A follow-up on the candidacy of Michele Bachmann.

Earlier this year, I wrote a piece regarding the potential 2012 Presidential run of Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN). At the time, the run was merely rumored but considered likely. As I write now, however, Bachmann is officially competing for the Republican nomination. In my previous piece I said that Bachmann "is not someone that should be elected to the highest office in the United States" and that her "use [of] violent rhetoric will prevent her from getting anywhere near the levers of power". While I absolutely stand behind the former, it appears as though the momentum of her campaign, not to mention the increasingly precarious economic environment, have thrown the latter assertion into some element of doubt.

Since officially declaring her candidacy in the town of her birth - Waterloo, IA - Bachmann has been polling well in the primary field. While a lot of the American political pundits assumed Mitt Romney, as frontrunner, would take the nomination it appears as though the Minnesota congresswoman will be mounting quite a formidable challenge.

This is utterly baffling to me, as I do not understand her appeal whatsoever. I have recently read two excellent pieces on her, one in Rolling Stone by Matt Taibbi and the other in Slate by the peerless Christopher Hitchens. Both pieces were, to put it mildly, very critical of Bachmann.

Taibbi's piece called her "a religious zealot whose brain is a raging electrical storm of divine visions and paranoid delusions", and "late-stage Kim Jong-Il crazy". Hitchens said that for her "to choose this moment to say that the loony of Libya poses no threat is to disqualify herself from any consideration for high office", that she "evidently knows nothing" about Libya before concluding by remarking that "she doesn't seem to know her Iowan derrière from an artesian well, either".

I urge you to read both in full as they are both eloquently written and devastating in their criticism.

Criticism from 'elitists' like Hitchens and Taibbi is one thing, but Bachmann is running into another - very different - problem. Having used the classic rock song "American Girl" by Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers at her campaign launch, the band has subsequently sent her campaign a cease-and-desist letter asking her to no longer feature their music. What makes things slightly more interesting (and by interesting, I mean amusing) is that the song she chose the following day was "Walking on Sunshine" by Katrina and the Waves - who have also objected to her use of their music. It appears that while she is becoming the darling of the GOP, the musicians she wishes to be the soundtrack of her campaign do not share her vision.

Recently, she once again proved that she has no knowledge of American history when she claimed in an interview with ABC News that John Quincy Adams, the sixth US president, was one of America's Founding Fathers. When corrected, she stuck to her version of history despite the fact that he was all of 8 years old on the day the United States declared its independence. Her supporters, in a very Palinesque move, attempted to amend Adams' entry on Wikipedia so that it presented this obvious error as fact. As someone who claims to value the Constitution and what its authors stood for, she demonstrates a vast ignorance about early American history. This will give pause to anyone with a true appreciation for the founding of the United States.

Say what you like about Michele Bachmann as a candidate, but you cannot accuse her of being boring. The fact that she is doing so well with the Republican base should not be a surprise to anyone considering she is a religious fanatic and Obama conspiracy nut. It remains to be seen if she will upset Romney (who has been pretty much absent from most American news coverage over the last few days) for the nomination, but if she does it will be very interesting to see how she sells herself to the general electorate. Her rhetoric about the Tea Party including Republicans, Independents and Democrats sounds nice in a speech but will it hold true? Will the rest of the American voting public be as forgiving as the GOP base when it comes to demonstrably false assertions that she has a reputation for?

Time, as the cliche goes, will tell.

The circus of hypocrisy surrounding the Weiner scandal.

I have resisted writing a piece on the scandal involving now former Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY) for a while now (I refuse to call it "Weinergate"). Every time that the story seemed like it was over a new piece of information, be it more photographs or a transcript of Facebook conversations, entered the public domain and suddenly it all started again. Following American news media over the past weeks has felt rather voyeuristic. With complicated, serious issues which effect the everyday lives of Americans and people of the world to discuss, the media went for the very simple, scandalous narrative of a Congressman's penis.

Anthony Weiner was, before this storm began, one of the loudest voices for the American left in Congress. He was quick-witted and passionate when arguing his case on the floor of the House of Representatives or on cable news. While many claim that his time in Congress was primarily to lay the foundations for a possible mayoral campaign in New York City, he did not shy away from contentious issues. He was one of the most vocal, and most articulate, advocates of health care reform. In fact, he was able to make an excellent case for a single payer national system. Yes, he was brash and arguably obnoxious, but the Democratic party needed someone like that. They no longer have anyone to be that voice. In the Senate, the loudest voice of the American left is Bernie Sanders, an Independent.

Having said all that, Weiner's actions online were nothing short of stupid and reckless. As a sitting United States Congressman, he should have been well aware of the repercussions that would surely follow from sending pictures of your penis to women over the Internet. It was a foolish mistake which should (and in all likelihood has) lead to a serious discussion between him and his wife.

That is, in my opinion, where this should have ended. Obviously, the late night comedians would be more than welcome to exploit this comedic goldmine (Weiner's weiner practically writes itself), but no crime was committed. As far as I am aware, no House ethics rules were broken. This was a personal matter that, while funny, should have had no impact on his status as a lawmaker. For the record, I also think that about the case of former Republican Congressman Chris Lee. Both men made rather large but personal mistakes. Neither man should have resigned over it.

Which brings me to Senator David Vitter (R-LA) and Governor Eliot Spitzer (D-NY). Both men were caught in prostitution scandals while in office. Prostitution. A crime. Laws were broken in both cases, so their resignations would be absolutely justified. There is just one problem. Only Spitzer, a Democrat, resigned. Vitter is, to this day, still a member of the United States Senate. He received the support of a large number of Republicans in his re-election campaign. So when a Republican gets caught in sex scandal in which laws are broken that is perfectly acceptable, yet when a Democrat gets caught in one that breaks no law at all the entire Congress and media call for his immediate resignation. The double standard is as infuriating as it is blatant.

The reaction to this scandal has not only shown the hypocrisy of the Republican party, but also the cowardice of the Democratic party. Weiner, while apparently not too well liked in Washington DC (something that does not surprise me in the least), was one of their best, most articulate advocates. Were it not for someone like Weiner, the Democrats seem like anemic pushovers. They need a loud, strong voice. Despite this, a large number of Democrats were quick to call for his resignation, including Minority House Leader Nancy Pelosi and even President Barack Obama. They were so quick to abandon a member of their party for reasons I can only guess at. I will say, however, that their failure to demand that a Senator who broke the law in his scandal resign while calling for Weiner to is sheer cowardice.

So Andrew Breitbart (the conservative hack responsible for this story hitting the headlines) and the Republicans have succeeded. The loudest voice of the American left has been shamed and silenced. I am not attempting to defend the stupidity of Weiner's actions (they really were stupid!), but I just ask that this scandal be looked at in context. Specifically, in the context of previous sex scandals and their fallout.

Vitter remains in Congress while Weiner is banished from public life. Those who publicly called for Weiner's resignation had better be squeaky clean for the rest of the time they are in office, otherwise they have provided a rod for their own back. Unless, of course, they are a family values Republican.

Why the circumcision of minors should be outlawed immediately.

In California, there is a political movement which is gaining some traction. This movement wants to outlaw the practice of circumcision on underage males. I would like to take this opportunity to say that I fully support the goals of this group. Let me explain why.

The biggest argument against this proposal is that by banning something which Jews and Muslims believe is a command from god, it is infringing on their religious rights. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution clearly and explicitly forbids infringements of this sort, but what the people making this argument fail to realize is that certain religious practices are already forbidden by US law. The first example that comes to mind involves Utah, the state with the largest concentration of Mormons. Utah was told by the federal government that it would not be accepted as a state unless polygamy was outlawed. The fact that Utah is a state tells you how that dilemma was resolved.

In the case of circumcision, the rights of the individual children are what should be considered more important than the religious requirements of their faiths. At the time of most circumcisions, the person getting it done is a small baby. How is it fair to inflict such a disgusting practice on people not old enough to make such a big decision? There are laws against under 18s getting tattoos, but this is different because it is 'mandated by god'. The state should not treat this as a religious practice (the First Amendment also forbids the establishment of a religion), but as a permanent body alteration and an elective medical procedure. Would a religion be allowed to tattoo their children's foreheads? I seriously doubt it. The mutilation of children's genitalia should be no different.

Now, if an adult male wishes to have part of his foreskin hacked off because he believes that an invisible man in the sky demands it of him (such an odd request when you think about it), then that right should be constitutionally protected. Just not for minors. Despite the accusations leveled at this effort, there is nothing anti-Semitic about it. Nobody wants to outlaw it altogether. That would be as ridiculous as outlawing tattoos altogether (although the latter would be more likely than the former). If the mutilation of one's genitalia still seems like an attractive prospect when people reach 18 then I would have no objection to those choosing to have it done.

Personally, I think that the mutilating the genitalia of children is a disgusting practice which should be left in the Bronze Age where it belongs. Can you imagine anyone standing up for the religious right of parents to cut off their daughters' clitorises and labias? Why is it socially considered to be a perfectly normal practice for one and yet the other is abhorrent?

Circumcision is part of what makes religion such a venomous influence in society. It also is an example of how children are labeled with the religion of their parents before they are able to make a conscious choice about the matter. This cannot be undone with the loss of faith or conversion though. It baffles me that otherwise moral people can, with a straight face, defend the right to slice off part of a baby's body. The sooner this revolting, vile practice is outlawed the better.