MotherJones.com | MoJoBlog - Social Issues and Political Commentary: February 17, 2008

« February 10, 2008 - February 16, 2008 | Main | February 24, 2008 - March 1, 2008 »

February 22, 2008

Proto Political Correctness

New Yorker, February 25, 2008 (not available online). Brahmin New Yorker and novelist Louis Auchincloss writing to his mother in 1945 (itals mine):

"Of course, like so many cynical jews, he believed that all people were like him except less smart. And that, don't you think, is their most trying characteristic: the unwillingness to concede any ethical approach in others higher than their own, the 'oh-ho I know you' attitude with which they sneer at a world that is bad enough to prove them right more than half the time. All of which, I suppose, would brand me as a hopeless anti-Semite, Nazi, etc., but one simply can't be bothered with labels any more"

Anti-semitism: just a 'label', an ipso facto slur and act of intellectual fascism since no decent white person like him could actually be guilty of that failing. It wasn't his fault the jews are so inferior but it was his duty to point it out. How he suffers under the white man's burden of saying what so obviously must be said. Gifted writer though he is, he didn't think to come up with the concept of 'political correctness'. So he could denounce it.

I love happening upon this kind of thing because it's so drearily amusing to hear whites go on today about how no one can speak "the truth" without running afoul of political correctness. "There used to be a time..." No, there hasn't been, not for a long time now.

Before the ink was dry on Lee's surrender at Appomattox, whites were baying about how blacks (though they used a slightly different term) were getting all of society's bennies and a poor white man didn't stand a chance, couldn't speak his mind. Kid you not. (The books I need are elsewhere, and we're snowed in up here in the north country, but I'll track them down.) Reconstruction didn't derail itself; whites had to get themselves good and rage-filled over their oppression at the hands of their newly freed slaves first. They weren't bigoted, anti-democratic barbarians after all. When the Radical Republicans called them on their racism and violence, guess what? They couldn't be bothered with "labels" either. They had a duty to perform, they had a country to take back from the freedmen who were oppressing them.

Writing in 1945 with the world torn apart after having grown up in wealthy Whartonian, exclusive New York, Auchincloss was acutely feeling the loss of his privilege to be chauffeur-driven around his own psyche. What with all the dark/poor peoples of the world rising up and Rosie the Riveter freed from her kitchen, it's only human that he felt besieged, deprived of goodies he'd thought his birthright (like not having jews criticize whites). I'm not playing gotcha! with history; it's far too facile to collect chestnuts like this one and think you know who that person is today. It matters only in showing that the change isn't that conservatives can't speak their minds "anymore". The change is that we little people get to answer back, finally. Entrenched power just never gets used to that.

Fox News Asks: "Who Would Usama Want as Prez?"

The results are in from the latest FOX News survey, and we now know the answer to the most important question of the race: "Who is Usama Rooting For?":

Who does Usama bin Laden want to be the next president? More people think the terrorist leader wants Obama to win (30 percent) than think he wants Clinton (22 percent) or McCain (10 percent). Another 18 percent says it doesn’t matter to bin Laden and 20 percent are unsure.

This is not a joke.

Charlie Black, John McCain Aide and Super-Lobbyist

John McCain's primary defender in the Lady Lobbyist Scandal* is a man named Charlie Black. As a senior adviser to the campaign who is doing McCain's damage control right now, Black has to explain to the press that John McCain didn't have a romantic relationship with lobbyist Vicki Iseman, didn't treat Iseman's clients with undue favoritism, and isn't too close to lobbyists in general despite his years of anti-lobbyist rhetoric.

Black, of course, is a lobbyist. In fact, as the head of the extremely influential lobby shop BKSH and Associates, he's one of Washington's most powerful influence-peddlers. In the Washington Post story today about the lobbyists that populate the upper ranks of McCain's campaign (here's another guy), Black is listed as working for AT&T, Alcoa, JPMorgan, and U.S. Airways. He works and has worked for far more companies than that, however.

After the jump, every company BKSH has worked for since 1998, along with the total value of their contracts, as provided by the Center for Responsive Politics lobbying database.

Accenture - $780,000
ACCURAY- $120,000
Accuray Inc - $60,000
Accuray Incorporated - $60,000
Advertising Co Art-Eria - $200,000
Agency for Humanitarian Technolgoies - $120,000
Alcoa - $100,000
Amerada Hess Corp - $80,000
American Financial Group - $80,000
American Hotel & Lodging Assn - $460,000
American Hotel & Motel Assn - $240,000
American Kidney Fund - $20,000
American Management Systems - $80,000
American Medical Response - $840,000
American Psychological Assn - $940,000
AMR Corp - $280,000
Arc Enterprises - $40,000
Asoex Chilean Exporters Assn - $40,000
Assn of American Medical Colleges - $420,000
AT&T - $1,185,000
AT&T Inc - $720,000
Authentix - $210,000
Baxter International - $60,000
Bethlehem Steel - $540,000
Biochem Resources - $20,000
Bristol-Myers Squibb - $690,000
California School Employees Assn - $40,000
Carlton Co - $20,000
Cavendish Digicom - $40,000
Center of the Development of Information - $50,000
CGI Group - $80,000
Chenega Corp - $120,000
ChevronTexaco - $140,000
Childrens Memorial Medical Center - $470,000
Chilean Salmon Farmers Assn - $100,000
Cintas Corp - $95,000
Citizens for Liberty in Cuba - $40,000
City of Chesapeake, VA - $10,000
City of Muncie, ID - $60,000
City of Muncie/Delaware County, ID - $160,000
City of Napoleon, OH - $120,000
City of Sunnyvale, CA - $70,000
Coca-Cola Co - $380,000
Colombian Textile & Apparel Industry - $80,000
Comasa, de la Optica - $80,000
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico - $2,400,000
Compusa - $60,000
Conservation Trust Fund of Puerto Rico - $240,000
Contran Corp - $505,000
Cook Childrens Health Care System - $660,000
Cummins Engine - $140,000
Cummins Inc - $1,300,000
DaimlerChrysler - $20,000
Dairy Fresh - $20,000
DARE America - $80,000
Dayton Advocacy Consortium - $120,000
Dayton Chamber/Miami Valley Reg Commis - $160,000
Delaware North Companies - $580,000
Digene Corp - $815,000
Dominican Republic-US Business Council - $40,000
Education Finance Council - $100,000
Egan & Assoc - $20,000
Eistream - $56,000
El Pomar Foundation - $50,000
Emergent BioSolutions - $80,000
Energy Finance Team - $10,000
Entergy Corp - $60,000
Featherlite Inc - $70,000
Federation of State Medical Boards - $420,000
First Transit - $60,000
Fort Lauderdale Downtown Devel Authority - $180,000
Freddie Mac - $820,000
General Electric - $680,000
General Motors - $570,000
Geovox Security - $20,000
Glaxo Wellcome Inc - $40,000
GlaxoSmithKline - $590,000
Global Strategies Group - $180,000
Goodman Corp - $20,000
GTECH Holdings Corp - $980,000
Harper, Meyer et al - $180,000
Harris Corp - $40,000
Health Industry Manufacturers Assn - $80,000
Honeywell International - $220,000
Importers Service Corp - $540,000
Impulso 2000 - $80,000
Indiana Dept of Transportation - $20,000
Insors - $330,000
Instinet - $440,000
Institute for Democratic Strategies - $10,000
International Franchise Assn - $290,000
International Org/Masters/Mates/Pilots - $80,000
International Steel Group - $20,000
International Tire & Rubber Assn - $50,000
Intl Assn of Convention & Visitor Bureau - $20,000
Intl Council of Shopping Centers - $680,000
Ion America - $80,000
Iprivacy - $20,000
Johnson & Johnson - $280,000
JP Morgan & Co - $140,000
JP Morgan Chase & Co - $724,000
Kosmos Energy - $40,000
Lincoln Group - $40,000
Liquidnet Inc - $60,000
Lockheed Martin - $487,500
Lucent Technologies - $20,000
Lumenos - $100,000
MacAndrews & Forbes - $180,000
Magellan Systems International - $350,000
Mariner Post Acute Network - $20,000
Maxxam Inc - $430,000
McTigue & Brooks - $20,000
MDA International - $320,000
Medactinium Inc - $40,000
Medtronic Inc - $40,000
Methodist Health Care System - $500,000
Michigan State University - $320,000
Microbran Products - $140,000
Mortgage Bankers Assn of America - $140,000
Morton International - $180,000
Mtbe Litigation Inc - $20,000
M-unit - $20,000
National Assn of Home Builders - $20,000
National Assn of Mortgage Brokers - $60,000
National Assn of Rocketry $50,000
National Assn of Trailer Manufacturers $60,000
National Auto Dealers Assn - $320,000
National Automobile Dealers Assn - $200,000
National Football League - $100,000
National Foreign Trade Council - $40,000
National Mentoring Partnership - $150,000
National Propane Gas Assn - $80,000
National Renal Administrators Assn - $640,000
National Restaurant Assn - $760,000
National School Transportation Assn - $400,000
Natl Assn of Classified School Employees - $300,000
Natl Assn of Passport & Visa Services - $60,000
Natl Center For The American Revolution - $30,000
Natl Conf of State Historic Preser Offcs - $360,000
Nec Corp - $695,000
Neopath/Tripath Imaging - $140,000
Nielsen Media Research - $240,000
North Americas Supercorridor Coalition - $440,000
Northeast Utilities - $40,000
Occidental Petroleum - $1,650,000
Occidental Petroleum - $1,650,000
Ocean Duke Corp - $20,000
Oryxe Energy International - $170,000
Osmose Holdings - $40,000
Pacific Supreme - $20,000
Par Technology - $70,000
Partners for Democratic Change - $40,000
Payne Shea & Assoc - $180,000
PCS Health Systems - $20,000
Peter NG Schwartz Management Co - $100,000
Pharmanex - $20,000
Philip Morris - $1,292,500
Policom Inc - $140,000
Popular Democractic Party - $260,000
Psi International - $20,000
Public Broadcasting Service - $385,000
Puerto Rico Highways & Transp Authority - $270,000
Radio Sedaye Iran - $37,500
Repeal PUHCA Now Coalition - $160,000
Rhoads/Weber Shandwick Govt Relations - $10,000
Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority - $220,000
Roaring Fork Transportation Authority - $200,000
Roche Group - $360,000
Rolls-Royce - $320,000
Safety-Kleen Corp - $810,000
SafeView Inc - $80,000
Sanborn - $165,000
Santa Clara County - $100,000
Santa Clara County, CA - $1,403,752
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Auth - $1,070,000
SAP America - $440,000
Screening for Mental Health - $30,000
Securicor Gray - $40,000
Shaw Group - $20,000
Silverleaf Resorts - $30,000
South Carolina Dept of Health/Human Srv - $40,000
South Carolina Judicial Dept - $20,000
Space Imaging Inc - $605,000
Stand Up for Steel - $120,000
State of Indiana - $120,000
Strategy Group International - $40,000
Sybase Inc - $100,000
Tam Bay Partnership - $20,000
Teck Cominco American - $100,000
Texas Childrens Hospital - $320,000
Thales - $1,055,000
Tobacco Quota Warehouse Alliance - $120,000
Travel Business Roundtable - $1,860,000
Travel Industry Assn of America - $180,000
Trilogy International Partners - $40,000
Tripoli Rocketry Assn - $50,000
United Motorcoach Assn - $20,000
United Network for Organ Sharing - $460,000
United Parcel Service - $50,000
United Technologies - $570,000
US Airways Group - $180,000
USEC Inc - $240,000
UST Inc - $1,360,000
Ust Public Affiars - $60,000
Values First - $30,000
Values Government Relations - $20,000
Vietnam Assn of Seafood Exporters & Prod - $340,000
Viohl & Assoc - $220,000
Visiting International Faculty Program - $40,000
Vladeck, Waldman et al - $20,000
Washington Group International - $20,000
Washington Metro Area Transit Authority - $440,000
Washington Mutual - $20,000
Webb County, TX - $40,000
Western Wireless Corp - $435,000
Williams Companies - $140,000
Wolf, Block et al - $60,000
WPP Group - $200,000
Wye Oak Technology - $10,000
Yukos Oil - $155,000

Total - $57,426,252

*Lady Lobbyist Scandal is a derivation of a phrase first used by Michael Scherer of Time magazine.

The CIA's Constant Confesser: Michael Hayden Just Can't Stop Admitting Stuff

Is it just me, or is CIA director Michael Hayden the least secretive spy ever? First he admitted that the CIA waterboarded detainees. Of course, most of us already knew that, but he helpfully laid out the exact details of the dirty work to Congress. Next, he went ahead and confirmed that at least some of those interrogators were paid outside contractors, rather than the highly trained CIA operatives we thought they were. This news shed even more light on the program, if also somewhat muddying the legal waters. To top it all off, yesterday we learned that on a recent trip to London, Hayden informed the British government that, contrary to previous assurances, the U.S. actually did use UK territory for rendition flights. Oops.

In an internal statement to agency employees on Thursday, Hayden said that a new in-house review of CIA records had turned up the "administrative" error. He made no mention of what prompted the review. This in itself is strange: after all, for years now the agency has maintained a hard line on rendition flights, often flat-out denying their existence. For the most part, details about the program have emerged only as a result of foreign governments' own investigations. In short, the CIA doesn't tell us about stuff when they don't have to. So why the sudden openness?

It could be that Hayden is trying to restore the agency's credibility at a time when its ethics are the focus of increasing scrutiny. His remarks to his staff suggest as much:

The refueling, conducted more than five years ago, lasted just a short time. But it happened. That we found this mistake ourselves, and that we brought it to the attention of the British government, in no way changes or excuses the reality that we were in the wrong. An important part of intelligence work, inherently urgent, complex and uncertain, is to take responsibility for errors and to learn from them.

Historically, "take responsibility for errors and learn from them" has not been a hallmark of the Bush administration's approach to governing. But Hayden could very well still be CIA director in 2009—provided, of course, that the new administration approves of his work. Is he doing penance now in anticipation of a new government, hoping to shore up his Democratic bona fides? Might not be so easy, since every new confession means a new round of damage control.

—Casey Miner

Green Salt and Nuclear Laptop: New IAEA Report Says Iran Answers Some Questions, Still Has Others to Answer

The UN atomic watchdog agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, has a new report out on Iran (.pdf).

I confess it would take me a very long time and several dictionaries to penetrate its highly technical language. So I turned to one of the smartest nonproliferation experts I know, Jacqueline Shire, a senior fellow with the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), for highlights. "I think that paragraphs 35-42 are the most negative for Iran," Shire says, "Though the IAEA would say that they are just now receiving the info from the US necessary for confronting/challenging Iran's claims of fabrication."

The paragraphs Shire points to are in a section of the IAEA report called "Alleged Studies." They describe in dry, bullet-point form and highly technical language a quiet drama: how IAEA officials in late January and early February presented information handed over after a battle getting it from the U.S. government that concern questions of something called the so-called "Green Salt Project" and an alleged Iranian nuclear laptop that the US government obtained. Iran in turn called some of that American-sourced evidence "fabrications," on other points, the IAEA said it was still awaiting an Iranian response.

The New York Times reported on IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei's battle to get the evidence from the Americans earlier this week:

The Bush administration has agreed to turn over to international inspectors intelligence data it has collected that it says proves Iran worked on developing a nuclear weapon until a little more than four years ago, according to American and foreign diplomats.

The decision reverses the United States’ longstanding refusal to share the data, citing the need to protect intelligence sources.

The administration acted as the International Atomic Energy Agency is scheduled to issue a report as early as next week on Iran’s past nuclear activities. Administration officials hope that the nuclear inspectors can now confront Iran with what the Americans believe is the strongest evidence that the Iranians had a nuclear program.

The Bush administration’s refusal to turn over the data has been a source of friction with Mohammed ElBaradei, the director general of the agency, who has argued that Iran must be given a fair chance to examine some of the case that Washington has developed.

But it remains unclear how much of the data Dr. ElBaradei will be allowed to disclose to the Iranians. In particular, it is not clear if the information includes diagrams and designs that were secretly taken out of Iran on a laptop computer in 2004 and turned over to the Central Intelligence Agency. ...

According to American and foreign officials interviewed about the contents of the laptop, the information found there included descriptions of the so-called Green Salt Project. That project, which involved uranium processing, high explosives and a missile warhead design, demonstrated what the agency suspected were links between Iran’s military and its ostensibly peaceful nuclear program. If that evidence were substantiated, it would undercut Iran’s claims that its program is aimed solely at producing electrical power.

The documents on the laptop described two programs, termed L-101 and L-102 by the Iranians, describing designs and computer simulations that appeared to be related to weapons work. ...

The presentation included selections from more than a thousand pages of Iranian computer simulations and accounts of experiments that, according to the American officials, showed a longstanding effort to design what appeared to be a nuclear warhead or similar “re-entry vehicle.” ...

For the technical minded, you can check out the relevant section of the IAEA report (.pdf) yourselves.

Shire also notes that it is "interesting that the cascades continue to underperform." Her organization, ISIS, later offered this analysis (.pdf) elaborating on that observation:

In a conversation with a senior IAEA official, ISIS learned more about the P1 centrifuges' underperformance. Apparently, of the 1,670kg of uranium hexafluoride introduced into the cascade, some 400 kilograms remains in a "process buffer" between the initial feed location and the cascades, with the result that the natural uranium has not yet entered the actual cascades. This reduces the actual feed for the purposes of estimating the amount of low enriched uranium produced over the last 12 month period to 1,270 kg. ...,

Furthermore, ISIS says:

Two items stand out in the latest IAEA report on Iran's nuclear program. The first is that in all but two areas, Iran made progress in addressing unresolved issues outlined in the so-called Workplan agreed upon in August 2007. In the IAEA's assessment, Iran has provided plausible explanations for sources of uranium contamination found on equipment at a technical university, its research into Polonium-210 and activities at the Gchine uranium mine. [...]

Iran also insists that procurement by the Physics Research Center for items such as balancing machines, magnets, fluorine handling equipment, and mass spectrometers, which could be useful in uranium enrichment or conversion activities, was all intended for other purposes, primarily educational. [...]

A bigger issue identified in the report is Iran's continued stonewalling on the information contained in the "laptop documents" and from other member states, referred to by the IAEA as the "alleged studies."

How solid is the US intelligence that ElBaradei battled to get and confront the Iranians with? "It comes from this so-called laptop and I believe is fairly solid (unless it was totally fabricated, which given the complexity of the stuff seems unlikely despite what the Iranians claim)," Shire says, pointing to this 2006 Dafna Linzer piece, "Strong Leads and Dead Ends in Nuclear Case Against Iran," as the most comprehensive yet on the topic.

Shire adds that commenter Hass (below) makes a valid point: "The report does acknowledge significant progress in resolving outstanding issues (Gchine mine, Polonium, uranium contamination)," Shire emails. "In pointing to the negative part I was just trying to highlight the meat of what would be controversial - not obscure the good news."

Kennedy Canta!

This is half awesome and half embarrassing.

If I work for Kennedy, I'm avoiding my email today.

Update: Wow, the Obama folks are really bumping up their Hispanic outreach. See the Viva Obama video after the jump.

Debate's Final Moment — Transformative?

The Clinton campaign is really pushing the final bit of yesterday's debate (coverage of the full debate here) as some kind of transformative moment. Seconds after the debate ended, Clinton's communications director Howard Wolfson sent out a short email saying this:

What we saw in the final moments in that debate is why Hillary Clinton is the next President of the United States. Her strength, her life experience, her compassion. She's tested and ready. It was the moment she retook the reins of this race and showed women and men why she is the best choice.

Just after midnight, the campaign sent out video of the moment. It's below. And today's Morning HUBdate (an email sent daily to supporters) began, "If You Watch One Thing Today: In the final moments of last night’s debate, Hillary demonstrated her strength, life experience and compassion."

But here's the thing. That handshake was seen by some in the media last night as a valedictory. It was a composed, graceful moment that humanized Clinton (and Obama) and showed that beneath their politicians' veneers, they are just fundamentally decent human beings. But the press saw the beginning of the end for Clinton. And indeed, it could be seen as Clinton laying the groundwork for a graceful exit. Keith Olbermann speculated that it was a capitulation, a statement that she is ready to be a VP.

I don't think it was a capitulation, but I do think it was a concession in some way that she is tired of fighting and attacking, especially because her attacks on Obama haven't been working and the race has slipped away from her. It was also an acknowledgment of the fatigue that the campaign season puts a person under.

I wonder if the campaign realized that that the closing moment was dangerous, so they immediately leapt to spin it to their advantage. And because everyone was focusing on that handshake, they included the minute or two beforehand in which Clinton talked about injured vets.

Draw your own conclusions. As a nation, we've already spent fifteen years psychoanalyzing the Clintons; looks like we're not done yet.

February 21, 2008

Dems Debate: No Shoot-out in Texas, as Clinton Halfheartedly Goes After Obama

Asked if Barrack Obama was ready to be commander in chief, Hillary Clinton ducked the question. When Obama suggested she is not as willing as he is to confront the special interests of Washington, she did not engage. Offered the chance to blast Obama for vowing to meet with the dictatorial leaders of North Korea and Iran in his first year as president, she took a pass. When Clinton did go on the attack at Thursday night's debate in Austin, Texas, she chose to focus on Obama's use of several speech lines borrowed (or plagiarized, according to the Clinton camp) from Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, a supporter of Obama. That was, she said, "not change you can believe in; it's change you can Xerox."

With the zinger, Clinton was trying to reinforce one of her campaign's themes: I offer solutions; he offers words. But during this portion of the debate, Obama came on strong. He brushed aside the plagiarism accusation as part of the "silly season in politics," and noted that the fine words of his eloquent speeches convey not only hope and inspiration but also support proposals for tuition tax credits for college, tax relief for working families, and military disengagement in Iraq. And Obama explained that inspiration is essential because "if we can't inspire the American people to get involved in their government," Washington will continue to be a city of gridlock dominated by corporate lobbyists. Clinton didn't have much of a reply to that. She did continue stick to her my-actions-speak-louder-than-his-words assault. But there was no new punch to this now routine line, and she appeared to gain no new ground in the battle between (his) hope and (her) experience.

Which means the debate was no game changer. Obama, who has not been his best at debates earlier in the campaign, performed well in Austin before a pumped-up crowd that cheered on both candidates. (Kudos to CNN for not shushing the candidates' supporters.) Clinton performed well, too, especially when it came to demonstrating her command of policy details and ticking off her legislative accomplishments. But at this point, she needs to do better than well and clobber Obama, and that did not happen. A recent poll in Texas--which holds its primary on March 4--shows the race between the two a statistical dead heat. That is, Obama, if the polls are to be believed, is catching her in the crucial state. And polls in Ohio--the other big prize on March 4--show Obama nipping at a still-significant Clinton lead. But there's still plenty of time for him to close in on her in the Buckeye State.

During the debate, there was--as in earlier encounters--far more agreement than dispute. Obama and Clinton echoed--or seconded--each other on immigration, Cuba policy, repealing George Bush's tax cuts, adding tougher labor, safety, and environmental standards to trade deals, promoting green jobs, and withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. And like an old married couple, they once again bickered about their health care plans. She claimed that without a mandate forcing people to obtain health insurance, his plan would not provide universal coverage. He denied that, pointing out problems Massachusetts has had with its recent imposition of a health insurance mandate. Clinton has been arguing this same case against Obama for weeks, to no effect. And his retort this evening was sharper and better formulated than his previous responses.

It was generally one repeat after another. Clinton reiterated her campaign's mantra: she's ready to lead on Day One. He countered: of the two, he displayed better judgment in opposing the Iraq war. No voter who has paid any attention to the race heard much that was new. But, then, neither candidate has much that is new to say. Obama, riding a streak of wins, has no need to change his message and stock lines. And Clinton has been using all the ammo she possesses. She cites her experience, shows her smarts, throws in a dose of Democratic populism, and belittles Obama's speechifying. In recent weeks, none of that has worked for her. But what else is there? She could turn up the volume of her attacks on him. But clearly she and her campaign chiefs had decided against appearing desperate. It didn't even look as if her heart was in it when she poked Obama with the clever quip about Xeroxing change. A viewer could wonder if she was tired of the fight.

The debate was no showdown. There were even moments of grace and warmth, when each spoke kindly of the other--and a nice handshake occurred toward the end. At that point, both candidates came across as decent people who recognized that the campaign has forced them to be harsher than they would prefer. And in this moment, Clinton also seemed to be acknowledging that she could not attack Obama much more than she already has. Maybe she was merely fatigued. But when Clinton was asked to respond to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's statement that it would be a problem if superdelegates were to overturn the outcome of the primaries and the caucuses, she declined to support Pelosi's view, noting that the rules are the rules. This was an indication that the Clinton camp has not given up considering a win-with-the-superdelegates strategy (as improbable as that might be) and a reminder that the contest could become rather ugly later on. But before any such thing can happen, Clinton will have to do rather well in Ohio and Texas.

As soon as the face-off was finished, the Clinton campaign issued a statement:

What we saw in the final moments in that debate is why Hillary Clinton is the next President of the United States. Her strength, her life experience, her compassion. She's tested and ready. It was the moment she retook the reins of this race and showed women and men why she is the best choice.

Clinton supporters ought to hope that her spinners don't believe their own spin, for that would be a sign they are out of touch with reality. She did not push Obama out of the saddle. She only managed to keep the same position in the horse race she held when she first took the stage.

Maybe Hitchens Is Right and God Isn't So Great

Only yesterday I blogged about the American Christian right ordering (white) Europeans to have more babies, repeal liberal divorce, same sex marriage, and abortion laws lest the Muslim hordes over run them. Mere coincidence, the overlap with their theocratic preferences.

Today, we happen upon yet another example — since we were running low — of the dangerous centrality to male privilege of retaining control over women's bodies, and more importantly, their choices, so as to hold onto power. Fascinating, the lengths to which religious fervor and hegemony go to perpetuate and expand themselves despite the teachings of its holy books; Muslims and Christians in Africa (Nigeria here) are slaughtering each other in the name of religion. Well, it's either that or they're killing each other over the right to exercise immoral power over the designated Other and religion is a good a way as any to identify your inferior. God forbid they should try peaceful co-existence or maybe just focus on their own spiritual uplift. One would think that living up to either the Messiah's or the Prophet's requirements might keep one a little too busy to be looking for qc'ing others.

What's most fascinating, however, is how the battle over who gets stuck on the business end of apartheid — Christians have control now and keep the Muslims second class citizens — quickly became about who has access to which women. Let's just say that's not up to the women in question. No doubt, though, the lure of fighting the designated infidel by withholding their wombs, and their all important love, will prove seductive to many of the Christian women called on to do their duty (i.e. love only your neighbor Christian neighbors). The others will just keep bringing it back home to the Christian Papa to stay alive. Odd, how 'women's work' is only worth noticing when in danger of being performed for someone else.

As the Muslims, galvanized by the 1980s Iranian revolution and who tend to be successful merchants, inter-married with "their" women, the Christian overlords had to step in to set the women straight. Turns out that the "ladies" they're so desperate to keep as to engage in gruesome rampages, "are stupid and attracted to money....Believing that the Muslims were trying to wipe out Christians by converting them through marriage...[the elders] decided to punish the women. "If a woman gets caught with a Muslim man," Sunday said, "she must be forcibly brought back." Rhymes with "harsh interrogation techniques." "Gets caught" not "chooses."

This is bad. Very bad. It's the cover and it's the Atlantic, so it's a hefty, illuminating and worrying read. You shouldn't miss it. Here's the intro:

From the Atlantic:

It was an ordinary soccer pitch: sparse tufts of grass and reddish soil surrounded by cinder-block homes. The two candidates stood on opposite sides of the field as the people of Yelwa, a town of 30,000 in central Nigeria, lined up behind them one May morning in 2002 to vote. Whoever had more supporters would lead the town’s council. And whoever led the council would control the certificates of indigeneship: the papers certifying that Yelwa was their home, and that they had a right there to land, jobs, and scholarships. Between the iron goalposts milled ethnic Jarawa, principally Muslim merchants and herders; next to them were the Tarok and Goemai, predominantly farmers and Christians. For several years, their hereditary tribal chief, a Christian, had refused certificates of indigeneship to Muslims no matter how long they’d lived in Yelwa. Without the certificates, the Muslims were second-class citizens.

As the two groups waited in the heat to be counted, the meeting's tone soured. "You could feel the tension in the air," Abdullahi Abdullahi, a 55-year-old Muslim lawyer and community leader, said later. A tall, thin man with a space between his two front teeth and shoulders hunched around his ears in perpetual apology, he was helping to direct the crowd that day. No one knows what happened first. Someone shouted arna -- "infidel" -- at the Christians. Someone spat the word jihadi at the Muslims. Someone picked up a stone. "That was the day ethnicity disappeared entirely, and the conflict became just about religion," Abdullahi said. Chaos broke out, as young people on each side began to throw rocks. The candidates ran for their lives, and mobs set fire to the surrounding houses.

After that episode, the Christians issued an edict that no Christian girl could be seen with a Muslim boy. "We had a problem of intermarriage," Pastor Sunday Wuyep, a church leader in Yelwa, told me on the first of two visits I made in 2006 and 2007. "Just because our ladies are stupid and attracted to money," he sighed. Economics lay at the heart of the enmity between the two groups: as merchants and herders, the Muslim Jarawa were much wealthier than the Christian Tarok and Goemai. But Pastor Sunday, like many others of his faith, felt that Muslims were trying to wipe out Christians by converting them through marriage. "It's scriptural, this fight," he said. So he and the other elders decided to punish the women. "If a woman gets caught with a Muslim man," Sunday said, "she must be forcibly brought back." The decree turned out to be a call to vigilante violence as patrols of young men, both Christian and Muslim, took to the streets. What eventually transpired, in the name of religion, was a kind of Clockwork Orange.

Fewer Guns, Not More 'Heroes'

In the wake of the latest college shootings, Utah's public college students are packing heat. I feel much safer now.

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (CNN) -- The senior at the University of Utah gets dressed and then decides which gun is easiest to conceal under his clothes.

If he's wearing a T-shirt, he'll take a smaller, low-profile gun to class. If he's wearing a coat, he may carry a different weapon, he said.

He started carrying a gun to class after the massacre at Virginia Tech, but the student says he's not part of the problem of campus shootings and could instead be part of a solution.

Utah, according to CNN, is the only state which allows concealed-carry at all public colleges as well as other places around the state. "However, [a university administrator] said the regents are opposing a legislative proposal to allow people with concealed weapons permits to have the weapons visible in public. "We are worried that it may affect their [students' and teachers'] willingness or desire to go to or teach a class on campus," she said.

You don't say?

Where once you had to worry that the slacker next to you might be copying your answers or calling you a tramp on JuicyCampus.com, now you have to worry that he might think that that bulge in your own pocket just might not mean you're glad to see him. I teach at a university - hell, I live in America - and I worry about mall and campus violence and the nice, crowded targets we represent. Call me crazy, but I don't feel any better thinking someone in the room believes he's got the Die Hard focus to avoid all the fleeing bodies and the pandemonium and take out only the deranged shooter who started it all. All, of course, without breaking a sweat or wasting a bullet. Or a classmate. They've probably got their 'just kicked your ass,' toss-off movie one-liner ready — "hasta la vista, baby" and the like.

Maybe this isn't really so much about the 2nd Amendment as some folks' need to believe that they're cowboy cool, all Clint Eastwood, and they're going to NYPD Blue the perp right into the back of a squad car. Then get the keys to the city, a trip to the White House, a movie deal, the blonde...

A Congressional Race That (Almost) Sums Up Northern California

Californians, and especially San Franciscans, have a knack for embracing politicians who are larger than life. We've elected Jerry Brown ("Governor Moonbeam"), veteran state Senator John Burton (the flamboyant foul-mouth), and San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown ("Slick Willie"), to name a few. Now we've got the Governator in Sacramento and Gavin the Playboy in City Hall. And there are always mayoral also-rans such as Cindy Sheehan, the peace mom, and Josh Wolf, the jailed vlogger. These politicos are as much policy wonks as cultural figures who embody the fears, dreams and excesses of their times--a reflection of the fact that politics and culture are unusually conjoined in the Golden State.

Even in light of this history, voters should brace themselves for the upcoming election to replace the recently deceased Congressman Tom Lantos. It's a race that simultaneously evokes San Francisco's pre-hippie past, touches upon the rise and decay of the counterculture, and speaks to an uncertain future in which technology, political idealism, and ego form a volatile mix. It could be a wild ride. I'll explain after the jump.

Let's start with Lantos, an anti-Nazi resistance fighter in Hungary, a Holocaust survivor, and a 14-term Congressman from San Francisco and San Mateo County--a great man and, to be sure, a larger-than-life figure. Culturally, Lantos bridged the Greatest Generation and the Hippie Generation; he was progressive on gay rights and the environment but a staunch anti-fascist and (somewhat understandably) an early supporter of the Iraq war.

The politician endorsed by Lantos to fill his congressional seat embodies a different sort of cultural transition and the legacy of a different sort of war. State Sen. Jackie Speier was a member of the fact-finding delegation that traveled to Guyana in 1978 to investigate Jonestown, the quasi-socialist creation of San Francisco cult leader Jim Jones. The cult's security guards fired on the group, killing a U.S. Congressman and four others. Speier was shot five times, waited nearly a day for help to arrive, and survived. Elected to county-level office two years later, she has served as a high-profile reminder of (and antidote to) the culture wars of '70s.

As the culture wars in the Bay Area gave way to gentrification wars, artists and activists watched the rich and fratty sap San Francisco of charm, snatch up the affordable flats, and, though it went mostly unsaid, steal their girlfriends. They opposed Mayor Gavin Newsom as suspiciously pomaded and wealthy. When it was revealed that Newsom had been sleeping with the wife of his deputy mayor, Alex Tourk, they weren't bothered so much by Newsom's infidelity as the power dynamics of the whole thing: even though Tourk had been a major fundraiser and a key architect of Newsom's big policy ideas, he was earning a meager $50,000 salary. You don't cuckold a wage slave. Men saw themselves in Turk. And now he's Speier's campaign director.

Today, in the Wall Street Journal, open-source guru Lawrence Lessig announced that he's weighing a run against Speier. For most of the past decade the Stanford law professor and Internet maven has toured the globe to speak out against the stifling effects of copyright, but, a few months ago, gave up the fight to focus on corruption in politics. He could use Lantos' old seat to advocate for freedom online and more restraints on campaign finance and political gifts in Washington.

So there you have it: the broad strokes of Northern California politics. The Greatest Generation gives way to the Progressive Generation. The Culture War gives way to the Gentrification War. Throw in some sex. Throw in the Internet. Throw in a crusade against corruption. Top it off with some egos. Not bad for a single race for Congress.

Gunmaker Ends Partnership With Blackwater

Even as FBI agents return to Baghdad to revisit the scene of Blackwater's September 16 shooting that killed 17 Iraqi civilians and wounded 24 more, the embattled private security firm continues to lose friends closer to home. According to UPI, German gun manufacturer Heckler-and-Koch, which formed a "strategic partnership" with Blackwater in August 2006, has announced an end to its association with the company:

Heckler-and-Koch said it would end its relationship in the wake of a German news report that Blackwater employees used its machine guns in Iraq and Afghanistan and that the two companies had a "strategic partnership."

Deutsche Welle said Tuesday that the revelations stirred criticism among some German politicians who said they were aghast at Blackwater's controversial role in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"It is scandalous and unacceptable that a German arms company cooperates with such a lawless mercenary troop," declared Green Party lawmaker Hans Christian Strobele.

Lawless mercenary troop? That's exactly the kind of talk that makes Erik Prince's skin crawl. But it's also language that carries considerable political weight these days, especially given the high number of (allegedly) unlawful killings in Iraq that have involved Blackwater operators.

The end of the Blackwater/Heckler-and-Koch partnership means that paying clients will no longer be able to avail themselves of the "Blackwater HK International Training Services" program, which offered classes like H&K Rifle Operator, H&K Pistol Operator, and H&K SMG (submachine gun) Operator.

A New Smear Email: Obama Gave an Anti-Israel Speech at a Black Church

Barack Obama is a secret Muslim who refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance. During the Democratic primary campaign, the junior senator from Illinois has been hit repeatedly by virulent viral emails pushing false claims like these. The latest: Obama, due to his Muslim background, secretly favors Palestinians over Israelis.

An unsourced email being disseminated claims that "someone taped former Muslim Barack HUSSEIN Obama at a black church when he was in South Carolina" and that Obama said:

It's clear that we give too much money to Israel. [cheers] Why... do you know that every American gives approx .20 cents A DAY to Israel? [jeers] We keep hearing how tough the Israelis are... how great an 'ally' they are... --but what if we gave the SAME AMOUNT of money we gave THEM to the poor Palestinians--I bet THAT would bring them finally to the table. We could have a two-state solution... a two-state solution--just like former President Carter outlined in his latest book. We can't have peace in the Middle East until we solve that problem down in Palestine. George Bush should have thought about that before he went into Iraq...[etc.]

The email goes on to note that Obama sounds "a GREAT DEAL like Malcolm X." It asks, "Instead of the 'Manchurian Candidate,' is Obama the secret 'Farrakan Candidate'"? It then seeks to explain his purported anti-Israel bias:

Will Barrack's [sic] Muslim roots cause him to favor the Palestinians against Israel?

Because he's a "person of color," will Obama be more sympathetic to 3rd World Peoples' struggles in that they have "darker skin" like him?

Does Obama distrust the lighter-skinned, more "European"-looking Israelis and tend to favor the "darker complexioned" Palestinians and other Arabs (al Qaeada? [sic]) because his Muslim African father and cousins?

Obama's father was raised as a Muslim but was not a practicing Muslim as an adult. He was either agnostic or an atheist. He left Obama and Obama's mother when Obama was two years old. Obama has said he has never worshipped in a mosque--which would mean he is not a former Muslim. And he has recently moved to demonstrate his pro-Israel credentials.

The email is not just anti-Obama; it's racist: "Will his election in America temper or EMBOLDEN the 3rd World Terrorist Groups he physically resembles around the world?"

This missive clearly is directed at Jewish American voters. It calls on the "pro-Israeli lobby" to investigate Obama: "He DOES have Muslim roots, you know! Is he a Trojan Horse for anti-Israeli interests? Maybe the American Jewish community ought to THINK about all that." The email adds, "We already KNOW the Clintons are pro-Israeli."

Bill Burton, an Obama spokesman, says that Obama campaign was unaware of the email until Mother Jones asked about it. And the campaign issued a statement: "This is the latest in a string of outlandish and false attacks against Barack Obama. Obama has a strong and consistent record of speaking out for and voting for economic and security assistance for Israel because he believes in a strong U.S.-Israel alliance."

The note yields no clues as to who's behind it. For what it's worth, it does seem to encourage American Jews to vote for HIllary Clinton instead of Obama. But there's no telling what that says about its origins. (Could someone be trying to make the Clinton camp look bad?) But it's another sign of how easy it is for political dirty tricksters to spread malicious and untrue innuendo. Should Obama become the Democrats' presidential nominee, he can expect a flood of similar attacks. In the meantime, the unknown author of this email says, "We're putting [the tape of Obama at the South Carolina church] up on YouTube." So far, nothing is there.

Photo by Flickr user transplanted mountaineer used under a Creative Commons license.

McCain Campaign Uses Lobbyist to Strike Back at Iseman Scandal

A very interesting email from the McCain campaign:

Well, here we go. We could expect attacks were coming; as soon as John McCain appeared to be locking up the Republican nomination, the liberal establishment and their allies at the New York Times have gone on the attack. Today's front-page New York Times story is particularly disgusting — an un-sourced hit-and-run smear campaign designed to distract from the issues at stake in this election. With John McCain leading a number of general-election polls against Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the New York Times knew the time to attack was now, and they did. We will not allow their scurrilous attack against a great American hero to stand.

The New York Times — the newspaper that gave MoveOn.org a sweetheart deal to run advertisements attacking General Petraeus — has shown once again that it cannot exercise good journalistic judgment when it comes to dealing with a conservative Republican....

John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has led the charge to limit the money and influence of the special interests in politics and stomp out corruption. His life and his record prove just how preposterous the smear by the New York Times really is...

The problem? The writer of this email, defending John McCain from accusations of being too close to a lobbyist, is McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis, a former lobbyist himself.

Update: Oh, and by the way — even though the McCain campaign is going to war with the New York Times, it is still touting its recent NYT endorsement on its website.

Belgrade's Burning

Ominous news coming from Belgrade, the Serbian capital, which saw a huge and very nationalistic rally today led by Serbian prime minister Vojislav Kostunica against Kosovo's declaration of independence on Sunday. "Kostunica's rally was scary. It is condensed clero- nationalism never seen before, not even in the 90s," a Belgrade-based analyst writes me. "Initiation of new generation. Messages are terrifying and the night will be tough. Groups (many drunk) are devastating everything they come upon. Many embassies are targets. Turkish embassy is the constant target—there is chaos in front of the embassy. Ambassador is in the building and they [are] ready to shoot if they break in."

Another Belgrade contact writes that independent Radio B92 is reporting that "the American embassy is on fire.....and the people are coming in .... police try to put out the people who come in." He later writes that his sister who lives near the U.S. embassy says, "Now is all peaceful ... two floors of the American embassy are still on fire but fireworkers try to locate the fire....."

MSNBC is reporting that all U.S. staff had already been evacuated from the embassy. But news services later reported that "a charred body was found in the U.S. Embassy." With all US embassy personnel accounted for, "Belgrade's Pink TV said the body appeared to be that of a rioter."

My question: How could the international community led by Washington have screwed this up so badly once again?

A Hill staffer comments on these developments: "Amazing. Everything I read/heard in the weeks leading up to the Kosovar independence announcement was that the Serbs would bitch and complain, but grudgingly accept. For what it’s worth, the Administration briefings I received in the preceding months from [State Department officials] were generally assuring—they were on top of the situation and closely coordinating with European allies."

A U.S. official says: "The Serbs are famous for 'dancing around the campfires of myth and distorted history.' Unfortunately it now appears that today’s campfire is made out of our Embassy. If it were up to me we would break dip relations, cancel all assistance programs, and expel all their dips from DC. Using US embassies for either target practice or kindling is becoming too common."

Meantime, the New York Times' Dan Bilefsky reports:

Serbs in northern Kosovo on Wednesday continued what appeared to be a drive to force a partition three days after the ethnic Albanian majority declared the province's independence from Serbia. A mob of 300 Serbs wielding clubs and tools gathered on a road near this small village of ethnic Albanians in northern Kosovo, prompting NATO to send armored vehicles and tanks to head them off.

"Of course the Serbs are now going to force a partition of northern Kosovo, playing by the same logic that was used to take the province away from Serbia," one astute Balkan watcher observes.

Does the international community have a game plan for that widely anticipated development? What about for if the Serbs in Bosnia decide to try to break away to join Serbia, again?

"I am convinced, all this mess is well coordinated and at the background of this is the struggle of Kostunica to stay in power," a knowledgeable Kosovar Albanian contact in the Kosovo capital Pristina said, noting that the new Serbian government is not constituted yet. "Kosovo is always an excuse (unfortunately). They already strated shouting at each other, [recently re-elected Serbian president Boris] Tadic's people against Kostuncia and vice-versa"

"The north won't be divided for now, but maybe in the future," the Pristina contact adds.

(Photo: The U.S. embassy tonight. Credit: Beta, via B92).

Conservatives Spinning (in Circles) Over Iseman Scandal

So which is it, conservatives? Did the liberal New York Times wait to publish their bombshell until after John McCain had locked up the Republican nomination because the NYT hates Republicans and wants to see the nominee crippled, or did the liberal New York Times wait until John McCain had locked up the Republican nomination because it loves John McCain (it endorsed him, after all), and didn't want to see him maimed with a viable alternative left in the race?

Can we get our spin straight, please?

Update: Oh boy.

Update Update: This post should have conveyed the very real concern I have that this story will end up helping McCain. Hard core conservatives don't like McCain because he is seen as being in bed (ba dum!) with the liberal media — he has repeatedly taken hatchets to his fellow Republicans in order to impress the members of the press, and in return they've showered him with years of adoring coverage. (Or so goes the right-wingers' theory.) Now, he's up against the NYT just like every other conservative has been for years. He's one of them, and deserves their support. Evidence of this thought-process is already evident here.

Can McCain Survive NYT Bombshell About His Coziness with a Female Lobbyist?

The angriest man in America this morning? It's not John McCain; it's Mitt Romney. McCain stands accused by The New York Times of having too cozy a relationship with Vicki Iseman, a lobbyist for telecom firms with interests before a Senate committee he led. But Romney must be gnashing his white-as-can-be teeth over the timing of this disclosure. Though the newspaper had been working on the report for months, it was not published until the revelations could do Romney no good. Which is why Bay Buchanan, who was a strategist for Romney, was braying on CNN last night about the Times' playing politics with this piece.

At the same time, she accused the paper of mounting a smear job. The story does put conservatives in an awkward position. Many hate McCain, but they despise The New York Times. So what do Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, and the others do? It's like choosing between Stalin and Hitler.

Smear job did seem to be the preferred Republican reply. The first email to journalists the McCain campaign sent out in response to the story included quotes from Washington power-lawyer Bob Bennett, a Democrat who had represented McCain in negotiations with the Times. He had appeared on Fox News and called the article a "smear job," comparing it to the "smear campaign" waged against McCain in 2000 prior to the South Carolina primary. (In that ugly episode, McCain critics accused him of siring a child out of wedlock, of being brainwashed in Vietnam, and more.)

But the Bennett statements disseminated by the campaign did not dispute a single fact in the Times article, which noted that McCain had taken official action on behalf of one of Iseman's clients. In a real stunner, the Times story includes on-the-record comments from John Weaver, a former top strategist for McCain, who told the paper about a meeting he had with Iseman, during which he apparently warned her to stay away from McCain. This conversation, Weaver said, followed "a discussion among the campaign leadership" about Iseman. He added, "Ms. Iseman's involvement in the campaign, it was felt by us, could undermine that effort." Iseman disputed Weaver's account of the meeting.

It's unclear what sort of relationship McCain and Iseman had—let's say it, sex or no sex?—but with a former McCain adviser on the record regarding the matter, the story does have solidity. (The paper also refers to unidentified sources involved in the Iseman business.) Weaver, who was forced out of the McCain campaign last year when it appeared to be a lost cause, must have been damn mad if he was talking to reporters about the Iseman affair. Hell hath no fury as a campaign strategist scorned.

Will the piece harm McCain? Was Mike Huckabee wise to stay in the race? The fallout has yet to settle. At this point, McCain may well survive the revelation. The critical question is, is that all there is? If more details come out, more evidence of quid pro quos for Iseman, McCain will be in rough waters. Bay Buchanan—who was clearly conflicted by the McCain-vs.-Times angle—noted that McCain, as of last night, had yet to declare there was no hanky-panky (of the non-legislative type) between him and Iseman. Our party is the party of family values, she noted, and we Republicans need to hear him proclaim he's been faithful to his wife. (Historical note: McCain was not faithful to his first wife.)

McCain is lucky the disclosure is coming out now, for it may well have sunk him in the heat of the earlier primaries. He has plenty of time before the general election. But at this moment, only he and Iseman (and maybe a few others) know if the full truth is bigger—and more damaging—than the story that has appeared.

UPDATE: On Thursday morning, McCain denied that he had ever done any favors for Iseman. He said he had been unaware of any meeting between Weaver and Iseman. He described her as a friend.

UPDATE UPDATE: Limbaugh chose a side on his Thursday show: he came out against the liberal media. He called the article a drive-by shooting and claimed the Times was "trying to destroy" McCain because he is a Republican. That must also be why the Times endorsed McCain.

February 20, 2008

A Campaign to Stop Stoning Abroad, the Un-Liberation of Women and the De-Closeting of Gays at Home

It was inevitable that calls from western feminism to crack down on violence against women in other countries would both help and hurt women there. Take Iran, where a 2002 moratorium ordering a ban on the practice hasn't stopped the carnage. From The Nation:

In the most recent case, two sisters, Zohreh and Azar Kabiri, have been sentenced to stoning for "adultery." (This sentence came after the ninety-nine lashes meted out for "inappropriate relations," which came after a trial notable for its lack of due process.). Equality Now has the whole horrific story, with addresses of officials to address letters calling for a ban on stoning and the decriminalization of "adultery."

That a few men have also been stoned for adultery is no sign of (does this need saying?) either equality or progress. Now, according to Katha Pollitt and Equality Now, Iran is speeding up the process, and maybe efficiently cleaning up the decadent gene pool, with sibling pairs.

According to a comment, the petition included in the article has stopped accepting signatures, but try anyway.

Since we're discussing theocracies, The Nation also analyzes this message for Europe from US conservatives: "have more white babies" because the mongrel hordes of Islam are out-breeding lazy, selfish whites. But that's not really what they're saying, I think. What they're really saying, important as the white supremacy is to them, is: "Quick! Return women to barefoot pregnancy before it's too late and get the gays back in the closet". It's the kindler, gentler stoning and the lash, however infinitely preferable to the real kind, as in Iran:

:...Europe is failing to produce enough babies -- the right babies -- to replace its old and dying. It's "the baby bust," "the birth dearth," "the graying of the continent": Modern euphemisms for old-fashioned race panic as low fertility among white "Western" couples coincides with an increasingly visible immigrant population across Europe. The real root of racial tensions in the Netherlands and France, America's culture warriors tell anxious Europeans, isn't ineffective methods of assimilating new citizens but, rather, decades of "anti-family" permissiveness -- contraception, abortion, divorce, population control, women's liberation and careers, "selfish" secularism and gay rights -- enabling "decadent" white couples to neglect their reproductive duties. Defying the biblical command to "be fruitful and multiply," Europeans have failed to produce the magic number of 2.1 children per couple, the estimated "replacement-level fertility" for developed nations (and a figure repeated so frequently it becomes a near incantation). The white Christian West, in this telling, is in danger of forfeiting itself through sheer lack of numbers to an onslaught of Muslim immigrants and their purportedly numerous offspring.

The piece is long but well worth the read because the battle between left and right here, encapsulated in the presidential election, has everything to do with this. These guys are trying to reinstate The Allies of WWII, united against a common enemy, good versus evil, right versus wrong. Secularism versus theocracy.

Mississippi's Criminal Justice System: Still Burning the Poor Alive

Today Slate, ran a piece on the travesty that is Mississippi's criminal forensics 'system' that defies even this blogger's facility with hyperbole and exaggeration. Where to begin?

According to the National Association of Medical Examiners, a doctor should perform no more than 250 autopsies per year. Dr. Hayne has testified that he performs 1,200 to 1,800 autopsies per year. Sources I spoke with who have visited Hayne's practice say he and his assistants will frequently have multiple bodies open at once, sometimes smoking cigars and even eating sandwiches while moving from corpse to corpse. They prefer to work at night, adding to their macabre reputation.

These jokers aren't even certified, having failed the exam in the 1980s and, Mississippi being Mississippi, knew not to bother re-testing. Think I'm being hard on the state (from which my own dear cotton-picking mother fled in the 40's)?

Mississippi's system is set up in a way that increases the pressure on forensics experts to find what prosecutors want them to find. The state is one of several that elect county coroners to oversee death investigations. The office requires no medical training, only a high-school diploma, and it commonly goes to the owner of the local funeral home. If a coroner suspects a death may be due to criminal activity, he'll consult with the district attorney or sheriff, then send the body to a private-practice medical examiner for an autopsy. The problem here is that a medical examiner who returns unsatisfactory results to a prosecutor jeopardizes his chance of future referrals. Critics say Hayne has become the preferred medical examiner for Mississippi's coroners and district attorneys, because they can rely on him to deliver the diagnoses they're looking for.

Under state law, this whole process is supposed to be overseen by a board-certified state medical examiner. The last two people to hold that office, Dr. Lloyd White from 1988 to 1992 and Dr. Emily Ward from 1993 to 1995, were appalled at the way the state was handling death investigations. Both tried to implement reforms. And both were met with fiery resistance. Dr. Ward's tenure was particularly raucous. West (who at the time was the elected county coroner for Forrest County) circulated a petition signed by slightly more than half the state's coroners calling for her resignation. The legislature has largely refused to fund the office since. It's been vacant since 1995.

Read the whole piece and take a gander at how judges handled the piece's three poster boys for wrongful, heartbreaking, incarceration. Call me a victimologist, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that poor blacks outnumber the many never-had-a-chance good ole boys also no doubt moldering unjustly at the state's notorious prisons. Yes, railroading the poor is bad. Railroading by race is worse.

Some things just take away the words. Either pieces like this keep you up at night or they don't. It's not the racial angle, overwhelmingly. It's knowing that this sort of injustice could happen even to the non-usual subjects in a system like Mississippi's, should the kingpins take a mind to do so. Injustice anywhere is truly injustice everywhere. If it could happen to 'them' it could happen to you.