MotherJones.com | MoJoBlog - Social Issues and Political Commentary: March 25, 2007

« March 18, 2007 - March 24, 2007 | Main | April 1, 2007 - April 7, 2007 »

March 30, 2007

Bush Knew Tillman was Killed by Friendly Fire

Well, the Bush administration sure does keep us busy at Mother Jones. We were just kicking back and relaxing a bit after the completion (and nomination for a national magazine award) of our massive Lie by Lie timeline. No rest for the weary: The AP reports today that Bush and the military knew almost immediately that former football star Pat Tillman had probably died from friendly fire. Seven days after Tillman's death, Bush received a memo about the likely circumstances. He eulogized Tillman a few days later with no reference to friendly fire, and the Pentagon then deceptively awarded the dead soldier a posthumous Silver Star—an award for valor in combat. Tillman's family learned a full month after the memo was written that their son died in friendly fire.

Inhofe Wreaks Revenge on Gore, the Earth, Sane People, and Music Lovers Everywhere

Al Gore's Live Earth concert—performances on seven continents slated for 7/7/07—has been thwarted by none other than the Interior Department. The department refused to grant organizers a permit to host part of the worldwide event on Capitol Hill, claiming that they would not be able to provide enough portapotties. Maybe those reading the application glanced right over the Gore letterhead it was on? Or then again, maybe that's all they saw, given Bush's painstaking efforts to politicize every bureaucratic office in the government.

Gore, who's still got a few connections, headed over to Congress to try to get a resolution that would allow the event to go ahead. Rejected by Senator James Inhofe, climate-change denier and one seriously vindictive dude! Inhofe threw a hissy fit, calling the event partisan (and therefore inappropriate for the Capitol?), though Gore has said climate change isn't a partisan issue but a moral issue, and the resolution he sought was co-sponsored by Republican Olympia Snow.

It's not like Inhofe is confronting a radical proposal to stop climate change. We're talking about a rock concert, for Christ's sake. When will somebody put Inhofe in a rubber room and let the rest of us get on with the baby steps toward sanity we're finally taking with regard to climate change?

Catholic League Displeased by Edible Nude Crucifix

The Catholic League’s Bill Donahue, who must not be using the Piss Christ for comparison, has called the six-foot, loincloth-less, milk chocolate Jesus sculpture that is set for April 1st Manhattan display “one of the worst assaults on Christian sensibilities ever.”

What’s truly scandalous about this story is that the gallery is “considering its options” after an onslaught of angry protests. That the exhibition could get canceled is preposterous; the Catholic League should be excited that an artist has created a really captivating reminder of how bad it would suck to get crucified naked in the name of saving a bunch of sinning ingrates only to have the sacrifice remembered by a holiday synonymous with chocolate-gorging.

Oh, and also there’s some sort of amendment or something that protects free speech.

—Nicole McClelland

Details and Contradictions in the David Hicks Gag Order

As part of the plea bargain that will get David Hicks out of an Australian jail in ~~anywhere from two to seven years~~ nine months, Hicks had to sign a gag order at Guantanamo in which, according to the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has represented Hicks in the past, Hicks agrees to not speak to the media for one year after his release and to state that he has never been mistreated while at Guantánamo. He also has to agree that his detention was lawful pursuant to law of armed conflict.

Furthermore, he was forced to give up the right to sue over his treatment in the future, and will cooperate with investigators should the need arise. He is forbidden from profiting from his story by, for instance, publishing a book or selling movie rights.

Some portions of the gag order are plainly ridiculous, and contradicted by earlier statements. On December 10, 2004, Hicks filed an affidavit with the Adjutant General stating among other things:

- I have been beaten before, after, and during interrogations….
- I have been menaced and threatened, directly and indirectly, with firearms and other weapons before and during interrogations….
- I have been beaten while blindfolded and handcuffed...
- I have been in the company of other detainees who were beaten while blindfolded and handcuffed. At one point, a group of detainees, including myself, were subjected to being randomly hit over a eight hour session while handcuffed and blindfolded….
- I have had my head rammed into asphalt several times (while blindfolded)…
- I have had medication - the identity of which was unknown to me, despite my requests for information - forced upon me against my will. I have been struck while under the influence of sedatives that were forced upon me by injection…
- I have witnessed the activities of the Internal Reaction Force (hereinafter "IRF"), which consists of a squad of soldiers that enter a detainee's cell and brutalize him with the aid of an attack dog. The IRF invasions were so common that the term to be "IRF'd" became part of the language of the detainees. I have seen detainees suffer serious injuries as a result of being IRF'ed. I have seen detainees IRF'ed while they were praying, or for refusing medication.

You can read the entire affidavit here and learn more about David Hicks here and here.

-- James Ridgeway

Make More than $100 K? Give Me My Money Back!

Did you notice in my last post that the income gap between rich and poor—or actually rich and everyone else—is at its highest point since the ominous year of 1928?

Yes, indeed. Total reported income in the United States increased by 9 percent in 2005, but average incomes for all but the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans were down by .6 percent.

So who got more money? Why, the top 1 percent, of course. Their incomes rose by 14 percent to an average of more than $1.1 million per household. Sweet! The top 10 percent—those who make more than $100,000—also lived off the fat of the rest of us. Nicely done, lads!

The New York Times reports:

[T]he top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980.

That sounds seriously messed up, right? Well, yeah, but it's probably even worse for two reasons. First, the wealthiest Americans are the most likely to file late, so the data may be slightly skewed. Second—and this is my favorite—the IRS claims to "find" 99 percent of all wage income but only about 70 percent of business and investment income.

Maybe if they stopped wasting their time auditing the poor and starting auditing the rich—you know, the ones with big bucks to hide and tax advisors to tell them how to do it—they might find the untold billions of unpaid taxes on the 30 percent all profits and capital gains.

Giuliani Meltdown?

If things weren't bad enough for Rudy Giuliani, he just accepted the endorsement of radical conservative Steve Forbes. In accepting the endorsement, Giuliani even touted Forbes' signature idea, the flat tax he had called a "mistake" and a "disaster" in 1996 when Forbes was running for president. Of the income tax—one of just a few progressive taxes in the United States, a country in which the rich/poor gap is greater than at any time since 1928—Giuliani said: "Maybe I'd suggest not doing it at all, but if we were going to do it, a flat tax would make a lot of sense." Wingnut alert, y'all!

Today's New York Times also reports that Giuliani was briefed on Bernard Kerik's ties to a company with ties to organized crime before he appointed Kerik as police commissioner. Giuliani would go on to support Kerik's nomination for secretary of homeland security. Giuliani claims not to remember the briefing, but hasn't denied it happened.

The charges against Kerik are significant not just because he was ascending towards the nation's top law enforcement positions, but also because he pleaded guilty last summer to letting the "connected" company, Interstate Industrial Corporation, do $165,000 worth of unpaid renovations to his apartment just before Giuliani appointed him. The problem for Giuliani gets a little stickier, too, when you factor in that the ex-mayor's private company does background checks for businesses.

It Becomes Obvious John McCain Should Just Pack it Up, and I Grow Sad

John McCain better respond to this, and fast.

Headline: "Democrats say McCain nearly abandoned GOP"

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was close to leaving the Republican Party in 2001, weeks before then-Sen. Jim Jeffords (Vt.) famously announced his decision to become an Independent, according to former Democratic lawmakers who say they were involved in the discussions.

In interviews with The Hill this month, former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and ex-Rep. Tom Downey (D-N.Y.) said there were nearly two months of talks with the maverick lawmaker following an approach by John Weaver, McCain’s chief political strategist.

The strongest allegations come from Daschle...

Daschle said that throughout April and May of 2001, he and McCain "had meetings and conversations on the floor and in his office, I think in mine as well, about how we would do it, what the conditions would be. We talked about committees and his seniority … [A lot of issues] were on the table."

But the story gets murky as it goes on.

Daschle stressed that McCain never considered becoming a Democrat, but was close to becoming an Independent.

And the strongest denial comes from McCain...

McCain said, "As I said in 2001, I never considered leaving the Republican Party, period."

As you notice at the bottom of this post from The Carpetbagger Report, Republican bloggers are up in arms. "If it's true, he's finished," says one. And rightfully so: would you vote for someone for the Democratic nomination if you knew only six years ago they considered becoming an Independent or a Republican? Or course not.

We've hammered John McCain pretty hard in this space for his recent flip-flops, but I've always suspected that John McCain is a fundamentally good human being, one who could be trusted not to suspend habeas corpus for prisoners of war, expose a CIA agent's identity, or let factions of the executive branch manufacture a case for war and then force feed it to the American public. He had a maturity and sense of perspective that George Bush lacked; he wasn't driven by his narrow faith on social issues; he rejected party-line thinking when he felt it was right. I think he lost his way the last few years and submitted to weakness -- he felt he had to backtrack on some of the things he said and did in order to be president, which he clearly wants more than anything. His support for the war, in 2002 and today, I can't excuse -- but I will say that if we are going to have warmonger in office, it might as well be one who knows the peril of battle.

While I obviously want a strong progressive elected in 2008, I've always felt that I could trust John McCain with the presidency -- the country would be in decent, if not ideologically correct, hands. You can define "decent" in several ways, all of them, I think, apt.

Maybe I'm just inclined to eulogize him because if these allegations are true, it's funeral time for John McCain. I'll say this, and I expect to get savaged for it: too bad.

U.S. Response to Saudi Statements on Iraq: "What You Talking About, Abdullah?"

Yesterday I wrote about King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia's statement that the U.S. occupation of Iraq is "illegal." Thankfully, the Bush Administration is responding with sensitivity and a deft touch, seeking out our ruffled ally and finding out exactly what irks him. We've decided that as yet another friend turns his back on our foreign policy, it is high time to look in the mirror and question whether we're on the right path.

Wait, that's not what's happening at all.

"It is not accurate to say that the United States is occupying Iraq," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.

Oh. Well, then. That'll sort things out. Carry on with the apocalypse.

March 29, 2007

Cobell, Native Leaders Reject Bush Proposal, Seek Resolution From Congress

Elouise Cobell and two other Native American leaders today urged the Senate Indian Affairs Committee to reject a Bush administration proposal to resolve a number of Indian disputes. Some of these disputes have little to do with the long-running lawsuit over the government's admitted mismanagement of the Individual Indian Trust, according to IndianTrust.com. The story was covered in Mother Jones' "Accounting Coup."

Calling the administration's proposal "a slap in the face of every Indian Trust beneficiary," Cobell outline an alternative course that could lead to settlement of the class-action lawsuit she and other Native Americans filed 11 years ago. She also produced a real-life example of the harm the trust problems continue to create for Native Americans--James Kennerly Jr., a member of the Blackfeet Nation in Montana, should be a millionaire. But because the government lost records of the oil leases on his father's lands, Kennerly has been forced into a life of poverty, receiving only $70 a month from lands that continue to pump oil, and that once paid more than $1,000 a month, according an Interior report. What happened? Interior officials can’t say. Lease records for the lands have disappeared.

Cobell was joined in her testimony by John Echohawk, Executive Director of the Native American Rights Fund of Boulder, Colo., and William Martin, vice chairman of the InterTribal Monitoring Association of Albuquerque, N.M. Both denounced the government's efforts to lump settlement of the Cobell case with the settlement of more than 100 separate lawsuits that tribes have filed over the government's mismanagement of their tribal trust accounts.

Committee Chairman Bryon Dorgan, D-N.D, agreed that the government was reaching too far with that proposal. He promised to continue to press efforts for a resolution of the Cobell lawsuit, which affects about 500,000 Indian Trust beneficiaries. Cobell called the $7 billion the administration proposed to settle her lawsuit along with those of the tribes and other issues "an insult, plain and simple." Just last year the Indian Affairs Committee released a proposal that would have called for an $8 billion settlement of the Cobell case alone.--Julia Whitty

Word to Dems: Don't Count Your Chickens

I was born in 1971, and the first president I remember is Jimmy Carter. I "campaigned" for his re-election in 1980, and at such a tender young age I learned that my candidate would nearly always lose. Twelve years of Republican rule molded my young mind into believing that it was impossible for Democrats to win. I was stunned when Clinton won in 1992, and flat out didn't believe the polls that said Clinton was trouncing Dole before the 1996 election.

Nowadays, Democrats seem to have the opposite problem. They are dancing on the graves of folks like Karl Rove (who, by the way, can't dance) and Bush 43. A word of advice from a dyed-in-the-wool pessimist: Not so fast.

Although conservatives are seriously unhappy with their stable of candidates, their people are still dogging the Dems in imagined head-to-heads. In a recent TIME poll, Hillary Clinton loses to John McCain, 42%-48%, and to Rudy Giuliani 41%-50%. Even though Dems favor Clinton over Obama, he fares better than Clinton does against Republicans. TIME has Obama losing by a hair to either McCain or Giuliani. (This despite Firefighter-gate! Astounding!)

TIME attributes the surprising (though not to this hardened loser) results to the fact that the voters shedding their loyalty to the Republican Party don't think of McCain or Giuliani as, you know, Republicans. (I wonder how they feel about that? It's like having your white friends tell you that you're the special black guy! You're OK!)

On the other hand, it may be that Clinton, whom voters know and, err, love, has reached her maximum percentage potential, but that Obama and Edwards still have room to win over additional voters.

Burger King Finally Gives PETA an Inch

Burger King has just announced an initiative to purchase 2% cage-free eggs and 10% of its pork from farms that allow sows "some room to move around." As far as its Canadian and American suppliers are concerned, anyway. In Asia, anything still goes.

Nevertheless, the policy leaves the chain way behind other reduced-cruelty crusaders like Wolfgang Puck and Chipotle. One reason for the slow start is the higher price of humanely-raised meat, which the company is currently negotiating so its menu prices won’t change (read: BK is going all Wal-Mart on its suppliers and demanding lower prices, because it certainly wouldn’t want to keep the Hamlette Sandwich cheap by diverting money away from video games or an ad campaign featuring the world’s creepiest mascot).

An industry VP says that an increase in mindful consumers will require more companies to jump on the bandwagon – that’s right, this guy actually calls "social responsibility and social consciousness" a "bandwagon." There are 285 million egg-laying hens and 63 million pigs in factory farms in the U.S., a country in which 9 billion chickens are raised and killed for meat annually. Keep an eye on that bandwagon, which, if it gets big enough, could cause changes of revolutionary proportions when industry giants may not be able to strong-arm farmers into selling their quality goods for less, and companies and consumers alike will finally have to admit that there’s not enough room on the planet to give the meat we eat "free-range."

—Nicole McClelland

Security Surge Fails in its Strong Suit

I blogged last Friday about TIME's optimistic assessment of the surge-backed security crackdown in Baghdad (for which General Petraeus was a major source). I was skeptical. But one new tactic even I had to admit was a good idea—if a tad slow in coming—was Operation Safe Markets, where the military uses concrete barriers to prevent cars, and car bombs, from getting close to the crowds markets draw.

Today, a car bomb killed 61 people at a market in the Shaab neighborhood of Baghdad, and 40 were injured. Simultaneously, a car bomb killed 43 and wounded 86 in the predominantly Shiite town of Khalis, north of Baghdad. The Shaab neighborhood is one of the crackdown's key areas.

Convinced yet? Don't just take my word for it. Those who have warned the surge won't work include Colin Powell, the Iraq Study Group, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Petraeus's sacked predecessor, General Abizaid.

Tensions Mounting Between U.K. and Iran

Iran has reneged on its pledge to release the female soldier seized among 15 Britons the nation accused of entering its territorial waters during a sea patrol. Things are a bit hairier than a simple territorial dispute, however. Britain asked the U.N. to issue a press release "deplor[ing]" the marines' capture (how British is that?). In response to that action, Iran reneged on its promise to release Leading Seaman Faye Turney. Iran has now released a letter written by Turney, asking the U.K. to begin removing its troops from Iraq. Blair has called the soldiers' release the "only outcome" to the crisis, and suggests he will "step up the pressure." But Iran doesn't respond well to pressure, so this conflict has the potential to turn into something big.

National Review Visits Shrinking Alaska Glaciers (While Sipping Martinis)

I love it: The conservative National Review is planning a cruise to Alaska. Of course, plenty of magazines do fundraising cruises -- but not a lot of them take a boatload of global warming deniers to Alaska, where glaciers are becoming puddles due to climate change.

Speakers on the cruise include William Rusher, who calls global warming the "Big Daddy of all...scare stories," Jonah Goldberg, who says the campaign against climate change a is "half-baked environmental jihad that could waste possibly trillions of dollars," and Robert Bork, who sided with the Bush administration in last year's Supreme Court showdown on global warming.

The cruise's first destination? Glacier Bay -- where glaciers are very visibly on the retreat (check out the photo above, and this NASA video.) I'd love to be a fly on the wall during that stop.

The Unsinkable John Lott vs. "Freaky" Economics

The world of economics is predictably unpredictable; we know that markets will ebb and flow, but not when or often why. So too it goes with John Lott, the undefatigable conservative economist who is guaranteed to pop up in some new controversy of his own creation every so often. What keeps him going—and why places like AEI embrace him—remains a mystery. Lott is most infamous for his claims that crime rates are inversely proportional to rates of gun ownership; or as his book title put it, More Guns, Less Crime. Small problem: His research is far from bulletproof, and he's been repeatedly exposed and denounced for what could be charitably called sloppy research. In his defense, Lott has blamed "coding errors," claimed that some of his data have been destroyed, and in his finest moment, created a fictitious online identity to take on his critics. But none of this has slowed him down. For a good rundown of Lott's sins, see Chris Mooney's 2003 piece on our website, which shot some more holes into his work. More recently, Lott sued the Freakonomics guys for defamation after they wrote that he had "falsified his results." A judge threw part of his case out. Now Lott's firing back with a new book, Freedomnomics, a defense of the free market against "freaky theories," printed by renowned academic publisher Regnery. Fact checkers, statisticians, and economists, start your BS detectors...

That's Some Gaydar!

Jason Pickel and Darren Black Bear were looking for a reasonably priced place to stay for a while, so they went to Affordable Suites of America in Sumter, South Carolina. At the desk, they asked about rates, deposits, and things of that nature, and then were cut short by the clerk, who said "We don't rent to multiple people of the same sex." "So you don't rent to gay couples?" Pickel asked her. "No," she said, "we don't rent to gay people at all."

There is no law in South Carolina that protects gay citizens from housing discrimination, so Affordable Suites of America has broken no law. But the clerk's comments beg analysis:

If the hotel does not rent to "multiple people of the same sex," that means that a mother and daughter or two sisters traveling together, two women on a vacation, or two businesswomen traveling together cannot stay at the Sumter Affordable Suites of America. They must turn away quite a few people.

"We don't rent to gay people at all" means that a gay person traveling alone could not rent a suite at the hotel. But how do the clerks determine who is gay? Is there a test? And if a presumably heterosexual person is traveling with a gay person, does the heterosexual person get the room and the gay person sleep in the hall? What about bisexual people? Can the clerks determine who they are, too? And do they get to stay?

Aside from the ugly bigotry involved, the "regulation" is absurd. Fortunately, there is at least a chance this nonsense may soon be a thing of the past: A bill in the South Carolina senate seeks to expand the Lodging Establishment Act to include a ban on housing discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

You Know We're in Trouble When Saudi Arabia Turns on Us

From the New York Times:

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia told Arab leaders on Wednesday that the American occupation of Iraq was illegal and warned that unless Arab governments settled their differences, foreign powers like the United States would continue to dictate the region’s politics.

This is bad news for a number of reasons. The first is obvious -- we've screwed up our foreign policy so badly over the last six years that even a country long committed to our stead and ruled by people who have business connections to the family of our president are bailing on us. The second is not so obvious -- as the United States' influence in the region wanes, the Saudis are emerging as leaders of the Arab League, and losing them may mean ceding the region completely.

Iowans Falling in Love with Edwards (Because He's White and Male?)

Here are the facts. Ever since Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack dropped out of the presidential race, John Edwards has gained fifteen points in Iowa. Hillary Clinton has dropped one point, and Barack Obama, who continues to draw huge crowds in the state, has dropped seven. Edwards and Clinton have pulled into a dead heat for the lead, months in advance of the caucuses.

Here are two conclusions. One, Edwards has been campaigning in Iowa off and on since he lost the 2004 election and all of that hard work is finally paying dividends. Two, there is a portion of Iowa voters who would consciously or subconsciously prefer to support a white man, and when their favorite drops out, they'll find another.

I'm disposed to the second explanation because, after all, why would Edwards' years of campaigning suddenly pay off right after Vilsack drops out? (Vilsack, by the way, looks like this.) Is that too simplistic? Thoughts?

Note that the poll was conducted before Elizabeth Edwards announced the resurgence of her cancer and Tom Vilsack endorsed Hillary Clinton.

More on Fred Thompson, the Actor Who Would be President

Yesterday, I wrote about how Law and Order star and former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson is currently third in GOP polls. A Slate article today points out that Thompson is the Republicans' "therapy" candidate -- depressed by the imperfections of supposed frontrunners McCain, Giuliani, and Romney, Republicans are turning to the man who looks appealing and makes them feel good. Slate paints him as the Republicans' Barack Obama. (Feel the excitement at draftfredthompson.com.)

But like with Obama, there are questions about whether Thompson has the substance to back up all his style. Thompson's experience consists almost completely of eight years in the Senate -- he has no other governing experience and his Washington work before coming to the Senate in 1994 was as a lawyer in the Watergate hearings and eighteen years as a lobbyist. Oh, and he was in The Hunt for Red October and Die Hard 2. And Sex in the City!

But the Republican base has shown a willingness to overlook a lack of prior experience when choosing presidential candidates. In fact, the comparison to George W. Bush is particularly apt. Thompson is from the south and wins hearts, not minds, based largely on folksy charm and "man's man" swagger. He doesn't have any foreign policy experience, and he enters (or returns to, I suppose) the national consciousness as something of a blank slate. So should we call off the contest and hand Fred Dalton Thompson the Republican nomination?

Not just yet. In a major break from the GWB formula, Thompson is under fire from none other than James Dobson for not being Christian enough. Originally, Dobson said he wouldn't support Thompson because he wasn't a Christian. Thompson's people fired back that Thompson had been baptized in the Church of Christ (phfft, as if baptism is the standard; one must be a veritable foot soldier for Christ if they want to succeed in today's GOP), prompting Dobson to respond that Thompson does not talk about or live his faith enough. Dobson said instead that he liked Newt Gingrich, who has a past full of indiscretions and truly awful moral behavior, but confessed his sins and confirmed his faith to Dobson early this year.

So give that a shot, Fred. Divorce your wife while she is in the hospital with cancer, remarry just months later, fail to make child support payments, then cheat on and subsequently divorce your second wife to marry an aide twenty years your junior. Then tell James Dobson you're sorry about it all. You'll be a lock.

March 28, 2007

Not ALL Men, Chris

Speaking on MSNBC's Imus In the Morning show today, Chris Matthews said: "You only hear criticism of Hillary Rodham Clinton from smart, college-educated women. They're the ones that always have a problem with her." Matthews then explained that men "are afraid to talk like that."

Bad grammar aside, Matthews' statement is almost funny when you consider that he, a man, has practically made a second career of criticizing Clinton--not for her policies or her votes in the Senate, but for her gender. In December of 2004, Matthews said on Hardball that a Clinton candidacy would "motivate all the men in the country to vote against her." In November of 2006, he wondered "What is she going to do about her husband? She makes an acceptance speech, and there he is, just standing behind her, smiling and applauding."

And the very next month, Matthews wondered whether Sen. Clinton was "convincing" as a mom.

In his interview with Imus, Matthews made a big deal over his speculation that Clinton "puts up" with her husband's lifestyle so that he will raise money for her. In other words, Sen. Clinton is a whore who will do anything to get elected, another version of the "Oh, my--Hillary is ambitious" song and dance we've heard from everyone from Matthews to Maureen Dowd.

Yes, Sen. Clinton is ambitious, as is Barack Obama, who had barely set foot in the Senate when he decided he should be president of the United States. Or Rudy Giuliani, who gives speeches against backdrops of the tragedy of September 11. Or Mitt Romney, who suddenly repudiated several values he had publicly held for years. Lucky them--no one is criticizing them for their ambition.

Treading Into (Or Walking On) Biblical Waters

TIME underscores this week's headline, "Why We Should Teach The Bible in Public School," with the advisory subhead: "But very, very carefully." What does that mean, exactly? It's like saying, "Here, grab this scalding hot pan, but be careful when you grab it," or "Hey, let's jump off of this bridge into raging waters hundreds of feet below, but let's be careful while we're doing it." We're either doing something or we're not, caveats aside.

Carefully or not, the Bible is nudging its way into public schools. And it's worth noting that the magazine, read by millions each week, is essentially endorsing it. But TIME is not alone.

Georgia's Board of Education will endorse and fund biblical teachings next school year when they add two Biblical literature classes to its curriculum. Why teach the Old and New Testament in public school? Because of the Bible's "important role in history," one Republican supporter said.

Georgia's just one example. According to the National Council on Bible Curriculum, 373 school districts in 37 states now implement its Bible course curriculum. And the states are red and blue.

The TIME story argues (strongly, and favorably) that the Bible is the “bedrock of western culture," backing up the argument with a colorful timeline of popular culture items (The Chronicles of Narnia, The Matrix, Babel, Spamalot) that rely on Biblical themes, and a full-page photo of a conservative Christian Texas school teacher who honors "constitutional neutrality" in her classroom.

The Biblical wave is moving and growing, and groups like the Bible Literacy Project are riding it out, fully endorsed by the AP, Chicago Tribune, Knight-Ridder newspapers, the Wall Street Journal and WORLD Magazine.

Consensus is building (to Biblical proportions, maybe), but it's not clear how carefully we are moving forward.

--Gary Moskowitz

Pakistan Gets Fat $4.2B Check, Now 3rd Largest Recipient of US Military Aid

The Center for Public Integrity informs us that thanks to a Defense Department program- Coalition Support Funds (CSF)- Pakistan is now the third largest recipient of all US military aid and assistance, following the heels of Israel and Egypt.

The three years prior to September 11, 2001, US military aid to Pakistan was $9.1 million. Three years after 9/11, it was more than $4.2 billion, a 45,000% increase. Since 9/11, Pakistan has been awarded a total of over $10 billion. A lot of money? Tim Rieser, majority clerk on the Senate Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs told the Center,

"With the possible exception of Iraq reconstruction funds, I've never seen a larger blank check for any country than for the Pakistan CSF program."

As if this carte blanche isn't enough, earlier this month, three Democrats introduced a "nonbinding resolution," which attempts to make military aid to Pakistan dependent on how much "progress" Pakistan is making in the war on terror. Note: "progress" here does not equal democracy and the will of the Pakistani people, who are directly affected by the General's actions. Why should it matter anyway? What matters is that the General Musharraf secures US geo-political objectives.

We've heard this story before. And apart from the fact that the US is arguably helping to fuel the nuclear arms race between India and Pakistan, it's at the expense of the civilian population. Husain Haqqani notes that the "three periods of significant flow of US aid to Pakistan have all coincided with military rule in Pakistan" and the civilian leadership has hardly been given a helping hand:

Most of the American aid money has gone towards Foreign Military Financing (FMF) and Economic Support Fund (ESF). Very little of it has flowed in ways that are visible to the Pakistani people as altering their daily lives.
According to figures provided by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) between 1954 and 2002, the US provided a total of $12.6 billion in economic and military aid to Pakistan. Of this, the majority, $9.19 billion was given during 24 years of military rule, only $3.4 billion was given to to civilian regimes which ruled for 19 years.

On average, US aid to Pakistan amounted to $382.9 million for each year of military rule compared with only $178.9 per annum under civilian leadership for the period until 2002.

So much for "spreading democracy."

—Neha Inamdar

John McCain Gets Bitch Slapped

I'm sorry for the language, but there's really nothing else you can use to describe this video of CNN's Michael Ware going off on McCain's claim that parts of Baghdad are safe enough for an American to take a stroll in. Ware directly questions McCain's credibility and points out that military officials are laughing at Senator Straight Talk's comments. Apparently, they're straight crap.

It's a must see.

Need an Introduction to Fred Thompson?

As you may know, former Republican Senator and current television actor Fred Thompson is floating the idea of running for president, and the early returns suggest the idea might be going somewhere. Thompson places third in the Republican field with 12% support, only bested by Giuliani at 31% and McCain at 22%. (Mitt "Dead in the Water" Romney polls at a shockingly low 3%.) They're skeptical over at The Plank:

A Hollywood actor, high-priced attorney, and lobbyist (for Toyota and the S&Ls, among others), who ran for Senate as a pro-choicer and had a reputation as a considerable ladies man before marrying his second (much younger) wife doesn't seem to me to quite fit the profile of white knight for the political right.

So for the time being let's consider Thompson another imperfect entry in a class of GOP candidates from whom imperfection is the norm. A 1996 Washington Monthly article has some really good material on Thompson for those looking for more info. Some sampling below.

[T]here's more to Fred Dalton Thompson than first meets the eye--which is saying a lot considering this sleepy-eyed Southerner stands 6'5" and weighs 225 if he weighs an ounce. With his pickup truck, his blue jeans, and his deep, friendly drawl, Thompson has cultivated the perfect political image for today's anti-Washington climate: a straight-shooting, no-nonsense man of the people with a big helping of horse sense and a hankering to clean up our nation's capital. Both his 1994 and 1996 Senate campaigns played up this outsider image, portraying Thompson as an average Joe who shares his neighbors' disgust with a political system that no longer serves regular citizens.

But even without the Hollywood credits, the 54-year-old Thompson is far from your average good ol' boy. In the mid-1970s he served as minority counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee, and later as a special counsel for both the Senate Foreign Relations and Intelligence Committees. Even more significantly, for nearly two decades preceding his election to Congress, Thompson was a high-paid Washington lobbyist for both foreign and domestic interests.

Despite his Beltway ties, Thompson has maintained his just-plain-folks status among voters, a feat critics attribute to the senator's acting talents and his shameless use of "props" like the red pickup. Indeed, the charismatic Tennessean's ability to charm a crowd is undeniable. During the 1994 race, whenever the opposition tried to pin the "insider" label on him, Thompson would drawl a few lines about the kind of world he wants to leave his grandkids, and all insinuations that he was part of the Washington establishment disappeared like wood smoke on a warm breeze.

For those outside Tennessee who've never seen Thompson in action, now might be a good time to run down to Blockbuster and rent a few of his flicks. (Thunderheart is my personal favorite, though In the Line of Fire took in more at the box office.) Take a good look at Thompson's broad, drooping features (which bring to mind a bear crossed with a basset hound). You'll almost certainly be seeing more of this face in the coming months, because Sen. Fred Dalton Thompson may well be the future of the Republican party.

...

For all of his charm and presence, Thompson is more than just a pretty face. Once people finish gushing over how genuine and friendly he is, they move on to terms like "smart," "intelligent," even "brilliant" (giving him a leg up on Reagan in the brains department). His professional reputation among lawyers and politicians alike is that of a sharp mind and quick wit.

Like I said, it's good. Read the whole thing here.

Buh-Bye, Al: National Review Says Gonzales Should Go

The editors of the conservative National Review have decided they've seen enough out of Alberto Gonzales. In an editorial today calling for him to resign, they manage to dump on both the Democrats and the embattled Attorney General.

On the Dems:

The story of the eight fired U.S. attorneys has been relentlessly overhyped. We do not know that any of them was fired because the administration put its political interests ahead of his or her prosecutorial judgment. Sen. Dick Durbin’s recent insinuation that the attorneys who were not fired had kept their jobs by compromising their prosecutions was outrageous.... congressional Democrats are wrong to bluster...

On Gonzo:

We do not need more evidence... to reach a conclusion about the suitability of Alberto Gonzales for the leadership of the Department of Justice. While we defended him from some of the outlandish charges made during his confirmation hearings, we have never seen evidence that he has a fine legal mind, good judgment, or managerial ability. Nor has his conduct at any stage of this controversy gained our confidence.

His claim not to have been involved in the firings suggests that he was either deceptive or inexcusably detached from the operations of his own department.

On Gonzo and the Dems:

What little credibility Gonzales had is gone. All that now keeps him in office, save the friendship of the president, is the conviction of many Republicans that removing him would embolden the Democrats. It is an overblown fear. The Democrats will pursue scandals, real or invented, whether or not Gonzales stays. But they have an especially inviting target in Gonzales. He cannot defend the administration and its policies even when they deserve defense. Alberto Gonzales should resign.

This is fun, isn't it?

TIME Doesn't Want to Bore You With Real News

This never gets old. When America's venerable newsweeklies don't think Americans can handle the truth -- see Newsweek's work on global warming and losing Afghanistan -- they put real reporting on their international covers and soft-peddle the U.S. with all sorts of nonsense.

And if you're going with nonsense, why not the nonsense that Americans love most -- pop theology. According to Folio magazine, a cover featuring Jesus or the Bible can raise single-issue sales by roughly 50%, and as a result TIME and Newsweek frequently try to out-Christian one another on consecutive weeks. (See "Jesus, What a Cover!" from the Dec/Jan 2006 issue of Mother Jones.)

So, yeah. This week it's TIME serving up "The Case for Teaching the Bible" to Americans, and "Talibanistan" to its international audience. As Wonkette puts it, "Americans get the special-ed stories." I don't know if I should be disgusted with and embarrassed by the magazine editors who made this decision, or the magazine readers whose tastes they are clearly pandering to.

Oh, and check out Rose's thoughts on Mother Jones' Arts and Culture blog, The Riff.

March 27, 2007

McCain's MySpace Page Hacked

Josh points out a curious prank pulled on McCain in his MySpace profile. First spied by TechCrunch the following appeared today on the page:

Today I announce that I have reversed my position and come out in full support of gay marriage. Particularly marriage between passionate females.

Oooh, can't you just see the steam coming out of his ears when he saw that this morning. Well, apparently it's his own doing, or his staff's anyway. The story goes, as of now, that the designer of the page's template, Newsvine Founder and CEO Mike Davidson, was pissed that McCain staffers didn't give him credit on the page. Plus, Davidson ends up paying for the bandwidth used from page views on the site. So, as the guy in control he turned the tables for a time, replacing contact info with McCain's "announcement."

That's what happens when you piggyback on existing technology and templates. You open yourself up to pranks that end with your very own cursive signature.

It's just too bad that Davidson's comments weren't a touch more tasteful. Leave it at the first sentence and he would have gotten a lot more cheers. Instead he had to go all mud-wrestling fantasy and turn what is a very serious message, into a frat-house joke.

Posted by Elizabeth Gettelman on 03/27/07 at