Maybe She Should Just Stay Home and Bake Cookies.

Watching the most recent Democratic candidates debate made me wonder...

Who actually likes Hillary anyways?

And I'm not just saying that because I disagree with her on "the issues", because she's married to Bill, or because of the ridiculous faux-southern accent incident. I'm saying that because I believe she's a genuinely unappealing candidate, in almost every possible way.

The first strike against Hillary is her lack of a definable personality. The other candidates standing on stage last Sunday were pretty easy to peg: Biden was audacious and unfiltered, Edwards was as slick as a greased pig, Obama was the slow, steady guy, Dodd was gruff and authoritative, Gravel was like a giant, rabid, hairless squirrel, and so on and so forth. But what was Hillary? I really don't know. I don't even think she knows. There wasn't anything in her performance to particularly praise or deride, kind of like a kid in a school play who isn't bad enough to be funny or good enough to get applause, and who's role is immediately forgotten as soon as she walks off the stage. With all due respect, her style of communication would go a lot further in the world of PBS documentary voice overs. She may not be able to get a crowd fired up about health care, but just listen in awe as she elaborates on the migration patterns and feeding habits of the rare and majestic Guinea Baboons of Senegal.

To be fair, it has to be said that her personality crisis isn't entirely her fault. Friends of Hillary have often noted that the warm, funny Hillary they know is almost nothing like the cold, stilted Hillary that appears on TV. I'm not exactly an expert on social theory but I think I have a pretty good idea of what's causing Hillary's dichotomous persona:

(1) Hillary is a woman.
(2) In the past, all of our presidents have been men.
(3) Therefore, as a society, we expect our president to be (for the most part) masculine and tough.
(4) Masculine, tough women freak most people out.
(5) If Hillary acts masculine and tough, she will freak most people out.
(6) If Hillary doesn't act masculine and tough, she will appear too weak to be the president.

Basically, Hillary exists in a state of political purgatory, unable to go to either end of the personality spectrum without alienating people. In the end, her choice to embrace a somewhat bland, undefinable personality is actually quite logical.

The second strike against Hillary is her puzzling attempt to appear moderate in order to appeal to disaffected Republicans. Let's face it: Hillary Clinton is Hillary Clinton, and no Republican will ever like Hillary Clinton. When asked about Hillary Clinton, a Republican will likely tell you that she is either (A) the Antichrist, (B) Satan, or (C) the bride of Satan, but never will you hear him or her tell you that she is (D) a candidate that they are earnestly considering voting for. Hillary is sacrificing her radical base in order to pander to people who will carry their hatred of her to their graves. This is a really dumb thing to do.

And of course, the final strike against Hillary is the heavy proliferation of creepy (and probably photoshopped) Hillary pictures, like this one:



Enough said.

Shedding Tiers.

Whether it happens to be a day, a week, or a month from now, Fred Thompson will announce his entry into the 2008 presidential race.

And deep down inside, it kind of makes me sad.

It's not that there's anything particularly wrong with Fred himself; he's consistently conservative (with a few niggles, like his support for the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act), he possesses an intangible aura of authority, he was in The Hunt For Red October, and he has a rustic southern voice that makes you feel like you're skinning an alligator in a log cabin built on a Louisiana swamp, while eight floppy-eared-hound-dogs lie at your feet, gnawing on a possum carcass.

No, what really gets me down is the fact that Fred Thompson's entry will make the already ignored and irrelevant "bottom tier" candidates even more ignored and irrelevant. You know who I'm talking about: people like Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, Tommy Thompson, Ron Paul, Jim Gilmore and Duncan Hunter. Candidates who, for the most part, have said the right things, done the right things, avoided embarrassing personal scandals, and in some cases sport impressive political track-records, but still continually fail to generate any sort of "buzz" around their campaigns. Candidates who've attempted to reach out and embrace the conservative base, only to be met with vigorous snubbings all around.

Do they actually deserve such a magnitude of snubbery?

A few of them probably do. Although ex-pastor Mike Huckabeee is firmly pro-life, and can conjure up more homey southern anecdotes than a 'coon cookin' up grits in a henhouse, his liberal social-service views are something of a pill of poison for fiscal conservatives to swallow. Additionally, Tommy Thompson, who I had the unique displeasure of seeing in person, has several policies that can only be described as genuinely bizarre, and Ron Paul appeared more than a little nutty in the debates.

But what about the other guys?

There's Duncan Hunter, who effectively conveys a strong sense of military-style authority, while maintaining all of the cold-prickly views that conservatives hold near and dear to their hearts (slash spending on lazy bums who won't work, increase spending on the military, deport illegals, bomb-bomb-bomb bomb-bomb Iran etc.), Sam Brownback, who has an impressive pro-life legislative record, if not the most charisma, Tom Tancredo, who, despite his bitter/uncomfortable/mean/spacey appearance in the debates, is solidly conservative and surprisingly friendly, and last but not least, Jim Gilmore, who.... probably hasn't committed any felonies. They're all reasonably good people with reasonably good track-records and reasonably good plans for America's future.

But for some reason, conservatives just can't be satisfied with their options. They have to salivate over a big, bald actor from Tennessee who smokes non-Cuban cigars and drives the kind of pick-up truck that men respect, women love, and tiny animals fear. Unlike the other candidates, ol' Fred Thompson seems to be able to magically attract the kind of flag-saluting, troop-supporting, nascar-watching, french-bashing conservatives that Republican candidates need in order to survive. And better yet, he can do it without lifting a single one of his presently nicotine-stained fingers, employing a political style that can only be described as "napping towards victory" (apologies to Dave Barry). Regardless of whether or not there are other candidates with more experience or equally conservative positions, Fred Thompson simply has an undefinable something that automatically places him in the big leagues of presidential politics, while the undefinable something-less candidates flounder in perpetual obscurity.

And that's what makes Fred's entrance into the race so sad. Although he doesn't have a 100% chance of winning the Republican nomination, he'll snatch up all of the unenthusiastic support that the poor little guys have managed to grub up in the past few months. Tancredo, Brownback, Hunter, Huckabee and all the rest will try to hold campaign events across the country and absolutely no one will show up; the candidates will be left standing in empty auditoriums and pavilions, trying to wipe away their tears with carefully prepared pages of now-useless notes, wondering how it all went wrong, as their underpaid campaign managers attempt to offer reassurance and Dixie-cups of sugar-free lemonade.

So, to all the over-looked, insignificant, unpopular or unappealing Republican candidates reading this, I can only say:

I'm sorry. I really am.

Another Long Iraq Article...

In the 2006 elections, the Republicans didn't lose because of corruption within the party, because they spent money like drunken sailors, or because they inflated our national debt to an almost unfathomable extent. They lost because of Iraq. As terrible as the Republican party's apparent desertion of it's fiscal conservative heritage may have been, mismanaged money just doesn't have the same emotional impact on the voting public as thousands of American men and women coming home in boxes. After decades (perhaps centuries) of government corruption, we expect waste, debt and bribery, but no amount of jading can make the citizens of America emotionally dead to death itself, especially if it's for a vague cause that very few actually care about or support.

So it's not exactly surprising that ending, or at least decreasing U.S. involvement in Iraq remains the #1 pillar of the Democratic party's presidential platform. When the vast majority of American citizens oppose a war, leading the fight against that war is generally a sure-fire way to win the support of the vast majority of American citizens.

But what if election day '08 rolls around and the Iraq war is virtually over? And what if the force behind the American pull-out is none other than George W. Bush and his "war-mongering" Republican party?

A GOP U-turn on the issue of Iraq makes a lot of sense from a political standpoint. No matter how many people lean towards the Republican party's positions on social and economic issues, the seemingly never-ending conflict in Iraq is causing millions of voters (especially the so-called "swing voters") to migrate to the anti-war Democrats. If the obstacle of Iraq is removed, and if Republicans play a key role in removing it, they can regain millions of votes, help George W. Bush salvage an almost-positive legacy, and pave the way to a Republican victory in '08 by demolishing the foundation of the Democratic party's new-found popularity. In other words, if the Republicans can beat the Democrats at their own game and end the war, Republicans win.

Is this a little far-fetched? Yes. But not entirely implausible. The first step Republicans need to take in order to bring the war to an end is to find a way to change their position without ever admitting that they were wrong in the first place. Over the past few months, Republicans have been doing just that. How? By slowly shifting blame for the current situation in Iraq from the incompetent U.S. government to the incompetent Iraqi government. The Republicans have ceased preaching unconditional support for the democratic government we helped create, and are now sending a clear message to the Al-Maliki administration: if we don't see any results, you won't see our men dying to prop up a failed system:

(From the Reuters News Service)
The top-ranking Republican in the U.S. Senate on Sunday expressed frustration with the Iraqi government, saying Republicans were "overwhelmingly disappointed" with the lack of political progress.

"The Iraqi government is a huge disappointment," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told CNN'S Late Edition on Sunday.

"So far, they've not been able do anything they promised on the political side," the Kentucky Republican said, citing the Iraqis' failure to pass a new oil revenue bill, hold local elections and dismantle the former Baath Party of Saddam Hussein. "It's a growing frustration."

"Republicans overwhelmingly feel disappointed about the Iraqi government," he added.

McConnell spoke as the Senate is trying to approve funding for the Iraq war with a compromise that President George W. Bush can sign. Bush has threatened to veto a bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives that provides only enough money to continue combat for two or three months.

McConnell said there was a growing sense of frustration across all political divides in the U.S. Senate with failures of the Iraqi government.

"I don't know what their problem is but this country has made an enormous investment in giving the Iraqis a chance to have a normal government after all of these years of Saddam Hussein and his atrocities," he said.

Citing media reports, McConnell said some lawmakers in Iraq's parliament wanted a vote to ask the United States to leave.

"I want to assure you, if they vote to ask us to leave, we'll be glad to comply with their request," he said.

This kind of rhetoric sets the stage for a possible scenario in which the Republican party can support a pull-out in Iraq while placing the blame for the collapse of Iraq squarely in the lap of the Iraqi government. The Iraq war will be seen as a just cause undermined by forces beyond our control, allowing Republicans to emerge relatively unscathed from the wreckage of a failed policy.

In another indication of a shift in the Republican party's Iraq policy, the last line in the article hints at another path that could allow the Republicans to support a troop withdrawal without looking like they're supporting a "cut-and-run" strategy. Although there are still some hard-liners like John McCain who want to stay in Iraq even if the Iraqis ask us to leave, several prominent Republicans, including the president, are now pledging to get our soldiers out of Iraq as soon as we're no longer wanted. For quite some time, polls have suggested that the majority of Iraqis want us out of their country, and if these dissatisfied citizens pressure their representatives to support legislation requesting an end to the American presence in Iraq, the Iraq issue could be settled far sooner than anyone imagined.

And in the midst of Republican promises to pull out at the request of the Iraqi people, Muqtada Al-Sadr, the powerful Shiite cleric at the helm of the massive Mahdi army and de facto ruler of Sadr city has emerged from hiding to resume preaching against the "American occupation". Marketing himself as a nationalist who wishes to unify the country, protect the Sunni and Christian minorities, and provide Iraq's ailing slums with a functioning public service infrastructure, his words have already found a receptive audience in many segments of Iraqi society:


(Taken from Al-Jazeera)
Muqtada al-Sadr, the hardline Shia cleric, has come out of hiding to deliver an anti-American sermon at a local mosque in the city of Kufa, his first since last October.

"No, no for the devil! No, no for America! No, no for the occupation! No, no for Israel!" al-Sadr chanted at the start of his speech.

About 6,000 worshippers in the mosque were present to hear the speech.

In recent months, al-Sadr's group have been trying to shake off its image as a Shia sectarian movement and portray the cleric as a unifier and Iraqi nationalist by reaching across the divide to Sunnis and other factions.

Al-Sadr said: "I say to our Sunni brothers in Iraq that we are brothers and the occupier shall not divide us. They are welcome and we are ready to co-operate with them in all fields. This is my hand I stretch out to them."

Al-Sadr's call came a few days after Shia leaders from his east Baghdad stronghold met with Sunni tribal heads from western Iraq.

Both sides promised to work together for national reconciliation and against extremism.

Al-Sadr's supporters in the Iraqi national assembly have also gathered support from Sunni and Christian deputies for a motion that would compel Nuri al-Maliki, Iraqi's prime minister, to set a timetable for US troop withdrawal.

Al-Sadr also promised to protect Iraq's Sunni and Christian minorities from hardline Sunni factions, or Nawasib, such as al-Qaeda, if US forces would allow his fighters to deploy.

He said: "I received complaints from brother Sunnis and some Christians about the aggressions of the Nawasib. I am ready to defend them and will be a shield for them, although the occupier would not accept that."

"I say that our houses and cities are open for them and that for Iraqis to kill Sunnis and Christians is a sin. What the Nawasib are doing to compel the Christians to embrace Islam is despicable."

Al-Sadr also had tough words for al-Maliki's goverment over its failure to provide public services in Iraqi cities, four years after Saddam's fall.

He said: "There is an abundance of cries and complaints calling for democracy in Iraq. Despite these calls, the Iraqi people remain deprived of services like water and electricity and even communications.

"If the government won't help, we will have another word with it."

Along with his verbal assaults on American involvement in Iraq and the incompetence of the Iraqi government, Al-Sadr is putting his money where his mouth is and building an alternative network of social services in Iraq, providing education and humanitarian aid to Shiite Iraqis who would otherwise go without. If Iraqi's begin to perceive that Al-Sadr and his ilk can protect and provide for Iraqi citizens better than the Americans, we could quickly become irrelevant as a force for stabilization (at least among the Shiite majority), removing one of the key reasons for our continued presence in Iraq. Al-Sadr is already an extremely influential figure in the Shiite community, and if he can succeed in bringing together all of the Iraqi's who have become disillusioned with the status quo (this may be unlikely, due to Al-Sadr's connection to much of the anti-Sunni violence in Iraq), the likelihood of U.S. forces voluntarily withdrawing at the request of the Iraqi people could significantly increase.

And to add yet another indication of a possible Republican about-face in Iraq, it appears that there are now internal forces in the White-House pushing for troop reduction:

(From the New York Times)
The Bush administration is developing what are described as concepts for reducing American combat forces in Iraq by as much as half next year, according to senior administration officials in the midst of the internal debate.

It is the first indication that growing political pressure is forcing the White House to turn its attention to what happens after the current troop increase runs its course.

The concepts call for a reduction in forces that could lower troop levels by the midst of the 2008 presidential election to roughly 100,000, from about 146,000, the latest available figure, which the military reported on May 1. They would also greatly scale back the mission that President Bush set for the American military when he ordered it in January to win back control of Baghdad and Anbar Province.

The mission would instead focus on the training of Iraqi troops and fighting Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, while removing Americans from many of the counterinsurgency efforts inside Baghdad.

Essentially, after years of "staying the course", it appears that the Republican party and the president are beginning to realize that change in Iraq is priority numero uno for American voters. The only question is the level of change they're willing to enact, and whether they can enact such change without making themselves look like Kerry-esque flip-floppers. If the Republican's new focus on complying with the will of the Iraqi people is anything more than empty rhetoric, there's a chance that we could be seeing the groundwork for massive changes in Iraq being laid by the current administration. As ironic as it may seem, if Bush and the rest of the Republican party do exactly what the Democrats say they want them to do, it could end up destroying the Democratic party in the upcoming elections by stealing their strongest selling point.

---

Of course, I have major doubts that we'll actually be seeing the Republican party doing a 180 on the issue of Iraq any time soon, but it's certainly an intriguing possibility. We'll just have to wait and see what General Petraeus has to say when he testifies about the progress of the surge at the end of the Summer. If the news is good, "stay the course" may continue to be (and should be) the administration's policy of choice. But if the news isn't so good, and if Iraqi opinion towards our presence sours even more, we could find ourselves on our way out the door in Iraq by 2008.

Endless terror.

When the topic of the Iraq war comes up, John McCain keeps repeating a certain phrase to summarize what he believes the consequences of a premature US withdrawal will be:

"They (Al-Qaeda) will follow us home."

In other words, McCain believes that our troops in Iraq are holding back the tide of Islamic terrorism, and if we pull out, the fanatics will be free to invade our country and wreck havoc on the good citizens of the United States. John McCain is an intelligent, experienced policy maker and an American hero, but I have to say that this is a ludicrous statement. I don't call it ludicrous because I believe Al-Qaeda doesn't want to attack the United States, which would be equally ludicrous, but because it represents an antiquated view of war which simply doesn't apply in any way to our clash with Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

The uncomfortable truth of the matter is that all Al-Qaeda needs to commit an act of terrorism on our soil is just one fanatical suicidal/homicidal maniac willing to blow himself up in a public place. Our military presence in Iraq in no way precludes an attack at home. It all comes down to the very nature of our enemy. If Al-Qaeda were a traditional standing army, with the goal of taking and occupying American territory, people like McCain would be absolutely right; fighting them on their own turf would almost certainly stop them from invading our country. After all, what sane military strategist would consider launching a major offensive on an enemy country if the forces of that country were overrunning their defenses at home?

But Al-Qaeda isn't a traditional standing army. It's a loosely knit, de-centralized group of terrorist cells scattered all around the world. They don't need some kind of central command center in Iraq to launch an attack on America. Al-Qaeda didn't even have a significant presence in Iraq until we came there. At the moment, Al-Qaeda is sending terrorists to Iraq because they want to kill Americans in Iraq. If Al-Qaeda wanted to kill Americans in New York, Boston, or Omaha, they could send terrorists to New York, Boston, or Omaha. They're not an army, they're not concerned with holding territory, and they're not going to get "stretched-out" or "over-deployed" if they send a handful of guys to blow themselves up within our borders. Al-Qaeda attacks don't require massive regimented formations of soldiers, they just require a couple of Islamic nutcases with cell-phones, fake IDs and homemade bombs. Quite frankly, I don't think our current strategy of "keeping on the offense" against terrorism, to quote Rudy Guiliani, really does a whole lot to protect us from terrorism. Are we killing terrorists in Iraq? Yes. Are groups like Al-Qaeda able to replace members as fast as we kill them? Yes. Can they attack us, whether or not we "stay the course" or "cut and run" in Iraq? Yes.

The problem is that politicians from both parties seem to be in an old-war mindset. They view Al-Qaeda as a new Nazi Germany that we can defeat on the battlefield using overwhelming force. If only it were as simple as that. In reality, Al-Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist organizations are completely different from the enemies our nation is used to dealing with. There aren't many clear options for America to take in the battle to counter radical Islamic terrorism, and without an honest inquiry into the issue, none will be discovered. Personally, I think a good start would be to ask "How can we diminish the appeal of radical Islam around the world?" rather than "How can we destroy a specific organization?". There will always be radical Islamic organizations, just as there will always be Nazi organizations, but there may be steps that the West can take to make sure that radical Islam becomes a rejected fringe of society in the Middle East rather than a popular movement. We can kill as many terrorists as we want, but as long as a steady stream of young radicals remains ready to take their place, the "War on Terror" is just treading in water.

In the last presidential election, George W. Bush came pretty close to the mark when he said the following about the "War on Terror":

"I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world. Let's put it that way."

Eventually, after enduring intense media scrutiny, he retracted the statement. Too bad. Despite how unpopular that kind of statement may be, it represents something far closer to the truth than the official party rhetoric. The heart of Islamic terrorism is a set of ideas, and no matter how hard you try, you can't destroy ideas. You can destroy governments, dictators, and armies. You can only marginalize, counter, and reduce the attractiveness of ideas. In the future, can we hope to better protect our country against terrorism and reduce the influence of radical Islam? Perhaps. But we can never make our country completely safe, or completely eradicate radical Islam. As in the "War on Drugs", there can be no victory in the "War on Terror". Heads of State can sign a proclamation of unconditional surrender. Terrorism can't.

The first televised debate between Republican candidates for the Presidency of the United States is over, but the endless commentary on the subject of "who won" is just beginning. The following is my two cents on the individual performance of the various contenders:


John McCain - B+

The good: Steadfast support for Iraq in spite of opposition will appeal to a lot of the Republican base, very strong on fiscal responsibility, came off as experienced, reminded people that he has a history of uniting politicians on both sides of the aisle.

The bad: A few stutters in the beginning, played into the "grouchy old man" stereotype, his yes to the "do you believe in evolution" question may hurt him with christian voters (along with his pro embryonic stem cell research stance), the McCain plan for Iraq is the Bush plan for Iraq.

Rudy Giuliani - C+

The good: Came across strong on defense, emphasized his record in New York City, referred to Ronald Reagan constantly.

The bad: Humorless delivery, looked uncomfortable with several issues, terribly awkward position on abortion (it's OK to overturn Roe V Wade, and OK to NOT overturn Roe V Wade), terribly awkward comment about the religious right (Q: "Has the increased influence of christian conservatives in your party been good for it?" A: "Uh... Sure, the increased influence of large numbers of people are always good for us... I'd like to go back to the earlier question..."), referred to Ronald Reagan constantly.

Mitt Romney - A

The good: Polished, slick, well-prepared, came off strong on just about everything, didn't say anything stupid.

The bad: Too polished and slick.

Duncan hunter - A

The good: Strong, commanding delivery, knew what he was talking about (defense, border security), looked presidential.

The bad: A bit too hawkish (in the course of the debate, he essentially declared war on Iran).

Tom Tancredo - C-

The good: His strong statement regarding the overturn of Roe V Wade ("After 40 million dead because we have aborted them in this country, I'd say that that would be the greatest day in this country's history when that is, in fact, overturned") might win him a few points with pro-lifers.

The bad: Uncomfortable on stage , hesitant, never smiled, seemed ill-prepared and unexperienced, was upstaged by Hunter on his trademark issue (illegal immigration).

Ron Paul - B+

The good: Disagreed with everyone else about everything, probably right about everything.

The bad: The closest thing to a Mike Gravel in the republican debate; unelectable.

Mike Huckabee - B

The good: As poised and polished as usual, upbeat attitude, displayed a sense of humor.

The bad: If I hear his recycled "my faith explains me" speech one more time, I'll walk to Arkansas and shoot his dog.

Sam Brownback - A-

The good: Appeared more conservative than the mainline candidates without looking like a crazy person, positions seemed reasoned and nuanced, family friendly rhetoric appeals to the religious right.

The bad: Not the most charismatic guy in the world.

There were two other guys in the debate that I didn't include in the list: Jim Gilmore and Tommy Thompson. Both gave solid performances, but neither stood out for anything in particular.

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.