Politics

Mike Huckabee’s problems continue to accumulate. There’s the little problem of his son David hanging a dog by its neck, slitting its throat, and stoning it to death–and the fact that Huckabee himself defends this animal cruelty (of the sort that’s often a precursor to serial killing of human beings) on the grounds that the dog was emaciated and had mange. (You may recall that Mitt Romney has a similar, though not nearly as nasty, poor record with dogs.) David Huckabee killed the dog when he was 17 and was never prosecuted, but in April he faced a weapons charge for trying to take a loaded handgun through airport security in Little Rock. Huckabee also claimed to Pat Robertson’s CBN that “I’m the only guy on that stage with a theology degree,” but he doesn’t have a theology degree–he only attended Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary for a year, he’s a theology-school dropout. Then there’s his role in calling for the 1999 release of convicted rapist Wayne Dumond, who was strongly defended by Baptist minister Jay Cole, a close friend of the Huckabee family. Some conservative activists apparently defended Dumond on the grounds that one of his rape victims was a distant cousin of Bill Clinton and the daughter of a major Clinton campaign contributor. Several victims wrote letters to Huckabee describing Dumond’s brutality, but Huckabee was quoted in a column by Steve Dunleavy titled “Clinton’s Biggest Crime–Left Innocent Man in Jail for 14 Years” saying that “There is grave doubt to the circumstances of this reported crime.” But as we know today, Dumond was guilty–he was released from prison in September 1999, apparently with some help from Huckabee, and he raped and murdered two women. Huckabee has refused to release his administration’s records pertaining to Dumond on grounds that they contain sensitive law enforcement information. In 1992, Huckabee called for AIDS victims to be quarantined, and refused to retract that position just recently, despite the fact that the disease is not spread through casual contact (which was also well known in 1992). On top of all of this, Huckabee appears to be genuinely dumb. While governor of Arkansas, Canadian comedian Rick Mercer fooled Huckabee into congratulating Canadians on preserving their capitol building, the national igloo. He is a proud disbeliever in evolution and has publicly supported creationism, though now he refuses to answer questions about it. He thinks that women’s role in marriage should be to “submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband”. And in the December 11 Republican debate, Huckabee pledged to repeal the laws of thermodynamics, stating that “We ought to declare that we will be free of energy consumption in this country within a decade, bold as that is." Intrade currently puts Huckabee’s chances of obtaining the Republican presidential nomination at 16.8%, third behind Giuliani (36.0%) and Romney (22.0%) and ahead of McCain (8.8%) and Paul (8.5%). But it also puts him at the leading candidate for getting the Republican vice presidential nomination, at 28.9%, well ahead of Pawlenty (10.1%), Romney (8.6%), Thompson (7.6%), and Gingrich (6.5%). UPDATE (December 25, 2007): Mike Huckabee’s tied to Christian reconstructionists and thinks that the Ten Commandments are the basis of U.S. law (even though seven of the ten would be unconstitutional). ...

Last night Einzige and I attended the Goldwater Institute’s award dinner for Ayaan Hirsi Ali at the Phoenician resort in Scottsdale, where she was given the 2007 Goldwater Award for her work in support of freedom, in defense of women against the oppression they face in Islamic countries. Copies of her autobiographical book, Infidel, were given to each table and I obtained the copy at our table since most everyone at the table had already read it and no one accepted my challenge to fight for it. It was a rainy night and it was a huge event, with about 800 attendees. It took me about 25 minutes to get from the entrance of the Phoenician to the event venue, where I later heard that valets parked 400 cars for the event. It seemed as if the Phoenician wasn’t used to hosting an event of that size, which can’t possibly be true. I was extremely surprised to see that the schedule for the event included an invocation. I have attended multiple Goldwater events in the past (such as the screening of “Mr. Conservative”), but this was the first time I had been to one that included a prayer. I noted at the table that it seemed disrespectful in the extreme that an event honoring an atheist would begin with a prayer. The prayer itself was an ecumenical, non-sectarian “meditation” (as the individual who spoke referred to it) of the sort likely to be as offensive to hardcore Christians as it is to atheists for its failure to appeal to Jesus Christ, but it was still a public verbal appeal to an imaginary being for his approval and support. It reminded me a little bit of the “Agnostic’s Prayer” in Roger Zelazny’s book Creatures of Light and Darkness, which goes like this (p. 40): Insofar as I may be heard by anything, which may or may not care what I say, I ask, if it matters, that you [a man about to die in a “suicide show” who the speaker has put his hand upon the head of] be forgiven for anything you may have done or failed to do which requires forgiveness. Conversely, if not forgiveness but something else may be required to insure any possible benefit for which you may be eligible after the destruction of your body, I ask that this, whatever it may be, be granted or withheld, as the case may be, in such a manner as to insure your receiving said benefit. I ask this in my capacity as your elected intermediary between yourself and that which may not be yourself, but which may have an interest in the matter of your receiving as much as it is possible for you to receive of this thing, and which may in some way be influenced by this ceremony. Amen.And I continue to fail to understand why Christians cannot abide by Matthew 6:5-7. The dinner at the event was phenomenal, though portions were small (filet mignon was the main course). Steve Forbes gave a keynote speech which was well done; it was primarily a recounting of some of the basic principles necessary for economic freedom, such as the importance of the rule of law and a system of stable property rights. Regarding property rights, I was pleased that he commented on a survey of businesses and property in Egypt that found that most businesses and buildings were illegal under the country’s laws, and noted that this is common throughout the world. Having recently read Robert Neuwirth’s excellent book Shadow Cities, I’m aware that over a billion people in the world live in squatter cities where they are illegally occupying land and often develop their own informal property rights that are not legally enforceable but tend to be respected within their own communities. Countries which manage to give some kind of enforceable title to such people can dramatically unlock wealth and improve their conditions. The part of Forbes’ talk which most caught my attention, however, was his discussion of the current mortgage crisis. He stated that this is a mere blip, so long as the government doesn’t overreact. He claimed that there is perhaps $400-$500 billion in losses hiding in securitized mortgage packages, which should be easy for the market to take since that’s the amount lost in a bad day on the stock market. The concern is that government or bankers will overreact and withdraw liquidity from everyone (rather than just bad risks) at a time when it is needed. In my opinion, Forbes understates the risks because he repeatedly assumed that the problem exists only within subprime loans, which is already demonstrably false. American Home Mortgage of Tucson, which filed for bankruptcy in August, did not originate subprime loans at all, only “Alt-A” loans, which fall between prime and subprime. The root of the problem has been people of all levels of credit risk using their homes as ATMs who are now underwater, and in particular those using adjustable rate mortgages. This article from someone inside the mortgage industry sets out a worst-case scenario that I think is far more plausible than Forbes’ rosy picture, which fails to account for the cascading effects of foreclosures, bankruptcies, and loss of real estate jobs on the broader consumer-driven economy. But in any case, he predicts that the mortgage crisis will be over before the end of 2008, so by this time next year we will know who is right. Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s talk was actually an interview conducted by Darcy Olsen, the president of the Goldwater Institute, who asked her a series of questions about growing up in Somalia, her subsequent life, what motivated her to escape Islamic fundamentalism and her arranged marriage, and so forth. She was well-spoken (especially for a non-native speaker of English) and charming, and told of being inspired by works of fiction about individual freedom while living in a community that emphasized submission to family, tribe, and nation. Her sources of inspiration were all secular, of course, though surprisingly included Barbara Cartland romance novels and Nancy Drew mysteries as well as books like Huckleberry Finn. Afterward, I stood in line to get my book signed, and had a chance to speak to her directly. Although I thought of asking her what she thought of being honored at an event that opened with a prayer, our brief exchange went something like this: JL: Have you heard of the Internet Infidels? AHA: No. (She smiles.) JL: It’s at infidels.org, it is a group critical of religion. Are you familiar with Ibn Warraq? [I had also meant to mention Internet Infidels supporter Taslima Nasrin, but couldn’t remember her last name.] AHA: Yes. JL: Some of his material is published there, though it mostly focuses on Christianity, since it’s a bigger source of problems in this country. AHA: I think I would disagree that Christianity is a bigger problem than Islam in this country. JL: It’s Christianity that has control of the government here. And then I stepped away with my book, and joined the long line at valet parking right behind Barry Goldwater, Jr. I tipped my valet with a $20, which he seemed very pleased to receive, and then thought that I should have said “this is a tip from an atheist,” since I saw several other people (not Goldwater) apparently fail to tip at all, even though they were more elegantly dressed and driving vehicles several times the price of mine. Ayaan Hirsi Ali seems to be focused exclusively on Islam–not surprising given her history. Several of her answers were somewhat defensive of Christianity (no doubt appealing to her audience), at least by comparison to Islam, much like her response to me above. Yet the Bible contains teachings very similar to the Koran in regard to calling for the death of unbelievers, the subjection of women, slavery, and so forth–the difference is that there are fewer who endorse those teachings, perhaps in part because Christianity has gone through a Reformation while Islam has not. UPDATE: Note that Wikipedia reports that Hirsi Ali has admitted to falsifying some information in her application for asylum in the Netherlands (specifically her name, date of birth, and claim to have spent time in refugee camps on the border of Somalia and Kenya), and her family disputes her account of her forced marriage, though Hirsi Ali has provided letters from family members (including her father) to the New York Times which substantiate her account. It was the exposure of her fabrications on her asylum application that led her to step down as a Member of the Dutch Parliament and led to Rita Verdonk saying that her Dutch nationality was therefore invalid, which was subsequently overridden by vote of Parliament. This blog post quotes from a Reason magazine interview of Hirsi Ali that shows that she is somewhat extreme and illiberal in her position regarding Islam, as well as having some unusual ideas about Christianity (e.g., she thinks Catholics have a conception of God where there is no hell). One commenter at the Reason blog compared her to Ann Coulter. This post critiques her understanding of Islam as overly simplistic, like confusing all of Christianity with its most extreme fundamentalist varieties. UPDATE (February 20, 2008): I’ve just finished reading Hirsi Ali’s book, Infidel, and I highly recommend it. Contrary to my statement above, it wasn’t the “exposure of her fabrications on her asylum application that led her to step down” as an MP; she had been open with many people, including the press, about having used the name Ali instead of Magan on her asylum application and claiming to be a refugee from Somalia instead of a resident of Kenya fleeing a forced marriage to a Canadian. UPDATE (May 5, 2024): Since at least November of 2023, Hirsi Ali now identifies as a Christian, which for her seems to be a cultural stance not grounded in any reasons for believing Christianity to be true. UPDATE (January 11, 2025): Ayaan Hirsi Ali is no longer a remotely serious person. ...

It turns out that part of the intelligence case for Iraq WMD claims and a concern about al-Qaeda trying to obtain them was the result of false confessions extracted via waterboarding and hypothermia treatment. UPDATE (January 27, 2010): The CIA operative, John Kiriakou, who claimed in the media that Zubaydah produced accurate intelligence information as a result of waterboarding has now retracted the claim in his new book. He gave accurate information before waterboarding, and, as Andrew Sullivan points out in the link above, inaccurate information as a result of waterboarding. ...

Mitt Romney made his long-awaited “JFK-style” speech, which was hoped to alleviate concerns that he would rely on Mormon religious authority as the ultimate authority in making political decisions rather than the Constitution. His statement to that effect was rather weak, however, and he never actually came out and said that he would rely on the Constitution as the ultimate authority for his political decisions. He stated that “I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.” But he did assert that lack of faith was grounds for rejection of a candidate, and made the absurd statement that “Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone." Romney did say (as the Arizona Republic reported, but CNN did not, in the above link) that “Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.” Conversely, the Republic failed to report Romney’s “freedom requires religion” statement. For Romney, it is clear that he does not agree with Jefferson, Madison, and the Constitutional Convention that the First Amendment protects the nonbeliever as well as the believer (as is clear from their writings, their actions as president, and from earlier drafts of the First Amendment that were rejected). Instead, his version of the Constitution requires everyone to belong to some religion, whether it’s a cult founded by a con artist or an ancient world religion. He thinks that freedom and religion always must coexist, despite thousands of years and millions of people worth of evidence to the contrary. (Though perhaps his “requires” is a moral claim, that in order to be worthwhile or good, those things must come together–in which case I’d agree that religion requires freedom, but not that freedom requires religion.) The Republic also noted another serious defect in Romney’s comprehension of the First Amendment: At the same time, he decried those who would remove from public life “any acknowledgment of God,” and he said that “during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places.”Such scenes are already welcome in public places, so long as those public places are equally open to religious and secular displays by believer and nonbeliever alike. The only thing that is forbidden is exclusively allowing displays by a particular religion, which of course is what many Christians are actually demanding. For such an exclusive right favoring a particular religion or religion over nonreligion, displays must be on private property. It’s a simple and fair concept, but the religious right repeatedly misrepresents it and falsely claims to be oppressed because they aren’t given special privileges that no one else has, and whines and complains when something happens like a Hindu giving a prayer before Congress. And nobody has tried to prevent Romney, Giuliani, and the rest of the presidential candidates from their repeated references to God, despite the transparent phoniness of most of their claims to faith. It’s clear that most of them are simply signalling to the religious right that they will continue to be granted special preferences, rather than truly displaying what they believe–their records of political expedience and lack of integrity speak more loudly than their words. With people of such opinions in political power, explicitly willing to deny political freedoms to those who are nonbelievers and grant special privileges to anything calling itself a religion, it should not be surprising that some people will, out of pure expedience and self-defense, take steps to convert atheism into a religion. Yet that should be unnecessary under our Constitution, as a Washington Post editorial on Romney’s speech agrees. UPDATE: DI Fellow John Mark Reynolds comments on and posts the entirety of Romney’s speech, which is certainly better than the quotes above would suggest–he does criticize the establishment of religion in the Massachusetts colony, for example: “Today’s generations of Americans have always known religious liberty. Perhaps we forget the long and arduous path our nation’s forbearers took to achieve it. They came here from England to seek freedom of religion. But upon finding it for themselves, they at first denied it to others." UPDATE: P.Z. Myers and Greg Laden each give their take on Romney’s speech. And here’s Christopher Hitchens’ view. ...

Dan Smith has written a very nice critique of Rep. Jane Harman’s attempt to create a new McCarthyism with her HR1955, the “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act." UPDATE (July 18, 2009): I must agree with commenter Jack–HR1955/S.1959 doesn’t criminalize anything or create any law enforcement powers for the commission that it orders to solicit testimony and write a report. There’s nothing in the bill that amends the Homeland Security Act to add any new crimes or enforcement capabilities. No doubt the commission will make legislative recommendations (and I think having such a commission is a bad idea), but this bill itself doesn’t do so. ...

Chris Comer, the director of science curriculum for the Texas Education Agency, was forced to resign from her position. Her offense? Forwarding an email from the National Center for Science Education announcing a talk by philosopher and intelligent design critic Barbara Forrest, and adding the text “FYI." The call to fire Comer came from Lizzette Reynolds, formerly at the U.S. Department of Education and former deputy legislative director for Texas Gov. George W. Bush. She wrote in an email to Comer’s supervisors that “This is highly inappropriate. I believe this is an offense that calls for termination or, at the very least, reassignment of responsibilities." The movie “Expelled” makes a big deal about cases like the Sternberg affair, where nobody lost a job or responsibilities, and the denial of tenure to Guillermo Gonzales, whose publication record didn’t merit tenure. But here’s a case of someone who appears to have actually been removed from her position for sending out an announcement of a talk critical of intelligent design–a subject which the courts have already ruled is unconstitutional to teach in the science classroom. TEA officials claim that Comer was removed for “repeated acts of misconduct and insubordination,” which Comer describes as really meaning her concerns about teaching creationism in schools. The Texas Republican Party platform explicitly advocates teaching intelligent design in public schools. Wesley Elsberry has more about the Comer case at the Austringer blog, where he wonders whether the Discovery Institute will decry Comer’s firing, since they’ve been willing to stretch the facts to complain about cases with far less substance to them: Will the Discovery Institute come forward to say that the TEA is repressing Ms. Comer’s free speech rights? Will they urge her to become the star of the “Expelled” movie? After all, she did actually lose her job over her stance on evolution in education, as opposed to various people noted as being featured in the film who did not. But the DI is unlikely to do so because Ms. Comer is on the opposite side of the issue from them. They aren’t defending a principle, they are pushing a particular line of propaganda.I agree with Wesley. The Discovery Institute has a long record of misrepresenting facts (and not just about science) in order to promote its views. I suspect they will either remain silent or try to defend Comer’s removal. Pharyngula also comments on Comer’s removal, including the following explanation from Comer’s boss: the forwarding of this event announcement by Ms. Comer, as the Director of Science, from her TEA email account constitutes much more than just sharing information. Ms. Comer’s email implies endorsement of the speaker and implies that TEA endorses the speaker’s position on a subject on which the agency must remain neutral. Thus, sending this email compromises the agency’s role in the TEKS revision process by creating the perception that TEA has a biased position on a subject directly related to the science education TEKS.As P.Z. Myers comments: “Whoa. The Texas Education Agency is neutral on the subject of teaching good science? It’s bad if the TEA takes a position on the subject of science education? Apparently, TEA members are supposed to close their eyes and maximize ignorance before making decisions. I really feel sorry for Texas." UPDATE (December 2, 2007): And more, from Texas Citizens for Science (via Pharyngula). UPDATE (December 4, 2007): The New York Times editorializes on this subject. UPDATE (December 6, 2007): DI Fellow John Mark Reynolds agrees that TEA is in the wrong here. UPDATE (December 12, 2007): The Society for the Study of Evolution has sent an open letter to “Texas TEA." UPDATE (December 20, 2007): Glenn Branch has written a nice blog post about his email that cost Comer her job. UPDATE (July 3, 2008): Chris Comer has filed a lawsuit regarding her termination. ...

The unclassified, for official use only, operations manual for U.S. soldiers stationed at Guantanamo Bay has been leaked to the Internet on the Wikileaks.org website, which is being crushed by traffic at the moment. The manual allegedly contradicts U.S. military claims that the International Committee of the Red Cross has not been denied access to some parts of the facility at Guantanamo. The manual unsurprisingly prohibits soldiers from subjecting prisoners to “abuse, or any form of corporal punishment,” since specific interrogation procedures are no doubt covered in separate classified documents. Still, it’s a good thing to see in writing. A Reuters story at Yahoo has more specifics, and I’m sure we’ll see mirrored copies of the document appearing elsewhere to reduce the load on Wikileaks.org. ...

If you advocate torture and car bombs, how can you have any moral justification for saying that those who use such tactics against us are wrong or evil?

Declan McCullagh live-blogged the U.S. House of Representatives hearing on “Yahoo Inc.’s Provision of False Information to Congress," which was about an incident in which Yahoo responded to a subpoena from the Chinese government for the identity of a subscriber who turned out to be a Chinese reporter, who was convicted of leaking “state secrets." Anybody note anything ironic or hypocritical in these excerpts? 10:20 a.m. ET: Apparently, the Beijing State Security Bureau provided a document to Yahoo–similar to the FBI’s national security letters–to Yahoo China on April 24, 2004. It invoked the term “state secrets” when demanding information about Shi Tao. Callahan never saw the document, which was written in Chinese, before testifying last year. Lantos says Callahan should have demanded a translation before his testimony, and Yahoo should have known that any request invoking state secrets is suspect because “state secrets is a trick phrase used to fabricate phony but devastating (charges against an) innocent person who shares our values in an open and free society." 10:30 a.m. ET Now the two Yahoo execs are being asked to apologize to Shi Tao’s mother, who is sitting in a front row of the hearing room. Lantos: “I would urge you to beg the forgiveness of the mother whose son is languishing behind bars thanks to Yahoo’s actions.” I wonder if Lantos and other Patriot Act supporters will apologize to Americans like Brandon Mayfield (falsely jailed under the Patriot Act) or Sami al-Hussayen (a Webmaster who provided hyperlinks to Muslim sites and was prosecuted under the Patriot Act). 10:45 a.m. ET Rep. Chris Smith, the New Jersey Republican who was chairman of the Foreign Affairs panel last year, is now speaking. He’s saying that “Yahoo knew the police requests had to do with ‘state secrets.’” That may not be as descriptive as he (and the other panelists) seem to think. It seems to me that it’s a catchall term that’s probably invoked regularly by China’s security apparatchiks. It’s not like the police requests said “give us this information so we can put an innocent journalist in jail." 12:20 p.m. ET Now it’s Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican: “Were any of them fired?” He’s referring to Yahoo employees. Rohrabacher again: “Are you going to comply with requests from authoritarian governments in the future?” Callahan replies: “We are looking at ways to operationally and legally structure the entity… so we would not have to do that." 12:52 p.m. ET Lantos again, to Yahoo’s Callahan, excerpted: “Morally you are pygmies… An appallingly disappointing performance. I think we cannot begin to tell you how disappointing Mr. Yang’s and your performance was… attempt to obfuscate and divert… outrageous behavior."Why don’t we see some of this moral outrage from Congress directed at the executive branch of the United States, at a time when 64% of the country disapproves and 50% of the country strongly disapproves of the president’s performance (beating Nixon’s worst performance)?

Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars observes that “the US has not only always considered waterboarding to be torture, but has aggressively prosecuted other nation’s for war crimes for using that technique on American POWs,” quoting Judge Evan Wallach: After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: “I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure.” He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. “Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning,” he replied, “just gasping between life and death." ...