The Feld-Blog

Today Private Lynndie England stood at attention, no trace of emotion even flickering through her eyes as the jury pronounced her guilty of indecent acts, prisoner abuse and conspiracy. Though the story of England’s conviction is still fresh, the Abu Ghraib prison scandal has long since gone stale. Her conviction has been long in coming and all but inevitable. Nevertheless, it does call to memory the underlying absurdities and atrocities of the wars in Afghanistan, in Iraq and on Terror.

I cringe every time an overenthusiastic journalist stretches to draw parallels between our government and the thought police. I wince when pundits and politicians invoke Hitler and the Nazis to vilify an opponent merely by juxtaposition. Still there is one facet of this administration’s policy that tugs at my conscience, begging me to pay credence to otherwise seeming dangerously hyperbolic claims: Bush’s tautology of politics. Bush has managed, as in Orwell’s 1984, to wield language and a political weapon.

In dubbing terrorists as enemy combatants Bush frees himself and his administration of the pesky humanitarian concerns of the Geneva accords. The Geneva accords apply to Prisoners of War (POW). This administration asserts that since terrorism has no national allegiance, they cannot be POWs and rather are ‘enemy combatants.’ Still, this seems to be splitting hairs. Worse, however, is the fact that Bush insists on this distinction while simultaneously firmly refusing to give even the most basic definition of the term ‘enemy combatants.” Never mind that this is a direct and incredibly hypocritical affront to the very same treaty intended to protect those international human rights the terrorists are so eager to ravage. All Bush has done is relabel a group of people and suddenly he no longer feels bound by any international agreements, humanitarian ideals, or morality of any kind.

With no definition of any kind to provide for accountability, anyone could be an enemy combatant. The government could arrest you or me merely for thinking impure thoughts and hold us indefinitely without charging us with a crime. They wouldn’t even really need a reason at all since they feel no obligation to file charges. I just don’t understand how he can insist so emphatically that there is a distinction between POWs and ‘enemy combatants’ when he doesn’t even know what the latter term means. Moreover, I can’t even fathom how he can feel justified in throwing around this meaningless term and using it as justification for suspending habeus corpus and generally spurning the selfsame unalienable rights our founders fought so hard to save.

Bush understands the awesome power of words -- a frightening thought considering his tremulous relationship with his own vocabulary. My question though, is why are we, as Americans, accepting of the fact that Bush has no definition for this distinctive and important term? Why aren't we holding him accountable? I struggle to decide what concerns me more, that Bush is comfortable grounding what might be considered a war crime in nothing but a political tautology, or that no one, not the media nor the American public, ever mentions these political absurdities.

Karl Rove, Randy “Duke” Cunningham, Tom Delay, Dick Cheney, Arnold Schwarzenegger and now Bill Frist. What do all these people have in common? They’ve all been implicated in financial or political scandals. They also all happen to be Republican. In fact, the members of the Republican leadership seem to glide past the media spotlight just in time to be picked off like targets in a side show shooting gallery. Rove leaked the name of a covert CIA agent. Duke Cunningham sold his home for millions more than it was worth to a defense contractor not to mention his fist fight on the floor of the House of Representatives. Delay violated a veritable gamut* of House ethics rules, taking contributions he shouldn’t have and reimbursing personal travel expenses with taxpayer’s dollars. Cheney was enveloped by Halliburton and Enron scandals. And Arnold Schwarzenegger, after taking office made back-door deals with dietary supplement companies and fitness magazines -- so much for leaving the bodybuilding and acting business to go into legitimate politics.

Now Bill Frist has lobbed his own dirty laundry onto the pile to air out with the rest of the Republican dirt hanging from the pages of the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. For years he has been holding onto blind-trust shares of HCA, Inc., a company founded and run by his father and brother. First of all, Congressional ethics rules allow him to actually, though indirectly manage the shares in his own blind trust. First of all, this completely undercuts the motivation for putting the shares in a blind trust, which was to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. Furthermore, the time he finally sold his shares --supposedly to fend off accusations of a conflict of interest, although he has owned them for years now -- coincided conveniently with an all-time peak value for the stocks and immediately preceded a dramatic plunge. It wasn’t so long ago we slapped an unwieldy ankle bracelet to Martha Stewart for similar offenses.

So they aren’t holding up 7-11s at gunpoint. That is comforting. Still, the sheer volume of white-collar crime spewing from Republican leadership is more than a little bit disconcerting. Is there some twisted, law-breaking initiation ritual I am missing? Is there a significant bipartisan component to this that I just havent caught? Last I checked Democratic leadership is only guilty of sputtering away elections and allowing conservatives retain their iron grasp of all three branches of government.

So often we dismiss the fallacies of foreign governments quipping, "of course they cant get anything done. Of course they don't actually represent their people. They are corrupt." Perhaps we should check the cleanliness of our own hands before pointing such accusatory fingers.

Running for Political office requires two things: money and name recognition. At least that is what every Political Science class I’ve taken has informed me. Almost every study shows a dramatic correlation between funds spent on a campaign, number of people who can identify the candidate, and the politician who celebrates on election night. Maybe I’m old fashioned but I don’t think politicians should be able to buy their seats in state assemblies or the Congress of the United States. Certainly America should not hand over the oval office to the highest bidder.

The FEC agrees so it tries to regulate campaign spending to keep the playing field relatively level. Still dozens of companies run rampant throughout this country flinging money at campaigns and parties and attack adds in unabashed violation of FEC guidelines. Finally the FEC is taking action. They have filed suit against the Club for Growth, a pro-Republican organization that has been among the most shameless violators.

In the 2004 Election cycle, they donated over $4 million on political campaigns from private donors who exceeded the $5,000 limit. Worse, of that total $4 million, $3 million came from just 14 donors. The FEC’s suit accused the Club for Growth of violations dating back to the year 2000. After all this, though, the Club for Growth has the audacity to complain. They claim that the FEC is acting in a partisan way since they haven’t yet filed suit against similar liberal-leaning corporations. In effect, the Club for Growth has publicly pouted and whined, “but they started it.”

To the best of my knowledge moveon.org didn’t accept $3 million from just 14 donors. Their contributions have been mostly in the grassroots advocacy rather than direct campaign contributions and they conform to the intent of 527 groups -- namely to spend money creating issue adds rather than finding loopholes to donate indirectly to campaigns. The whole concept of soft money and hard money is absurd. Thank you FEC for finally cracking down. Maybe now America will listen to issues rather than the ringing of the cash register.

Let me quote the Bible to you, “a man shall not lie with a man as he does with a woman for it is an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22). These words were written thousands of years ago, but this is how the Catholic Church and far too many American citizens rationalize discriminating against gays and lesbians. Within the next six weeks, the Catholic Church will declare its new policy that gays and lesbians, even those who have taken vows of celibacy, will be barred from seminary and will no longer be ordained as priests (Actually, only gays. Lesbians have already been banned since the Catholic church is a little behind on women's rights as well). This is largely to combat the image the church has acquired as a result of the sex scandals over the last few years. It is also absurd on a variety of levels.

First of all, the catholic position on homosexuality is absurd to begin with. Forgive me for saying it, but such a strict interpretation of a text that was written, or at least transcribed by humans thousands of years ago borders on religious fundamentalism. Religions of all kinds are capable of catalyzing a great deal of good in this world, but such Christian radicalism has fostered an incredible amount of violence and ignorance towards the African-American, LGBT and other such communities.

Next lets take a trip back to that biblical quotation, “A man shall not lie with a man as he does with a woman for it is an abomination.” This says nothing about what a person feels or thinks. It has to do with action. Even if you believe the most traditional and literal interpretation of this line, a man who doesn’t sleep with anyone cannot be guilty of this sin regardless of his emotions or sexual orientation. Which brings us to: why should they trust straight males in their vow of celibacy and not gay males who have taken the exact same oath? If this is not a blatant case of ridiculous discrimination, I am not sure what is.

Religion is an incredibly powerful idea, simultaneously capable of fostering inexhaustable love and insatiable hatred. It constantly astounds me. I can only hope that humanity will find a way to turn religion into the catalyst for love and progress that it can be rather than fall back on the exclusivity and narrowmindedness it can foster if we let it.

Senator Harry Reid laid down some pretty heavy political cover-fire, but it seems the Senate Democrats are either woefully unaware or even indignant. Reid, the Democratic leader, came out publicly against confirming Roberts ostensibly establishing the ‘Democratic Position’ on confirmation. Unfortunately, however, it seems Democrats cannot line up fast enough to throw their support behind Roberts and, vis a vis, the Bush Administration.

What exactly happened here? Reid established a tone for this vote and immediately Democrats on and off the judiciary committee run away from Reid as fast as possible. Could this make Democrats look any more divided? To all Senate Democrats who just publicly cast their straws in favor of Roberts: If you have the audacity to undermine the democratic agenda, at least have the decency not to make a spectacle of it. Do you see Republicans making front-page declarations about how they intend to vote? Of course not. We are all assuming they will vote in favor, but even if some might not vote for him, they are smart enough to just cast their votes rather than make a PR debacle out of it by announcing it to the world.

None of us in the world dared to dream that Roberts wouldn’t be confirmed, nor did we have reason or really justification to. Still, at a time when this Bush is fast losing momentum, this is no time to add Democratic Senators to his already long list of conservative sycophants. If you must vote to confirm Roberts, and I respect that decision as he is extremely well qualified, just cast the vote when your name is called. Don’t split the party and bolster Bush’s already sputtering presidency. Especially, don’t hold the door open for a conservative activist judge to take O’Connor’s seat.

Democrats have now lost twice to a President who is known throughout America for his inarticulateness and lack of intelligence. He has won twice because of effective political strategy from people like Karl Rove. Now is the time for Democrats to start to come together cohesively, if not in ideology, then at least in political strategy. If we continue to commit political gaffs on this scale, we might as well hand the Republicans every Presidency, Congress, and Supreme Court for the next decade.

Senator Harry Reid has declared he will oppose Judge Roberts’ confirmation for Chief Justice. Senator Baucus has publicly declared he will vote for confirmation. The motivation for Senator Reid’s declaration is clear, while I must admit I am a little perplexed by Senator Baucus’ public announcement.

In my mind there are three main reasons why Reid might come out against Roberts. 1) He legitimately does not believe that Judge Roberts is qualified, suitable, or a good pick for this position - unlikely since virtually no one contests Roberts’ qualifications or intellectual ability. 2) He fears a Justice-Thomas-like situation where the nominee says nothing during the confirmation process and senators are left confirming someone they don’t know well enough to give their full support. This would be the most substantive reason. If this is the case, then Senator Reid believes he must take his constitutional responsibility of advice and consent very seriously, and feels that he does not have enough information to make an informed decision. This would not be altogether inappropriate considering Roberts and the Bush administration were remarkably tight-lipped about anything having to do with Roberts for the last few months. Finally, 3) as a political strategy, the leading democrat in the senate publicly announces he will oppose Roberts’ confirmation allowing other democrats to follow suit without fear of tremendous repercussions. Roberts will almost definitely still be confirmed, but by a narrower margin, sending this definitive message to the White House: “Roberts just barely snuck through this confirmation, nominate a more conservative judge for O’Connor’s currently more moderate seat, and we will give you trouble.”

Senator Baucus is much more difficult to read (pun most definitely intended). He is not a member of the judiciary committee, and although he is a popular Senator, he is not a member of the official Democratic leadership. As such, it is confounding that he would make a public statement out of a position we all assume most senators, Democrat and Republican alike, will take. Perhaps he is positioning himself for a run at the Oval Office. Grooming oneself as a moderate is usually a clear first step towards advancement in the political realm. Certainly Republican Senators have grown weary of the Democratic filibuster, so positioning himself as pro-Roberts stifles any criticism that he is only obstructionist in the Senate. There has been little to no talk that Baucus is planning to run for president (at least to my knowledge), so, in all honesty, this gratuitous declaration of his position seems almost prideful, as if he thinks it is more significant than it actually is. Perhaps he is merely trying to shore up the Democratic base in the name of bipartisanship, maybe he just truly believes Roberts is right for the job and is excited to say so, but less than 24 hours after the Democratic leader announced his position (and more-or-less by default the Democratic position), Baucus’ statement deals a not insubstantial blow to party unity. It is one thing to stretch out and extend an olive branch across party lines, and another to undermine your own party’s leadership within 24 hours of the leader’s statement.

Election reform. Thank God someone is taking meaningful steps to remedy this awkward and ridiculous stumbling block to our otherwise wonderful democratic system. Former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James A. Baker III are now heading a private commission to tackle this most important and long neglected issue.

The vote, by definition, is the cornerstone of any democratic government. It is disconcerting then, that a fog of uncertainty has clouded the election results of the past two presidential elections. If there is no faith in the effectiveness of our voting system, how can there be any faith in the effectiveness of our government? Allegations of voter fraud and voter intimidation open the floodgates to eager critics who yapping, “he’s not the real president” or “He wasn’t really elected.” Electronic voting machines whose completely closed source code is written by staunchly partisan businessmen draw a leery eye by those suspicious of foul play. And amongst this chaos Americans feel pressure place their unwavering confidence in the resulting democratic government. We need to either be sure the right person is in office or elect the right person in the first place.

Among this commissions preliminary recommendations are 1) handing over control of voter registration to the state from the local governments to avoid people fraudulently voting in multiple counties, 2) make electronic voting machines print a paper record for ease of auditing, 3) relax voter registration regulations in places where they have a disparate impact and generally make it easier or more convenient for citizens to register to vote. While there are a few provisions that wreak of partisanship, such as rotating presidential primaries, and mandatory presentation of photo ID to vote, the majority of this commissions already released suggestions seem reasonable and almost obvious.

Election uncertainty is the crack in the foundation of our government. It is about time we tried to mend it.

If it weren’t so tragic it would be morbidly hilarious: the Guantanamo Bay ‘Enemy combatants’ have gone on hunger strike. Any way you slice it, however, the Republican claim that detainees are being treated well because they are being fed well is now going stale and dripping with irony.

If you remember, it was not long ago that Republicans in congress deflected accusations that Guantanamo detainees were being tortured by parading the cafeteria menu across the floor of the House and Senate. Their thought was that if they could show the world that detainees were being fed lemon chicken and other such dishes -- which some Members of Congress, after visiting the base, reported was actually rather dry -- people would assume that they were being treated with dignity in other ways as well. I, personally, don’t agree with the dubious premise that just because they are being fed well, they aren’t being tortured. Even so, it would seem the Republicans don’t even have that leg to stand on anymore.

Lawyers for the various ‘Enemy Combatants’ being detained say that the prisoners are growing increasingly upset over their treatment. They are demanding to be treated in accordance with the Geneva accords. Apparently after the last incident, a six-member panel of detainees was formed to hear and address grievances, in accordance with the Geneva accords. However, after only one or two meetings and no attempts to address the complaints raised, the authorities disbanded it. Reporters and military officials alike admit that the situation is starting to get out of hand.

In spite of all these issues, military officials claim concern for the detainees’ health. As such, those detainees who are refusing to eat are being forcibly fed through nasal tubes to keep them alive. Let’s see the administration declare that publicly as a rebuttal for the torture allegations.

In some ways, the Greeks were more politically and philosophically advanced than we are today. I think their education system may have been better too. They may have thought the sun went around the earth, they may have even thought the earth was flat, but at least they knew what education was for. I think America has forgotten. Athens made it the goal of its educational system to churn out good citizens -- people who could participate in politics. Our compulsory educational system seems aimless. Aristotle even said, “Man is a political animal” and believed that the goal of education was to teach a man (and it was men at this time) everything he needed to know to participate actively in politics.

For a few hundred years, extending up to, and a little bit past the industrial revolution, education was completely based on trades. The goal of the education system then was to groom a person through an apprenticeship to become a master of his or her trade. Even into the early years of American education, this was the goal. Since then however, apprenticeships faded into compulsory general education - reading, writing and ‘rithmetic, etc. Now that we are in compulsory education, what’s the point? We are trying to fulfill the American dream -- that anyone can grow up to be anything he or she wants to be. We only succeed, however, in producing a staggeringly low literacy rate, horrifically remedial math skills, few trade-transferable skills, and little to no concept of how our civic system works.

Apparently now, however, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) added an amendment to Public Law 108-447 designating September 17th (today) National Constitution Day. It is the birthday of the constitution and this declaration obligates public school to use part of the 17th (the 16th this year since today is a Saturday) to educate their students about the constitution and our civics system. It’s about time.

What is our educational system doing? Even college doesn’t really prepare people for the workforce very effectively. Maybe we should figure out what the focus is supposed to be. Here is my proposal. Our government puts a tremendous amount of power in the hands of the average American in the form of the vote. As it stands now, because of our two-party system and the infamous general American apathy, people are casting their votes with no thoughts for the consequences. People don’t understand the system. They don’t understand the candidates. They don’t understand what they are doing and they don’t have the knowledge base to make informed decisions. I say we take a hint from Athens. I say, as long are lobbing generalized education at the American youth, we take the opportunity to educate them about civics. Through this, we could still accomplish literary education, and the necessary math skills, but American youth would graduate knowing how to thrive in our culture rather than merely subsist on it.

Bush went on national television and said "i take responsibility." Bush paid lip service to the idea that he might actually hold responsibility for something. I was starting to believe that he thinks of himself as like the pope -- completely infallible. Of course we’ve seen how that has worked out for the catholic church -- murdering brilliant scientists like Gallileo and denying heliocentricity for hundreds of years, failing to castigate Hitler for atrocious acts of genocide, et al. I was starting to believe that Bush thought he would never have to apologize for everything. I was starting to worry that he thought he could just push through anything and no one would notice, but he shocked America, and, I think, the world by taking responsibility for the failings of the governmental response to Katrina.

Unfortunately, while these rare words are echoing across every newspaper, TV program and Blog in existence, Bush’s actions are failing to falling into line. He is still hindering some of the relief effort by refusing important funds. But, as seems to be a theme in my recent posts, he is taking baby steps, and I can at least be proud of him for that. Don’t get me wrong, I am still counting the days until he leaves office, but maybe the meantime won’t be as unlivable as I had once feared. Let’s see how things go.

We have a long way to go in rebuilding a ravaged section of America. It is encouraging to see that the leader of our government is finally willing to admit responsibility in this realm.

I also think this was a politically crafty move for Bush. He had almost no one on his side. The country stood almost unanimously behind the proposition that he had failed. There has been increasingly potent criticism of this administration for never admitting fault even when it is so obvious. He lost nothing by admitting defeat and accepting responsibility since everyone was thinking it already, and he has punched a gushing leak in one of Democrats favorite attacks. Good move Mr. President. I can only hope that it was sincere and not as politically motivated as it could be. I suppose we’ll find out as this story unfolds.

Year after year Lance Armstrong competes, mops up the competition, says he is done, and comes back to kick butt once again. Now the vicious cycle is over. Lance is finally done competing in the Tour de France. He immediately let loose and reamed the French officials and I applaud him. Even after crippling illness he has proved to the world and to himself that he is a tremendous athlete. He has accomplished what he set out to do, and he no longer has to take crap from the French.

You may recall that a few years back, just after being diagnosed with what should have been debilitating cancer and undergoing extensive chemotherapy, Lance wanted to compete and the French officials accused him of taking performance-enhancing drugs. Even though he was clean, the officials leaked exaggerated and misleading evidence to a French sports meeting. What possible motivation do they have to ruin an amazing and inspirational athlete? During one Tour de France, people spat at him as he passed blocs of onlookers, all because of vicious rumors spread by the very people who were supposed to be making sure that all the competitors were clean.

Finally Lance has said he is not competing anymore and made it official by ripping a couple of Frenchmen a new one. Good for you Lance. You have been quiet and batted around enough. You’ve earned the right to speak your mind many times over. Congratulations!

Ok get serious people. “Congress shall make no law in respect of religion.” First of all, this first amendment clause should be understood in context. When originally adopted, it was meant to prevent congress from declaring a national religion or legalizing national religious practices so that states would be free to declare their own. In this light, at the beginning, separation of church and state did not mean that government at all levels should not deal with religion, but that the federal government could not preempt the states in religious matters.

Now and once again, the courts are hearing complaints about “under god” in the pledge of allegiance. Never mind that there are dozens of other infinitely more brutal attacks on the separation of church and state, introducing cases like this into court helps no one and sparks a lose-lose political battle. The phrase was meaningless at its inception. It was added to the pledge in the 50s, in the midst of our first against communism to demonstrate that we were not the godless commies we hated so terribly. It would be easy to return to the original pledge, which is what I think the plaintiff in this case wants, but wouldn’t it be just as easy to recognize it as the meaningless propaganda it is and get to work on more important business.

As Jon Stewart mentioned, now we are at war with religious fanatics, so perhaps eventually congress will change it again and take care of these people’s current qualms. Until then, lets not worry so much about this meaningless stuff. The judicial system is tied up enough as it is. They have many more important things clogging their dockets.

Senators and surprised and angered. The Roberts hearings have drummed up little to no new information about Robert’s judicial philosophy and has given only a very few hints as to how he might vote in upcoming and critical cases for the Supreme Court. But it’s their own fault. If senators cut out even half of their own bravado, they could get a whole lot more done. This is happening across the board, independent of party affiliation. Each Senator gets 10 minutes, time in which they could each learn a tremendous amount about Judge Roberts and his philosophies, instead however, they launch into their own diatribes on subjects ranging from Hurricane Katrina to partisan politics to the gradual decline of the English language -- none of which, I might point out, have anything to do with Judge Roberts qualifications to be Chief Justice to our nations highest court.

Senator Chuck Schumer (D - New York) droned on about the ‘awesome responsibility’ of sitting on the Supreme Court -- a redundancy of which I am confident no one in the room needed reminding. He followed this with a clarification of the definition of “awesome,” reminiscent of a stand-up comedy act by Eddie Izzard. If I wanted to hear about the abuses of the English language, how colloquial speech has demoted the word awesome from a biblical demarcation of majesty to a cheap expression whored out to the advertising community, I would watch some stand up. I expect more of the senators trusted with the constitutional responsibility of advice and consent.

On the Republican side, Senator Tom Coburn (R - Oklahoma) put on a nearly Oscar winning performance. Through his tears, he managed to sob out “My heart aches for less divisiveness, less polarization, less finger pointing, less bitterness, less mindless partisanship which sounds almost hateful [to some people.]” Finishing his question-less soliloquy, he relaxed into his chair where C-Span cameras reveal him doing crossword puzzles for most of the remainder of the hearing -- not the gravity with which I would like him to treat his responsibility of advice and consent. He patriotically rails against partisan hatred, but is the same person who said “I favor the death penalty for abortionists” and "They gay community is the greatest threat to our freedom that we face today," two of the most unfoundedly, ridiculously hateful statements ever to leave a politicians lips.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I thought hearings were intended to act as vehicles for senators to get information, not platforms for them to go off on whatever topic they chose. If they want to do that, make a floor speech. I have been impressed by the little I have heard from Roberts, but I’d like the senators to do a little less talking and a little more asking.

In a political landscape scorched by the press and absolutely dominated by the media, policy has taken a backset to popularity. Substance is not second to spin. Curiously, however, the popularly hailed commander-in-chief of perhaps the largest army of media spinners in history, George W. Bush, seems to have left a powerful legacy of vivid and negative press. Bush’s blunders frequently relegate Rove, Bartlett, Fleischer and Card to damage control. They launch powerful defensives, rapidly erasing inconsistencies, lies and half-truths without recanting a single phrase or retreating a single step. Yet for all their alleged genius, verbal missteps, embarrassing images and Bush’s tenuous grasp on idiomatic English have come to haunt the American conscious.

For some reason, it seems Bush’s most memorable press is the same coverage that have forced his media army into action in the first place. Two of Bush’s most famous images are also his most damaging - reading a book in a children’s classroom as the twin towers burned and standing on the deck of a Navy ship, behind a podium framed by a banner patriotically asserting “Mission Accomplished.”

Bush didn’t make it to ground zero until 3 days later, bearing a curious resemblance to his conspicuous absence in New Orleans. Instead he sat and continued to read a book with elementary-school children even after his chief of staff whispered news of the first attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor. Even now, Bush’s sloth-like response to hurricane Katrina has fostered a national image that as the country falls apart, Bush sits on his butt in an obscene and criminally negligent act of voyerism. This image sparked immediate concern that our government was not ready to respond. The infamous ‘Mission Accomplished’ photograph gradually gnawed away as his Presidency in contrast to the more immediate concern dredged up by the first image. It slowly dawned on this country that our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were not quick romps toward peace and democracy, but rather thick military and political bogs through which America would slog for years, dragging a reluctant world in tow. With a growing understanding of the long-haul we are in came a mounting nausea in our stomachs that this is a problem with no solution - a mission that cannot be accomplished. It is true that flattering presidential media exists as well, but for the reverence offered up to Bush’s media control, a staggering proportion of memorable coverage only serves to taint this Presidency.

Furthermore, the army of time seems to be marching against the administration. Some of Rove and Fleischer’s most effective defensive media maneuvers are playing themselves out. Just as the public turns against a catchy song when it is overplayed, Bush’s continuous delaying of opportunities for oversight have become tired, trite and a liability. For years Bush has been saying, “There will be plenty of time to figure out what went right and what went wrong later.” Finally, this country is insisting on talking about it now. His façade of hackneyed catch phrases has crumbled from his shield to the weak link in his rusting armor.

Is Bush himself such a media landmine that his army has no choice but to flail frantically in attempts to soften and distract from the body blows he deals to his own self-image? Or perhaps, are Rove, Fleischer, Bartlett, et al. not the diabolical geniuses we imagined? Is America finally vaccinated against media spin or are we just suckers for some well timed mudslinging?

I feel like Roberts is giving almost all the right answers. I know he is conservative, but for a conservatve I like him a lot. He speeks incredibly intelligently and he has said a great deal to appease many of my concerns. Of course there is always the possibility that he'll change his mind once he's sitting on the bench.

A strong beleif in stare decisis is more encouraging than I thought he would be, though it is no guarantee of course. Roberts has been reasonable and calm, and the Senators are tripping over themselves finding ways to be rude and acusatory. Roberts is not the justice I would have chosen since my judicial philosophy -- if you can say I have one -- differs greatly. But he is an infinitly better choice than others Bush could have and was rumored to have on his lists.

As for his comments regarding his writings for the Reagan administration, he has been completely reasonable. When you work for an administration, you write what they want you to write. He was not making policy recomendations to Reagan, we was adding eloquence and legality to the ideas he was given. That was his job -- to be a writer and a legal expert and he did it well. Having worked for a congressperson myself i know that not eveything you write reflects your opinions. You have to write on behalf of the elected official, not on your own behalf.

Another belated, but important post:

Outrage erupted on both ends of the political spectrum and both sides of the congressional isle as the Supreme Court handed down its decision in the case Kelo vs. the City of New London. It rules on a eminent domain question. The constitution stipulates that the government can seize private land for public use or the public good so long as the government provides “just compensation” for the seizure.

This decision is incendiary because rather than seizing homes for a highway, a military base, or even an airport, private land was seized to make way for another private venture – a mall. The city claims it was bogged down by such financial ruin that a new shopping center qualifies as “public good” because it will stimulate the local economy.

In the past “public use” meant land was being seized and paid for to build a public structure such as a highway. “Public good” means that something was seized to protect the public safety. Building a mall falls under neither of these categories. It is inconceivable that a local government would have the audacity to kick people out of their homes only to hand over the property to private contractors to build a private mall. The only more surprising and distressing development is that the Supreme Court upheld this heinous action. I can’t imagine that the framers of the constitution thought that public good would be interpreted to rationalize stealing peoples homes and handing them over to a private contractor. There was not even a sense that the community wanted the mall. I spoke personally Tom Londregan, the city's lawyer who informed me that there had been no referendum. That procedurally, a city-wide vote had been bypassed.

If you read the dissents in this opinion you will see that I am not the only one who thinks this sets a precedent of a blank check to any local or state government. If stimulating the economy on any level is rationalization enough to invoke the takings clause, it is difficult to conceive of a situation in which a taking could not be rationalized. If this is an accurate interpretation of the constitution then why are there even restrictions put on the takings clause? It just cant be right.

Three days after being summoned away from the releif efforts, Brownie, the director of FEMA resigns. What a Coup.

If you've read my immediately previous post you know that I was amazing (and slightly terrified at how well the administration was able to bury and suppress this story, but Michael Brown himself has dug it right back up and dragged it into the spotlight. I can't even imagine what might have caused him to do such a thing. It was only a formality now that he was releived of his on-the-ground duties anyway, so why wait three days. This was certainly not a calculated move by the administration since they seem as flabergasted by it as anyone else. Is Brownie just so mad at Bush that he is trying to take someone down with him? Who knows. But I am glad this story is now going to get the media attention it merits.

No voice boomed over national loudspeakers saying, “Michael Brown, please report to the principals office.” As such, the Bush administration has deftly avoided the chorus of admonishing ooh’s that should have erupted from the nation as Michael Brown was summoned back to Washington D.C. In fact, I am almost in awe at how quiet the administration has been able to keep this whole situation. They “fired” him to appease recent FEMA critics, but kept it uncannily quiet.

First, the Administration “fired” Brown without actually firing him. He was relieved of on-the-ground administration and called back to Washington. Technically he is still the director of FEMA, but his extraction has rendered him unable to affect the relief efforts. This was initially leaked by two anonymous White House sources. This is obviously a planned leak since exactly two people leaked, just enough for the media to confirm the story and print it. Also the Bush administration is notorious for staying unwaveringly on message without any leaks. Once the media had the story as a leak, Bush no longer had to say anything, and the public confirmation of the actions could come from Michael Chertoff rather than Bush himself. Chertoff answered – or rather deflected – all media questions precluding Brown himself from dismantling this clearly airtight political maneuver.

Finally, in perhaps both the most effective and standard political move, all of this occurred on Friday night. This means that the news hits the internet on Friday and doesn’t appear in print until Saturday morning. The story appears as a front page headline on Saturday, but relatively few people check internet news on Friday and almost no one reads the Saturday paper. By the time a few people pick up the special Sunday paper, the story is below the fold and by Monday when people are paying attention to the news again, any mention of Michael Brown is relegated to some obscure section if its even mentioned at all.

These events of the past few days have coaxed a variety of complicated and conflicting emotions to well up in me. I am indescribably thankful that something has been done to check the incompetent bungling of a humanitarian nightmare. In the past, Bush has given the Presidential Medal of Freedom to George Tenet for horribly mismanaging the intelligence that led America into a messy bog of a war with no exit strategy. He promoted Condalisa Rice to Secretary of State for ignoring a report entitled “Osama bin Ladin determined to attack inside the United States” and shoving it in a drawer. He promoted Karl Rove to Deputy Chief of Staff shortly after Rove leaked the name of a covert CIA agent to a member of the press (but before he was identified as the source of the leak). And he blindly stood by baseball players whose drug tests came back definitively positive. As such it is wonderful to see that Bush has stepped up to the plate and actually removed Brown from a position where he can cause more damage rather than blindly commending him.

I am disgusted however, that Bush waited until a politically opportune moment to take action that is so necessary especially when so many lives are at stake. He sat for days at his ranch in Texas while a hurricane raged and flooded a major American city. How, after that, could he wait a week to remove an Brown. When lives are not only at risk, but certainly being damaged everyday, how can Bush wait for a politically opportune moment? What Bush did is pretty horrendous. But he is taking steps in the right direction right? I hope?

I know it has been a while since the most recent Supreme Court decisions came down, but I just started writing this Blog so I have some pent up opinions to release. So here it goes.

In June the Supreme Court handed down a decision in the case of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) et al. vs. Grokster et al. The question before the court was whether or not Grokster, Morpheus and other file-sharing software companies can or should be help liable for copyright infringements perpetrated by users who downloaded the software itself for free. The previous standard for determining whether a company could be held liable for creating software came from the Sony Betamax case. This decision in the 1980s held that so long as the technology was “capable of substantial non-infringing uses” the company was safe from liability and the individual perpetrators of crime were the only responsible parties. In other words, as long as a company’s technology is capable of doing something cool and legal, the company can’t be sued when a few people use the technology to break copyright laws.

File-sharing technology, however, has rocked the world of copyright law and its enforcement. The monumental volume of illegally traded files and the overwhelming percentage of the total files traded that are illegal have spurred the Supreme Court to take a second look at this particular issue. They decided in favor of MGM and against the file-sharing technology companies and remanded the case to a lower court. This decision has the potential to trip up and tear down internet technology companies with unmatched strength, possibly crippling them depending on how the decision is interpreted.

The court said that internet companies cannot encourage or advertise their products in terms of its potential infringing uses. It is my hope that this will be interpreted as a ruling against the marketing strategy rather than one against the technology itself. In this case the ruling is relatively innocuous. If the ruling is interpreted as ruling against the technology itself, it may hinder all American software development.

If companies always have to be worried that they will be sued when a few internet surfers figure out how to use their technology illegally, software development ceases to be a profitable venture. Research and development costs skyrocket because companies have to guarantee that their products cannot be used illegally. Furthermore, this would undercut internet technology companies drive toward innovation. New technology and new innovation would mean new ways and reasons to get sued. Companies like Google and Mozilla who have contributed prolifically to quality free software may take huge financial hits. New start-ups are thwarted before they can even get off the ground for new insurance costs and ridiculous liabilities.

I can only hope that further interpretation of this revision of the Betamax rule can walk back the potential damage inflicted on the software and internet technology companies. We’ll have to wait and see how it unfolds.

I am consistently amazed and appalled by America’s ability to respond to situations of tragedy with such shallow fervor. Whatever hints of this concept were planted by the frantic flag-waving response to 9/11 have blossomed into a depressing certainty in the wake of the response to hurricane Katrina. My despair over the overtly aphoristic, pre-packaged soundbytes of Americans coping with tragedy is only deepened by the evaporation of criminals’ consciences that seemed temporarily invoked by the collective human victimization during 9/11 and the tsunami in the Indian Ocean.

In September and October of 2001, American flags suddenly plastered the doors and windows of every home, office and passing car as if someone had taken a giant paintbrush and splattered red, white and blue all over the country. After the tsunami in southeast Asia, a flood of sympathy and cash flowed out of Americans’ pockets and into the waiting and deserving arms of relief organizations. Americans were so anxious to give, in fact, that the channels through which money was funneled clogged. Americans were so anxious to contribute that their money took months to arrive in the crippled areas of the world, waiting in limbo while administrators scratched at the enormous volume of backlogged donations. Americans were so anxious to donate to tsunami funds that dozens of other worthy charities in the country suffered critical blows.

Now, like a distance runner sprinting too often too early, we are stumbling towards the next lap too weary to summon our previous enthusiasm. Three monumental tragedies in the past four years have beleaguered the American conscious. Now as if jaded to tragedy, as if we’ve waited long enough to tell a morbid joke and laugh, American’s have begun to abuse national tragedy for personal gain. After 9/11 no one even considered looting or damaging abandoned Manhattan stores. After the tsunami no one even considered siphoning from the flow of money destined for southeastern Asia. But now, in the wake of nearly unprecedented damage at the hands of nature, New Orleans has been racked by nearly unprecedented and callous crime at the hands of Americans.

I would like to believe that the immediate outpour of American sympathies have been genuine, but when violence and fraud tread so closely on its heels, this is a difficult line to accept. I hope that the mainstream of America remains as awestruck and genuinely empathic as this catastrophe begs. It seems, though, that whatever aspect of the world tragedies had shamed scam artists – who seem uniquely rampant thanks to American society and culture – into developing a conscience has faded. Donation scams have cropped up everywhere.

Though this kind of looting and scamming seems to thrive uniquely through American society, it is true that it does not reflect the majority of Americans. For this I am thankful, but it is still disconcerting that Americans tend to identify more with soundbytes and sensationalist headlines than in-depth objective reporting. It’s still disconcerting that Americans want their news and empathy as pre-packaged as their bigmacs. People get furious without ever knowing exactly what it is they are talking about. Often times it is all they can do to regurgitate the soundbytes they are fed.

There is Privatization and then there is Solvency. They are by no means the same thing, nor are they even especially related. Solvency is an economic issue. Privatization is purely ideological. Ok, perhaps some definitions are in order.

Solvency is defined as the capacity to meet all financial obligations. Privatization of Social Security is a plan where people would have the option to pay into private accounts rather than to the government general social security trust. Theoretically, these private accounts yield a higher return than the government can offer but with higher investment risk and without the guarantee of government payment. My contention is that the Administration’s current plan of privatization could, in theory at least, make social security sustainable, but that is different from making it solvent.

I will concede that private accounts would net more money than the current system and that the current system, on its current path with the current population trend is heading towards some serious financial trouble. There seem to be, however, a variety of potable adjustments that would go a long way towards fixing social security while still leaving its integrity intact.

Here is the real issue: Social Security, at its heart, is a reflection of an ideology, one that says the government should account for and provide an economic safety net for the entire American population. It has been a successful program for many years and this is its financial burden – to be a safety net for ALL Americans. While privatization could make the system sustainable, it cannot, in my opinion, make the system solvent since inherent in the added risk is the fact that a few people will lose their money. Some people will make unwise investments with their personal accounts and their Social Security won’t be there when they need it. A system in which any number of people are left behind compromises the integrity of Social Security.

Republicans and conservatives believe that many private citizens can manage their money more effectively than can the government, and the government should not stand in the way of their doing this. They believe in smaller government and individual responsibility. Privatization does not create solvency, it merely conforms to this long-held conservative ideology and is politically potable now that we have embarked on a path toward financial trouble. But this is not a final solution to the problem. It merely satisfies the conservative aching to dismantle federal programs. Social Security has done tremendous good for millions of people. Gutting it and destroying its integrity and its purpose by privatizing it when there are plenty of ways to make it actually solvent rather than just sustainable seems to me ridiculous.

Finally a short lesson in playing politics for those who want or need it: the bait and switch. Once all empirical and ideological evidence is exhausted, Social Security conversations inevitably resort to this phrase: “Well fine then, but why haven’t the Democrats come out with a better plan?”

There ARE other solutions than privatization and I am sure Democrats have a few in mind, but until Bush stops pushing privatization and Republicans in Congress take this plan off the table, offering any new solution is treacherous. Republicans in congress can pull a bait and switch. Here’s how it works. Republicans use the Social Security debate to bait enough Democrats into creating a social security fix of their own. The Democrats pass their own version of a fix in either the House or Senate (probably the Senate). Republicans then force the privatization bill through the other body (probably the House) by whatever means necessary. Once these two different versions of the bill are passed, they must go to conference, a committee made up of both Senators and Members of the House of Representatives, in order to reconcile the differences. With a Republican Majority in both houses, the Republicans can stack this conference committee with pro-privatization members of Congress thus pushing privatization through despite sufficient opposition in both houses to defeat such a bill, and all because a few Democrats were baited into announcing and authoring a new plan.