Now for a few words about Afghanistan...

Over five years after the fall of the Taliban, the promise of a free, moderate, democratic state in Afghanistan has all but collapsed, as Kabul gradually becomes another Tehran.

And for some reason, nobody seems to care.

Sure, there was a little bit of controversy when Abdul Rahman was put on trial for converting to Christianity. But other than a furious volley of indignant finger wagging, the benefactors of Afghanistan's new government did nothing.

Abdul Rahman was deported to Paris.
Christians remain widely persecuted in Afghanistan.

A quick glance at the opening articles of the U.S. approved constitution of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan reveals the root of the problem:

Article One

Afghanistan is an Islamic Republic, independent, unitary and indivisible state.

Article Two

The religion of the state of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is the sacred religion of Islam.

Followers of other religions are free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites within the limits of the provisions of law.

Article Three

In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam."

In other words, people can practice non-Islamic religions within the limits of the law, but all laws have to be in agreement with the tenets of the Islamic faith. If freedom of religion conflicts with Islamic law, Islam, not freedom, prevails. So, even though the constitution pays lip-service to the western concepts of freedom of speech, religion, etc., as soon as any of these things are perceived as "contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam" they can be tossed out the window like so much rotten hummus.

Afghanistan is an Islamic theocracy.

In February, Afghanistan's parliament passed a law granting amnesty to any jihadists found guilty of war-crimes committed during the uprising against the Soviets and the civil war of the 1990s, with one representative voicing the opinion that if law enforcement were to pursue these war criminals it would "tarnish the name of jihad". Yesterday, another disturbing development surfaced. The government of Afghanistan is now seeking to control the media in order to silence non-Islamic and other dissenting voices within the country:

(From Al-Jazeera)
"Afghanistan's parliament is on the brink of passing a new media law that may considerably reduce the independence of the country's media.

The controversial amendments to the law, proposed by the religious and cultural affairs commission of the parliament, chaired by former regional commander Haji Mohammed Mohaqeq and supported by the government, will bring both private and state media under greater government control.

Proposed changes include an oversight committee that will scrutinise the functioning of the media including its content
....
Control of content will be guided through clauses which include prohibitions that prevent publicity of any other religion than Islam, prohibit the media from producing any content that is unislamic or jeopardises the stability of the nation or any false information which might disrupt public opinion.
...
The government's determination of what are facts will result in one-sided reportage. Already there have been several attempts to impose guidelines for reporting on the media with a wide-ranging list of subjects which should not be reported.

The recently passed amnesty bill, immunising all jihadis from prosecution also sought to introduce a clause which would force the media to honour the jihadis in any reportage. Both moves were dropped under pressure but may be reintroduced through this bill."

The only thing worse than the story itself is the fact that this story was entirely ignored by the American media. In fact, very little about Afghanistan seems to come out of the mainstream media these days. Why? I really have no idea. Maybe people just aren't as interested in hearing about a fledgling democracy traveling down the road towards Islamization as they are in hearing Alec Baldwin cussing at his 11 year-old daughter over the phone.

Still, the silence of the media isn't quite as distressing as the silence of our President and the rest of the government of the United States at Afghanistan's increasing disregard for the liberty we gave them. Apparently, due to the invasion of Afghanistan's status as a "good war", both sides of the political aisle would rather shut up and look the other way rather than admit that our experiment with Islamic democracy isn't going completely peachy.

But whether or not America chooses to ignore it, the situation in Afghanistan doesn't look like it's going to get any better in the foreseeable future. Although moderate Muslims continue to insist that Islam and western-style democracy are perfectly compatible, the facts seem to suggest otherwise.

Romney is a pander-bear.

For a guy who already has plenty of people accusing him of being a greasy, pandering weasel, Mitt Romney seems to have a surprising lack of restraint when it comes to telling obvious untruths in public. Mitt Romney just keeps on making it so incredibly easy to make fun of Mitt Romney.

His latest bout with foot-in-mouth disease?
A misguided attempt to win over the flannel and firearms crowd:

(Glen Johnson, The Associated Press)
"To hear Mitt Romney talk on the campaign trail, you might think the Republican presidential candidate had a gun rack in the back of his pickup truck. 'I purchased a gun when I was a young man. I've been a hunter pretty much all my life,' he said this week in Keene, N.H., to a man sporting a National Rifle Association cap.

Yet the former Massachusetts governor's hunting experience is limited to two trips at the bookends of his 60 years: as a 15-year-old, when he hunted rabbits with his cousins on a ranch in Idaho, and last year, when he shot quail on a fenced game preserve in Georgia."

Exaggerating one's hunting-cred probably isn't the worst of all possible sins. And, yes, technically one could claim that the nominee-wanna-be's story was true, using a line of reason that would go something like this:

He hunted when he was young, and he hunted when he was old. In the period between hunting trips, one remains a hunter. Therefore, Mitt Romney has been a hunter for most of his life.

But anyone willing to take a fair and balanced look at Romney will quickly recognize him as a man with a disturbing habit of re-inventing himself to pander to whoever happens to be standing within a one-mile radius. It's almost as if he doesn't realize that when a politician in our country says something, it doesn't just vanish into the eternal fog of time and space. It gets recorded, printed in newspapers, published online, played back on television and radio, and if it's something stupid, the American people will know it. A politician who lives by the rule of speak first, answer questions later is going to get shredded into tiny pieces in the vita-mix of free press and served to the public as a delicious smoothie of failed ambition.

Still, I hope Mitt stays around long enough to give a speech in front of the NAACP. One can only imagine the tasty sound-bites that would usher forth from Mitt Romney's golden larynx:

"I became a civil-rights advocate when I was a young man. I've been a person of color pretty much all my life"

Until then, here's hoping that the ridiculously large amount of money that Mitt Romney's managed to plunder from his zombie-like following keeps him going for a few more months. Writing about politics just wouldn't be the same without him.