as giant chunks of ice the size of Manhattan, lubricated by melting water, start stumbling into the ocean.

According to the findings in Science, the Earth's temperature by 2100 will probably be at least 4 degrees warmer than it is now, if current warming rates continue. The Arctic Ocean will be warmer than it's been in 130,000 years. Computer models indicate that warming could raise the average temperature in parts of Greenland to above freezing for multiple months, which could have a substantial impact on melting of the polar ice sheets, according to a paper by researchers led by Bette Otto-Bliesner of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. That melting could, in turn, raise the sea level by one to three feet over the next 100 to 150 years.

As Science puts it, "man is doing an experiment with the ice sheets, which is a scientifically interesting experiment, except it is going to have some serious consequences." As a result, island nations could be submerged, cities flooded, and millions of coastal residents could be exposed to destructive storm surges. According to researcher Julian Dowdeswell of Cambridge University, "the changing mass of the great ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica represents the largest unknown in predictions of global sea level rise over the coming decades," making scientists increasingly concerned that at the rate we’re going, global warming because of greenhouse emissions could raise sea levels to catastrophic proportions.

March 23, 2006

The Value of Health Insurance

Tyler Cowen links to a new RAND study purporting to show, among other things, that "insurance status has no real effect on quality"—in other words, the insured don't get significantly better care than the uninsured. I'm hardly the best person to pick apart this study, but on the face of things, that would be a surprising finding if true. A while back, I discussed a study by MIT economist Peter Doyle that used some clever methodology—he looked at car accident victims—and found that the uninsured really do get worse care from providers at critical moments than the insured do. Either way, the RAND study's certainly interesting.

TABOR Doesn't Work

While I'm poking around the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities site, I may as well post about their other report today, about Colorado. The story goes like this: Colorado enjoyed very strong economic growth during the 1990s. Conservatives say that success was all due to the "taxpayer's bill of rights" that the state adopted in 1992, which curtailed the legislature's ability to raise taxes. (TABOR was eventually repealed last year when voters realized that the state couldn't raise enough revenue to fund things that they actually needed and wanted, like education and infrastructure.)

Anyway, CBPP finds that Colorado's growth had nothing to do with TABOR; instead, it was due to government investments in the 1980s in education and infrastructure. This sounds a bit convenient—"Wow, liberal think tank finds that liberal policies are good for growth"—but the argument looks pretty solid. And it's important, because a lot of other states, including Maine, Ohio, and Oklahoma, are putting TABOR-like laws on the ballot this fall. A "taxpayer bill of rights" is something right-wingers like Grover Norquist have been pushing for a long, long time. But the laws only hurt the ability of states to raise money for stuff they need, and seem to have little effect on the economy.

UPDATE: See Greg Anrig for more on the damage TABOR has done to Colorado.

Line-Item Veto: Worse Than We Thought

Because no budget maneuver is too arcane or seemingly trivial for us to analyze, let's discuss the line-item veto again. Previously, we've argued that giving the president the power to strip out any part of a congressional spending bill he or she didn't like would invite abuse by the executive branch.

Now the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has their own report on the line-item veto, noting that the line-item veto powers sought by this administration would enable the president to withhold funding for all sorts of programs beyond earmarks—"pork," in other words. If Bush wanted to, he could withhold funds for months and months from, say, the Education Department, even if Congress doesn't approve. In his 2006 budget, Bush called for, among other things, a $3.4 billion cut to education, an $866 million cut to the Department of Health and Human Services, and a $277 million cut from the Environmental Protection Agency. Congress will likely (and sensibly) reject all of these cuts—unless, of course, the president can skirt around Congress.

You'd think this sort of thing would never pass muster with the Supreme Court since it violates the separation of powers in a major way. Still, the idea needs to be stopped. Letting the president basically write legislation on his own would be catastrophic, to put it very mildly.

Building roads on federal land: "We're open for business."

Via the LA Times: Gale Norton, who leaves office next week, closes her tenure with a characteristic flourish:

Guidelines issued by Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton on Wednesday will make it easier for counties to lay claim to old trails and closed roads they would like to open across federal lands in the West, including national parks in Southern California.

In one of her final actions before leaving her post next week, Norton issued a policy dealing with right-of-way claims under a Civil War-era law that county officials in several Western states have tried to use to circumvent federal land-use restrictions on motorized access.

Norton's memo gives Interior officials nationwide latitude to grant rights of way to counties and other claimants and even approve road construction and improvements.

...But environmentalists said the secretary's guidelines amounted to an invitation to counties and other entities to claim everything from hiking trails to dry stream beds and start using them as roads.

"The barriers to [these] claims have been lowered to practically nothing," said Ted Zukoski, a Denver-based attorney with Earthjustice who was involved in a major court case on the matter. "The bar is so low that it has the effect of telling everyone: 'We're open for business. Make a claim.' "

For more on the Bush administration's dogged efforts to run roads through federal parkland, see, for starters, here and here, and here.

Uncle Bucky makes out like a...Bush

George W. Bush's Uncle Bucky (William H.T. Bush), brother of George H.W. Bush, has collected about $1.9 million in cash, plus $800,000 in stocks, from the recent sale of Engineered Support Systems, Inc. ESSI, of which Bush was a director, was sold to DRS Technologies for $1.7 billion at the end of January, after the company experienced record growth from expanded military contracts, most related to activity in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The contracts, some awarded on a no-bid basis, include a $77-million deal to refit military vehicles with armor for use in Iraq.

Securities and Exchange Commission filings indicate that there are two investigations of ESSI in progress. One involves a stop order from the U.S. government on field generator units. It seems ESSI did not tell its shareholders about the stop order until seven months after it was issued. During that seven month period, several of the company's executives, including William Bush, cashed in millions of dollars worth of stock and stock options.

DRS is not commenting on the investigations (the second one involves an insurance contract), other than to say it is cooperating with SEC officials.

March 22, 2006

Sudden increase in tracking down Vietnam deserters appears tied to Iraq war

Patriot Daily has a good analysis of the current trend of the U.S. military to track down Vietnam war deserters in what the authors call "an effort to set an example to deter the growing number of Iraq War military resisters who are fleeing to Canada." Since the war in Iraq began, at least 8,000 soldiers have deserted, a number which represents a decrease in desertions since September 11, 2001. The U.S. military denies that it has stepped up its campaign to find deserters, but there is some evidence to the contrary.

At least one Marine official has acknowledged that his office was being more aggressive in tracking down Vietnam war deserters. Chief Warrant Officer James Averhart said that he had ordered cold cases reopened, and that in his first year on the job, his sqad had brought in 27 deserters.

One case of particular interest is that of U.S. Marin Allen Abney, who lives in Canada but who has crossed the border "hundreds of times" to shop to take other trips. Just this month, he crossed the border and was arrested and transferred to military custody. Abney's case received publicity in both the American and Canadian press, and perhaps coincidentally, he will probably be released soon. Abney, like many soldiers, did not apply for amnesty under either the Ford clemency plan or the Carter amnesty plan. Though the Carter plan was much less punitive than the Ford plan, it gave unconditional amnesty to draft evaders only.

What Fiscal Conservatism Means

Andrew Sullivan has been arguing for the past few days that, just because Bush has failed to make sweeping budget cuts during his time in office, doesn't mean that small-government fiscal conservatism has been discredited as an ideology. Strictly speaking, that's accurate, I guess, although I'd like to see more people start discrediting fiscal conservatism, because if a Republican ever came to power who was more willing to cut government programs than George W. Bush, it would be catastrophic.

Just to get beyond numbers here, Rose Aguilar has a good piece in Alternet today that does some reporting on what many of the government discretionary programs that pundits like Sullivan want to cut actually mean for real-life people. Here's an example:

Every month, 80-year-old Sally Shaver pays someone to drive her to the Harvest Hope Food Bank in Columbia, S.C., to pick up a box of fresh produce, baked goods, dry cereals, juice, canned goods and cheese. "It really helps me out because after paying for my rent, phone bill and medication, I barely have enough for food," she says. "If I could work, I would, but I have an artificial knee and a pacemaker, and I can't get around.

Shaver, who worked as a nurse's aide for most of her life, brings in $451 a month in social security. Her fixed income qualifies her for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), which is designed to improve the health and nutrition of low-income senior citizens, pregnant women, postpartum mothers, infants and children.

Last year, CSFP provided 536,196 people with a monthly box of food. Bush's proposed budget for 2007 calls for a nationwide elimination of the entire program.

Now from reading Sullivan's recent posts, I take it his brand of "fiscal conservatism" would preserve all the "good" programs for the poor—perhaps like the one above—while cutting all the "bad" stuff, like agricultural subsidies and corporate welfare and entitlements for the middle class and the like. ("[T]he bottom line," writes Sullivan, "is that the middle class and the prosperous elderly are far too pampered by government in this country.")

That's all well and good in theory—I'd love to see corporate welfare ended, too—but in practice, when "fiscal conservatives" come to power, it's only programs like the CSFP that ever get put on the chopping block, partly because 80-year-old Sally Shaver doesn't have an army of lobbyists working in D.C. That's how fiscal conservatives are always going to operate—cut programs for the poor while keeping their grip on power by catering to business interests. There's no "magical" fiscal conservatism that will somehow get voted into office someday and do all the things Sullivan would like to see.

Globalization and Fashion

Who says fashion has to be frivolous? Northeastern Kenya is home to 127,000 refugees from Somalia, and some of the women have taken an interest in girls' volleyball. But the traditional women’s hijab can be a major nuisance when trying to play in 100 degree heat. Enter the "sporty hijab" by Nike, which modifies the conventional design with lighter fabric. "Our arms will be free now," said Hamdi Hassan Hashi, 27. Nike has committed to providing 700 "conservative, comfortable and suitable for serving" uniforms, and are teaching local girls to sew the garments out of locally produced materials as well.

Meanwhile, there’s an untapped denim market in the Muslim community. Al Quds jeans target comfort-seeking Muslims, with extra baggy fits for added flexibility, lots of pockets for storing things during prayer and green seams (the sacred color of Islam). Produced in a Pakistani plant with 15, 000 employees, the denim are made "for and by Muslims." For now, Al Quds are only available in Italy—not surprisingly, the fashion capital of the world.

Why Worry About Invasive Species?

Let's talk about invasive species for a bit. Last Sunday, the New York Times printed a strange op-ed by George Ball, president of the seed and plant company W. Atlee Burpee & Company, which argued that environmentalists—or, in his marvelously neutral language, "botanical xenophobes"—should stop worrying and let his company sell exotic and non-native plans to anyone who wants them:

The horticultural world is having its own debate over immigration, with some environmentalists warning about the dangers of so-called exotic plants from other countries and continents "invading" American gardens. These botanical xenophobes say that a pristine natural state exists in our yards and that to disturb it is both sinful and calamitous. In their view, exotic plants will swallow your garden, your neighbors' gardens and your neighbors' neighbors' gardens until the ecosystem collapses under their rampant suffocating growth.
If anything suffocates us, though, it will be the environmentalists' narrowmindedness. Like all utopian visions, their dream beckons us into a perfect and rational natural world where nothing ever changes — a world that never existed and never will.

I'm not aware of very many environmentalists trafficking in "utopian visions" these days; most of them are too busy figuring out how to avoid complete ecological disaster. I'd encourage everyone to read Stephen Meyer's excellent Boston Review piece on the loss of biodiversity around the world today, which notes that over the next century "over half of the Earth's species, representing a quarter of the planet's genetic stock, will disappear." Invasive species are a big reason why. Not only that, but the human costs are steep:

Ecological concerns such as biotic homogenization aside, the economic toll [of doing absolutely nothing about invasive species] would be disastrous. The economic harm caused by the 50,000 non-native invasive plants, animals, and other organisms already in the United States is approaching $140 billion per year. Florida's government alone spends $45 million annually battling invasive species, which cause some $180 million in agricultural damage.

And $180 million annually is a small price tag compared to what those in the developing world are facing thanks to the introduction "exotic plants" and the resulting damage to the Earth's biodiversity: According to Hope Shand of the Rural Advancement Foundation International, the poor rely on that biodiversity for "85 to 90% of their livelihood needs." And crop genetic resources "are disappearing at 1-2% per annum." Yes, tell us again how environmental "narrowmindedness" is suffocating us.

At any rate, much of Ball's piece seems like a straw man; for instance this: "Should we deprive ourselves of petunias, begonias, impatiens and hollyhocks—not a one of them 'native'?" Okay, fine, but I doubt very many horticulturalists, if any, want to see a blanket ban on all exotic plants. There's plenty of middle ground between letting invasive species run wild and "closing the borders" completely. What exactly are we arguing here?

This also seems like a good time as any for ad hominem attacks. Big seed companies like W. Atlee Burpee, more often than not, tend to be pretty evil. Again, according to the RAFI paper linked above, "20 years ago there were thousands of seed companies, most of which were small and family owned. Today [i.e., 1999], the top 10 global seed companies control 30% of the $23 billion commercial seed trade."

That means that increasingly, a handful of firms in the private sector—big names like Monsarto, Novartis, Dupont, and Dow—control the genetic diversity of seeds. And those companies can increasingly "patent" their engineered plants, making it illegal for smaller farmers to save and replant patented seeds, instead forcing them to come back and shell out money to a few large seed companies each and every year if they want to keep planting. (And most of them have to come back; many times, after, say, a patented pesticide-resistant strain is planted and doused in pesticides, "native" plants will no longer grow in the area.)

The indentured servitude aspect to all this is bad enough, but the dependency on agribusiness also prevents all of those farmers from breeding and adapting their seeds to changing conditions each season, as they have for hundreds of years. That adversely affects biodiversity, too—a prime example of monopolies stifling competition. At any rate, we're very far afield from the original, bizarre, Times op-ed, but it's just to say I'm disinclined to listen to a seed corporate executive rail against "xenophobic" environmentalists, to say the least.

March 21, 2006

Christianity Banned in Algeria

Another Islamic county is taking aim at curbing religious freedom; this time, it's Algeria. The Algerian parliament, in reaction to a recent "Christianizing campaign," passed a law that bans the practice of any religion other than Islam in the country. The penalty—two to five years in prison and a hefty monetary fine—applies not only to practicing Christians, but any person, manufacturer, or store that circulates "publications or audo-visual or other means aiming at destabilizing attachment to Islam." According to the Arabic News, the Christian community constitutes the largest religious minority in the country.

The law is a reminder of Algeria's recent—and bloody—history. In the 1990s and early 2000s, Algeria endured fifteen years of civil war during which extremists attacked anyone who was even remotely secular or moderate. Islamic terrorists, fighting against the government, claimed religious justifications for the mass killings and human rights violations that went on during that time. And the new law undermines recent progress on human rights: In the past few years, Human Rights Watch had reported some progress in Algeria along human-rights fronts, stating in 2003 that "state-sponsored disappearances have virtually stopped," and in 2004 Algeria adopted an amendment to its penal code criminalizing torture.

Banning religious freedom is a major setback in any context, but in Algeria it comes at a particularly tumultuous time. Earlier this month Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika granted a blanket amnesty to more or less everyone involved in the civil war that led to the death of approximately 200,000 Algerians. In a joint
statement, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the International Center for Transitional Justice, and the International Federation for Human Rights called the mass amnesty "a major setback".

"Rather than moving to prevent future abuses by ending this de facto impunity, Algerian authorities have now decreed a broad amnesty for past abuses," the organizations said. "Perhaps most ominously, the new legislation seeks to end not only prosecutions for crimes of the past, but even public debate about them." Indeed, Article 46 states:

Anyone who, by speech, writing, or any other act, uses or exploits the wounds of the National Tragedy to harm the institutions of the Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria, to weaken the state, or to undermine the good reputation of its agents who honorably served it, or to tarnish the image of Algeria internationally, shall be punished by three to five years in prison and a fine of 250,000 to 500,000 dinars.

The provision basically forbids questioning Algeria’s past in any way. That means journalists don’t have freedom of press, protestors are sent to prison, and the rest of the population is simply censored. Freedom is flailing, and as of today Algerians can add their freedom of religion to the list of weakening rights.

Antitrust Law Aims at Apple

A new bill was approved today in France that could force Apple to share previously protected technology in order to open the market. Currently, Apple products are only compatible with one another, meaning that if a user buys a song on Apple’s music service iTunes, it can only be played on an Apple iPod. Since its inception, Apple has been able to thwart competition and dominate the online music market partially because of this technology. The iPod accounts for two out of every three portable music devices on the market, a fact obvious to anyone who takes public transportation amongst swarms of white-earphone wearers.

If this French law is adopted, it could effectively weaken Apple's global dominance. Even if the law doesn't pass, it should cause a commotion among users, all of whom would rather have the ability to share their music with more playing devices. Undoubtedly, the media will latch on to the story, opening Apple up to scrutiny for being user unfriendly.

In the long run, Apple may have no choice but to share the secrets of their format. By choosing to keep their designs compatible only with other Mac products, users likely will perceive Apple as a bully, a similar image problem facing computer conglomerate Microsoft. Because Apple’s entire brand is aimed at a youth-dominated audience, it is too image-conscious to become alienated from its users. But unless Apple can brush this growing commotion under the rug, Apple's digital player dominance likely will be harmed.

The Osirak Fallacy

Every now and again, the dinner-table conversation will turn to Iran (well, not my dinner table, but some…). And then on to Iran's nuclear program. And then on to how we must not let Iran go nuclear. And then perhaps on to how Israel did pretty well for itself by bombing Saddam Hussein's Osirak reactor—and setting back Iraq's nuclear program for years—back in 1981. You see where this is going.

Well, before the conversation ever does reach that point, read Richard K. Betts' piece in the National Interest, which notes that the Osirak bombing didn't really set back the Iraqi nuclear program in the 1980s, as everyone thinks. In fact, it may have even accelerated Iraq's nuclear program by making Saddam Hussein extra-determined to get the bomb, and in any case, Betts notes, attacking Iran isn't really a good thing to do. That doesn't mean the Bush administration won't try it—common sense hasn't stopped this crew yet—but Betts at least lays out the argument in one nice, neat place.

Now Betts says that Iran's going to get the bomb no matter what, and so deterrence and containment are the United States' least bad options. Maybe. I still don't see why we can't try to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons in the first place. But if that's our goal, it's actually the best argument against bombing Iran. Because: Say we bomb. That sets Iran's nuclear program back by a number of years. Say, four. Well, in four years time, we're right back at square one. What do we do? Bomb again? Bomb again. Then another four-year wait. And bomb. Then so on until infinity. Quadrennial air raids may sound fun to some people, but it's no way to conduct a sane foreign policy.

Short of attacking from now until eternity, then, the only hope of ensuring that Iran doesn't get nuclear weapons is for the latter to agree to some sort of arms-control and nonproliferation treaties. And the only way to get that to happen is for the United States to start talking directly to Iran and exploring the possibility of some sort of bargain. Maybe it won't be the best bargain the world has ever seen. Maybe the United States won't like all aspects of any future treaty with Iran. But it's the only way to go. So why not at least try? That's never really been answered.

UPDATE: I should add that the upcoming, and groundbreaking, talks between Iran and the United States -- not over the nuclear program, but over Iraq -- are a seriously good start.

The Times' Abortion Coverage

Most of the studies that have come out over the years "proving" that newspapers slant one way or the other ideologically seem pretty vague to me. How much does it really affect the coverage, for instance, if the vaguely liberal Brookings Institution is quoted a shade more frequently than the center-right American Enterprise Institute? Is reporting really distorted if most reporters happen to be registered Democrats? And who's helped by the hugely moronic "he said, she said" format of most news stories? I don't know, those all seem like decently complicated questions that aren't answered by easy statistics. Intuitively, my hunch has always been that the coverage in major newspapers tips somewhat to the left on social issues and strongly to the right on economic issues—especially on labor issues. But that's not always easy to quantify.

Or at least that's what I would've said before reading Garance Franke-Ruta's piece in the American Prospect today, looking at the New York Times abortion coverage on its editorial page. Franke-Ruta found that over the last two years—at a time when abortion rights have come under serious attack—the Times has printed 124 op-eds mentioning abortion. Of those, 83 percent have been written by men, and more of them have been written by pro-life men than by women on either side. Most strikingly, over the past two years, the Times hasn't invited a single "reproductive-rights advocate, a pro-choice service-provider, or a representative of a women’s group" to write an op-ed about abortion. Not one. And this from a nominally pro-choice newspaper.

The Times' unsigned editorials themselves tend to be strongly pro-choice, but one guesses that these receive somewhat less attention than the op-eds themselves. Moreover, a Times op-ed tends to elevate its author to prominence. So the disparity is a huge problem. The Times op-ed page is supposed to foster debate rather than disseminate propaganda (in theory, at least), so granted, it's bound to print pro-life op-eds from time to time, but nothing excuses a swing so far to the other side—to the point where women, especially pro-choice women, have basically been shut out of the debate. Hey, perhaps the newly skewed Times explains why we've seen the rise of the "thoughtful" male liberal ready to compromise on abortion if it will help the Democratic Party. (Which is, at any rate, a totally flawed electoral strategy.)

That lizard's mighty cute, but does he earn six figures?

Yesterday, the Consumer Federation of America charged that Geico Corp. uses customers' educational backgrounds and career information as criteria in setting auto insurance rates. According to the CFA, Geico has utilized rating methods and underwriting guidelines in 44 states that are directly tied to education and occupation.

Geico responded that the charge was "an offensive attempt to link fundamentally fair and actuarially sound industry practices with invidious discrimination." However, Robert Hunter, the CFA's director of insurance, said that under Geico's rating method, "a New Orleans factory worker without a high school education would pay $2,636 for insurance, 91 percent more the $1,382 that a white-collar worker with a graduate degree would pay for the same vehicle and location."

The CFA also said that other insurers, including Liberty Mutual and Allstate, were starting to use Geico's methods, and it asked the National Association of Insurance Commissioners to intervene.

March 20, 2006

In Afghanistan, "becoming a Christian is against our laws"

In a key test of religious freedom in post-Taliban Afghanistan, reports the Times of London, a court in Kabul is trying 41-year-old Abdul Rahman and could sentence him to death. His crime? Being a Christian. Rahman was arrested last month after his family accused him of having renounced his Muslim faith, an offense punishable by hanging under the Afghan constitution. The judge in the case, Alhaj Ansarullah Mawlawy Zada, called his country's constitution perfect, and said Rahman deserved punishment for "teasing and insulating his family by converting."

Though the Afghan constitution enshrines Islam as the national religion, it includes human rights safeguards forbidding inhumane punishments. Even so, the prosecutor in the case is pretty sure he'll get a conviction. Rahman "would be forgiven if he changed back," to Islam, he said, but not otherwise. "We are Muslims and becoming a Christian is against our laws. He must get the death penalty." After this verdict, Rahman will have two shots at an appeal.

McCain hires player in DeLay money laundering scheme

In 2002, Terry Nelson was the deputy chief of staff for the Republican National Committee. That same year, Sen. Tom DeLay and two of his colleagues allegedly tried to dance around a Texas law which makes it illegal for corporations to fund candidates. According to the indictment against DeLay, John Colyandro, and Jim Ellis, illegal money was laundered through the Republican National Committee via the Republican National State Elections Committee.

There is no doubt that Nelson was directly involved in the scheme, though he has not been indicted. In 2003, Nelson was named political director of Bush-Cheney '04, Inc., and yesterday, the Washington Post reported that Nelson has been selected by Sen. John McCain to be a senior advisor to McCain's Straight Talk America political action committee. One supposes that, with this hiring, Nelson is somehow unindictable with regard to the DeLay money laundering affair. His addition to McCain's team "will be maximize the organization's influence and effectiveness in the 2006 midterm elections, but his hiring also makes a major mark on the 2008 landscape."

Krugman on the failure of a movement as well as a man.

Paul Krugman from behind the Times Select paywall writes:

Mr. Bush, of course, bears primary responsibility for the state of his presidency. But there's more going on here than his personal inadequacy; we're looking at the failure of a movement as well as a man. As evidence, consider the fact that most of the conservatives now rushing to distance themselves from Mr. Bush still can't bring themselves to criticize his actual policies. Instead, they accuse him of policy sins — in particular, of being a big spender on domestic programs — that he has not, in fact, committed.

The actual polices conservatives can't bring themselves to criticize are the Iraq war (which they supported), the wartime tax cuts (an article of faith impervious to reality), and the "systematic dishonesty" of Bush's budgets (They knew he was lying about the budget "but they thought they were in on the con.")

So what's left? Well, it's safe for conservatives to criticize Mr. Bush for presiding over runaway growth in domestic spending, because that implies that he betrayed his conservative supporters. There's only one problem with this criticism: it's not true.

It's true that federal spending as a percentage of G.D.P. rose between 2001 and 2005. But the great bulk of this increase was accounted for by increased spending on defense and homeland security, including the costs of the Iraq war, and by rising health care costs.

Conservatives aren't criticizing Mr. Bush for his defense spending. Since the Medicare drug program didn't start until 2006, the Bush administration can't be blamed for the rise in health care costs before then. Whatever other fiscal excesses took place weren't large enough to play more than a marginal role in spending growth.

So where does the notion of Bush the big spender come from? In a direct sense it comes largely from Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation, who issued a report last fall alleging that government spending was out of control. Mr. Riedl is very good at his job; his report shifts artfully back and forth among various measures of spending (nominal, real, total, domestic, discretionary, domestic discretionary), managing to convey the false impression that soaring spending on domestic social programs is a major cause of the federal budget deficit without literally lying.

But the reason conservatives fall for the Heritage spin is that it suits their purposes. They need to repudiate George W. Bush, but they can't admit that when Mr. Bush made his key mistakes — starting an unnecessary war, and using dishonest numbers to justify tax cuts — they were cheering him on.

So there.

Civil War? Who you gonna believe—me or your lyin' eyes?

From the annals of perception-management (WP):

"What we've seen is a serious effort by them to foment civil war, but I don't think they've been successful."
--Dick Cheney on CBS's Face the Nation

"We are losing a day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more. If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is."
--Former Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi (who is of course no more a disinterested party than is Cheney, but who does seem to have the evidence rather more on his side) talking to the BBC.