The Feld-Blog

It has been so long since someone went out and sacked a city the old fashioned way - burning it to the ground and killing every last man, woman and child. In ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, the Holy Roman Empire (actually a very different and entirely non-Roman Empire), the Crusades, we saw murder and mayhem and destruction on a grand scheme even without weapons of mass destruction. In modern times countries can usually come to terms with one another, finding a mutually acceptable terms of surrender in which both countries get to survive. Sometimes, when its really difficult, 2 countries form out of just one, such as North and South Korea or Czech and Slovokia. I thought maybe this world was heading for a more pacific method of working out differences until the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran opened his mouth. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for Israel to be “wiped off the map”.

While it is a little bit comforting that Israel, the US, the UN, the EU, and even the PA, I think, jumped in without hesitation to condemn the remarks, it is more than a little bit concerning that Iran is still a recognized member of the UN even after a history of similar remarks and sentiments. It is even more disconcertin that there are still rulers in the world who subscribe to the kill-every-last-man-woman-and-child form of war.

I hate war. That said, sometimes I can understand why countries go to war, especially as a last resort. If another country assassinated one of your heads of state that could be justification for war. If a country repeatedly breaks the terms of a previous treaty or contract that could be cause for war. I just don’t feel that a moral objection to a countries existence is a good reason to go to war. America objected to Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq. Still, we didn’t call for the complete destruction of Iraq, Bush called for a vindication of Iraqi citizens and a toppling of the regime rather than desolation of the country itself. I don’t agree with the war in Iraq, but I still think this is a nobler cause for war than a moral objection to your neighbor’s mere existence.

I would like to think that humanity has progressed a little bit since the times of ancient Greece. Since then we have invented the chariot, the horse and carriage, the steam locomotive, the automobile and the Prius hybrid. With all that technological progress don’t you think we could have tried to progress socially and intellectually as well?

I understand that Attack ads are now an integral part of politics. In campaigns, attack ads tend to get replayed on all sorts of news outlets adding to both their airtime and credibility. Through I suppose the same holds true for the recent attack ads against Ronnie Earle, federal procsecutor in the Tom Delay case, it seems a little out of place.

In all honesty, Earle is a federal prosecutor. This is his job. Most attack ads in political campaigns cite a president, senator, member of congress, etc who hasn't been doing his or her job well. In this case, the ad attacks Earle for doing his job at all. Am I the only one who thinks this is ridiculous. Furthermore, no matter how much popular animosity this ad can drum up against Earle, how will this affect the case? He is not elected to this position. He is not going to lose his position. What is the point, then, of even running such an ad?

Adding to the curiosity, this ad is only running in Austin, Texas and on the FOX network. Though it airs often, I am pretty sure Austin FOX viewers are already on Delay's side. They are preaching to a choir of zealotts. Whats the point?

Really, this whole episode astounds me. Does the Free Enterprise Fund just not have anything better to do with its money? Maybe they should be saving up for the midterm elections when all of these scandals are going to come back and knock out he knees of the Republican Party. Send the money to Katrina or Wilma clean-up efforts. But to throw money away on an attack ad against someone whose job is not actually dependent on public approval just seems silly to me.

Since 1787, all members of all branches of the US government have been locked in an epic battle over the language of our constitution and each person in each branch thinks he or she understands it best. They all, on some level, think they know what the framers intended, but I am sitting here studying it saying to myself “what the heck were they thinking?”

If they wanted to say “The government can’t kill you, tell you what to do or take stuff from you unless it’s legal in terms of future laws that the legislature will create,” they should have said just that. Instead, Thomas Jefferson, who was obsessed with this guy named John Locke who talked about something called the social contract by which governments receive their power from the people and therefore cannot “deprive its citizens of life liberty or property without due process of law,” decided to plagiarize Locke’s language. Granted: this is a very pretty phrase. It has its place in political philosophy and even in the US declaration of independence. It is a wonderful bit of rhetoric, but it is just that: rhetoric. It is flowery language that dances around the issue at hand. What we need in a constitution is hard, explicit language that clearly delineates governmental structure. A constitution should not be an experiment in political philosophy, it should be the concrete manifestations of these thoughts into basic governing laws for a country.

Ok, now that we have discussed what a constitution should be in general, lets discuss it on a more case-by-case basis. Thomas Hobbes said, “Where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice.” This makes logical sense in our western world - if there were no overarching controlling body to inspire fear of punishment in those who would steal, murder, or commit other crimes, these kinds of people would likely run rampant. As such, a constitution and a central government are civilizing factors in western culture and following the thoughts of great thinkers like Locke serves to advance the causes of domestic peace. But Hobbes and Locke lived in western cultures. They studied western cultures and therefore, their conclusions really only speak to western cultures. In fact, I would submit that Hobbes assertion does not hold true for many Semitic cultures.

He says “where there is no common power…” ie where no official punitive body exists, “there is no law” ie anything is allowed. This is simply not true for many cultures. In Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Pakistan and many other such countries, a sense of tradition is just as powerful as the sense of law. In these cases, in the absence of a common power, tradition often takes over and serves to keep the peace. This is a fundamentally foreign concept to western culture so while western democracies have been trying to export democracy and constitutionalism to the middle east and other areas of the world, we have completely forgotten that they don’t always function the same way we do.

I will readily agree that democracy is a positive form of government, that people should hold some power of those who govern them, but we should not make the mistake of believing that all constitutions can be or function in the same way. With all the problems the US has had in plagiarizing from enlightenment thinkers for our constitution, why do we think these concepts will mesh any better with a culture and civilization which functions on a different level from those these enlightenment thinkers studied?

The Iraqi and Afghani constitutions have been bogged down by controversy and internal disagreement. Their helpful American supporters think that by nodding towards the religious tradition these countries want to play a part in their government that they can close the gap between an appropriate constitution for a western country and one for a Semitic country. I don’t think they could be any more wrong. In a culture that is ruled by tradition and custom - where shame can often regulate people as effectively as law - a constitution must serve an entirely different function. I am not sure our nation builders realize this. If we want to effectively spread democracy around the world, perhaps we must make a concerted effort to understand the culture that will be ruled by it.

I would like to take a departure from politics for a moment to consider education. In an ideal world the goal of the student would be to learn and the goal of the teacher to teach. The student, then would do all he or she could to increase learning efficiency, while the teacher would do all he or she could to promote students' understanding and rentention of knowledge.

Grading on a curve stands as antithetical to all these principals. Though it engages students in a Prisoner's Dilemma (for those of you who know what that is) inspiring every student to study no matter what the other students do, it radically dammages any incentives for group study or cohesion in the class and fosters the worst kind of cut-throat competition. When a students chances of doing well increase as other students do worse, the student has no motivation to help his fellow students or engage in group studying by which every party would benefit. If it were possible for all students to acheive the maximum grade however, students would still have sufficient motivation to study since that aspect of the prisoner's dilemma would still exist, but they would also be motivated to help one another, thus increasing the effectiveness of learning in that class.

Medical schools in recent history have found that it was common place for a student to read a helpful text and then hide it somewhere in a remote area of the library so that other students who want to or need to use the book couldnt find it and their grades would be dammaged, thus bolstering the first students grade. Is this really the atmosphere we want to foster while trying to teach students how to save lives? Is this really the atmosphere we want to foster at any university?

Stay tuned in the next few days for more political commentary, but for the moment, I have fixated on the absuridy of our education system. Oh yeah, and I hate midtems.

First spokesmen for the Bush administration come out and say “let Bush be Bush,” borrowing material almost directly from Aaron Sorkin’s The West Wing. Now Donna Frye, mayoral candidate in San Diego, has ripped off from the same TV show, more directly and more blatantly. In this video local news coverage remarks that since Frye lacks the funds to run TV advertisements, she continues to rely on news coverage and publicity stunts. One of these stunts smacks of The West Wing’s fictitious political strategy come to life in San Diego.

For those of you who are fans of The West Wing, you may remember when Josh Lyman sends volunteers dressed in gigantic chicken suits to protest the other two democratic candidates press conferences. In her latest publicity stunt, Frye is followed around by someone dressed in a huge chicken suit, holding a sign accusing Jerry Sanders, her opponent, of being a chicken by refusing to admit where the money for his proposals will come from. This idea of getting free publicity in the more credible form of news coverage is common in political campaigns, but a person dressed in a chicken suit accusing opponents of “being chicken” seems to be an identifying and unique characteristic of that particular episode of The West Wing.

Don’t get me wrong, I think Aaron Sorkin is a brilliant writer. I envy him and can only aspire to approach his talent, but when real-life politicians make campaign decisions inspired by a fictional television show, no matter how well it’s written, it does not bode well for the candidate. If Frye’s political advisors are looking to a TV show to compliment her political strategy, she may be doomed. She may also be doomed if she can’t even raise enough money to run advertisements on local television, but for the moment this is beside the point.

I enjoy politics and I enjoy The West Wing, but let’s be clear: they are two very separate entities. I am troubled when people start to talk about The West Wing as if it is real politics, so similarly, I am troubled when politicians start talking about politics as if it were The West Wing.

I read this article and quite honestly, it speaks for itself. I thought about writing commentary, but nothing comes close to the absurdity of the facts. This government doesnt have to try to abuse their powers granted them by the Patriot Act, they can do it just by accident. They can tap your phone on accident and not delete it? What?!?!?!?! how does this kind of thing happen? ok, I am serious, just read the article.

P.S. Blogger has been sending the above link to the wrong site for some reason. If it sends you to the wrong place go here: http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/30/wiretap.errors.ap/index.html

This is why I’m scared. Back in 1989, Miers ticked a box on a pro-life organization’s questionnaire confirming that she would support an amendment to the constitution banning abortion except when necessary to save the mother’s life. She also ticked boxes indicating her stance that public money should not be used for abortions and, most frighteningly, that she would be willing to use her influence to keep pro-choice candidates off of city health boards.

Now, all of this might actually be a good thing for liberals. If she supports an amendment to the constitution, she probably already believes that abortion is constitutional – otherwise, why go to dramatic and improbable lengths trying to actually amend the constitution? Then, if she believes that an amendment is needed, once sitting on the bench, she will be forced to rule that abortion is constitutional and only plead in her concurring opinion that someone amend the constitution. If she were an ideal justice she would not let her own opinions on what is morally right influence what is or is not constitutional.

However, now we must take a trip back to previous posts in which I struggled through her sometimes unsatisfying, sometimes downright frightening political and professional record. Having never served as a justice, but only a lawyer and political professional, she has spent her life trying to convince judges to bend the law or understand nuances and facets of the law that may or may not have actually been there – and she’s good at it. Miers likely knows that, if confirmed to the bench she must uphold the constitution, not what she thinks the constitution should say, but in the absence of any experience or judicial record to confirm this, the gamble grows increasingly risky.

Under the assumption that she understands upholding the constitution versus warping the constitution into what she thinks it should be, she is still the most moderate judge Bush is likely to appoint. Still, I am not convinced she understands or is ready to commit to such a dramatic change in job description.

With the verification of her pro-life beliefs, confirming her under the pretense that she is the most moderate justice Bush is likely to appoint grows paler and paler as a viable justification for a ‘yes’ vote. Pardon the cliché, but this has certainly “upped the ante.” Simply from a perspective of risk analysis, liberals may not be able to afford to confirm her if they aren’t absolutely sure she understands and is willing to accept the constraints of her new job.

The Governator (sorry to perpetuate this ridiculously awful joke) is scrambling to find support. He’s juggling too many sticks of political dynamite. Arnold is trying to push an incredibly unpopular special election slate with probably the only approval ratings in the country lower than Bush’s. He’s trying to launch his re-election campaign, and dig himself out of the whole he dug by spoiling most of his liberal campaign promises, all while refusing to appear with President Bush. He announced a veto of groundbreaking and long-overdue gay rights legislation in an attempt to shore up his conservative base, only to piss them off with something else: campaigning with perhaps the most liberal Republican Senator: John McCain.

The only thing more surprising than that Arnold would ask McCain to come to California to advocate for the special election ballot is the McCain agreed. Arnold is sputtering around, tripping over himself at every turn. He can’t decide whether he wants to shore up his base or reach out to Democrats, and now he is only succeeding in alienating both. McCains presence probably only concerns Republicans since McCain himself is not particularly conservative and specifically is one of the biggest advocates of Campaign Finance Reform - normally thought of as a Democratic issue and a sore spot to many Republicans in Orange County. Furthermore, since Arnold is one of the biggest utilizers of so-called ‘soft money,’ I can’t quite understand what motivated McCain to ally himself with Arnold.

All in all I am not sure who wins here. Dems are dead-set against these measures already, and even the moderate face of John McCain probably wont convince them to change their minds, especially with the sappy Arnold-is-bad-for-teachers adds constantly streaming from television sets all over California. Similarly, McCain is not exactly a galvanizing force in the Republican party so he’ll do little to help the Governor consolidate his supporters or turn conservatives back to his side.

I guess this whole incident just leaves me thinking: WHHAAAAAAAAAAA?!?!?!

There must be a short in Karl Rove’s wiring. Cheney must need a new pacemaker. Bartlett must be out sick. Either this or Bush has just finally gone off the deep end. I can’t think of any other explanation. With approval ratings in the 30s what could possibly provoke Bush to sit himself on the ugly side of a political battle he will almost surely lose? This week the Senate passed the Defense Appropriations bill with an amendment to prohibit torturing POWs, detainees or any other ‘enemy combatant’ held in detention by the US. For months as this amendment floated around, Bush threatened to veto any Bill with this amendment. Even faced with the 90-9 vote in favor of the bill, he has yet to reconsider.

Bush is hobbling around the White House leaking political capital at every turn. He poured out capital nominating Bolton to the UN. He tripped and started gushing political capital from the still-healing wounds of his Social Security plan. Now he has positioned himself ideally for yet another political body blow. If he vetoes this bill, and the senate overturns him, he looks weak -- no, not weak, feeble. Since 90 Senators voted in favor of the bill the first time around, it is difficult to imagine that 31 of them will jump ship, reverse their opinion, and condone torture just to look like the lapdogs of this administration. With such overwhelming odds that his veto will fail, why is he still threatening it? Why not suck it up and save the political capital. Is he that set on torturing detainees? I hope not.

To boot, there are certain political arguments you don’t want to find yourself arguing, no matter how right they are. No one wants to argue that burning the American flag is good, but legislating against flag burning is a horrific abridgement of free speech and someone has to say so. Detainee torture, whether or not Bush thinks it’s morally right, is one of these issues. Does he really want to publicly state that he is in favor of torture? So much so that he will veto a necessary bill to state it?

America has been throwing its weight around for decades now, holding double standards and gushing hypocrisy. We criticize authoritarian regimes for killing and torturing their own citizens. What are we doing at Guantanamo and Abu Graib? We rail foreign leaders who don’t heed the overwhelming voice of their people. Well…. Bush continues on his own war path while 70% of the country disapproves. What are we doing? America is careening towards a fall. We simply cannot sustain this kind of arrogance in our foreign policy and survive as a world power. It’d time to start thinking about other people and their rights. We call ourselves the only superpower in the world. Perhaps we should remember that that term comes with responsibility as well as bragging rights.

It’s always nice when political incentives line up with good policy. Politics might be much better off if they always lined up. But they don’t. Miers, I think, is a great example.

For a close personal friend of Bush, she is incredibly moderate. She is on record donating to Democratic campaigns. She has the support of a few important democrats both in politics, the media and elsewhere. Finally, some influential Republicans oppose her, no doubt an encouraging fact for many liberals. In fact I cant imagine Bush naming a more moderate conservative to the bench. I would guess, in fact, that if Miers goes down and Bush doesn’t stubbornly push her through as he did with Bolton, he would be tempted to name a stauncher ideologue, more prone to conservative activism. This may be a clear case of “Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth.” Or for a sports analogy: Bush has thrown a changeup. He’s not just going to lob the ball to the Democrats. This is probably as close to a compromise as he’s going get. Why would let this glide by, only to be suckered by a craftier more deadly pitch? Why not knock this one out of the park? Because there is more to sitting on the court than ideology.

Even for those of us who claim that litmus-test issues are an awful way to vet a nominee for the court, it is tempting to jump to ideology as the dominant qualification. But then I cant help but be drawn to the nagging idea that perhaps before becoming one of the nine most powerful judges in the country, it might be helpful to have had any experience in the judicial branch of government. She has been working her whole life in the other two branches of government. I am concerned that after decades in the executive and legislative branches, she may not be able to make an appropriately smooth transition to the opposite end of the system of checks and balances. I feel this lifetime of service in other branches of government would nudge her forcefully in the direction of judicial activism, something no one on either side of the ideological spectrum wants. Moreover, as Senior White House Council, Miers has spent a good amount of time trying to circumvent the law rather than enforce it. It is the job of White House council to tell the President whether what he wants to do is legal, illegal or borderline, and if it’s borderline, to show the President how to spin the law and his policy so they appear congruous. This is dangerous training for a candidate nominated for a court already infected by the bug of legislating from the bench.

And so I remain torn. I’m not sure she’s qualified and she certainly doesn’t have the experience, but the odds are good that the next pitch will be much much worse. It’s always nice when political motivation lines up with good policy. Unfortunately now is not one of those times. Should I stick stubbornly to the idealism that a justice must be unquestionably qualified, brilliant and experienced? Or can we compromise some of these characteristics for the sake of checking the possibility of two or three decades of a radically conservative court? I think this is the grueling decision currently facing Democratic and Moderate Senators (Conservative Senators want to wait for that next pitch). I don’t envy them the decision, but this is certainly a time to take the confirmation hearings seriously. For Miers, they will most likely be the deciding factor.

Bush nominated Harriet Miers to fill Justice O'Connor's seat on the Supreme Court.

I have to say, when Bush first nominated Roberts, I was almost excited - an absolutely brilliant legal mind whose qualifications were far beyond question. Sure he was a conservative, but at least I can rest assured the some of the most intelligent people in the country will sit in those 9 chairs.

Unfortunately, my initial reaction to Harriet Miers was not nearly so positive. That she is a woman is certainly a boon. The Supreme Court should have multiple perspectives: conservative/liberal, Young/old (usually in the form of clerk/justice), and of course, man/woman. These dichotomies set up some of the most meaningful and stand-out opinions. On the other hand, however, Miers has been a longtime GOP stalwart herself. Though she has contributed to Democratic campaigns in the past, her Republican trackrecord is unmistakable. To boot, she has never held any judgeship. She has been a political professional her whole life holding positions that vary widely in arena and yet are remarkably monochromatic in partisanship. Though the Bush administrations offers its assurances that she will not be a conservative activist judge -- that she will not legislate from the bench, I find it difficult to imagine from someone who has been legislating and active in the other realms of politics for her whole life.

Finally, no one could mention her nomination without also mentioning her loyalty to the Bush family. So strong is this loyalty, that a few news sources have questioned whether it might be stronger than her loyalty to the Supreme Court -- quite a concern for someone who will hold a lifetime appointment.

All in all, I am much more hesitant to be excited for Miers than I was for Roberts. She doesn’t have the experience -- in fact she may have all the wrong experiences, her loyalty may be elsewhere, she is so blatantly partisan it is difficult to imagine her turning that off immediately in the name of judicial fairness. Tune in later as I actually do some research on this one, but if you thought there was little information on Roberts, Miers is almost a vacuum. Let’s see if this is grounds for a filibuster….

So I haven't slept in about a week. Stanford a cappella auditions will do that to you. Anyway a lot has happened since I last had a chance to post, but I think the most surprising by far was Congressman Tom Delay's indictment.

The flurry of ethics and financial allegations sweeping through Washington seemed to glance the newspapers while politicians skillfully dodged any significant blows to their credibility or criminal record. Allegations, it seemed, blew past Delay every few years generating a ruckus for a few days and then dying down almost completely. It seemed that Washington politicians and Delay in particular were invincible.

Then I was blown away when one of these allegations actually hit its mark. Delay was indicted and forced to step down as leader. If you’ve read some of my previous posts, you’ll see that I think this kind of stupidity (if not corruption) is currently running pretty rampant and unchecked in our congress and, to some lesser extent, the White House. And while I would rather that these kinds of scandals just not happen, I am somewhat comforted to know that we as America are capable of holding our leaders accountable. I think this is a first step on a long road. It has been a while since someone ran on a platform of “cleaning up Washington.” Maybe its time again.

Being in power should not be a carte blanche for corruption. It is good to see that, in spite of the solid conservative power base in Congress, the disciplinary system in place can reach the Republican leadership as well. This would be just as true if Democrats were in power. I would want to know holding the majority and the power does not shelter the parties leaders from the same laws and rules that govern the rest of us.