The Feld-Blog

Someone recently informed me that my blog is full of platitudes and truisms. Well thank you for being so straightforward and honest. Also, I sincerely appreciate that you sugar coated that for me.

Unfortunately its true. In looking at my recent posts I have noticed that there is far too much summary and far too little substantive analysis. I am taking a ton of classes this quarter so in my scramble to post, I have short changed the actual content of my Blog. I recognize that anyone who looks here probably isn't coming here for the news. If you are politically motivated enough to come here (or just care enough about me to look here), you probably already know whats going on. Therefore, I should probably concentrate on my own analysis of political events unless I just want to bore all my readers.

Although I would like to dedicate myself to this goal. I simply do not have enough time to focus on writing and analyzing well in an extra curricular context. If you want to see some better writing or more interesting analysis, look at some of my earlier posts. Otherwise, stay tuned. I wont be posting as often, but I will do my best to make my future posts more interesting.

If you are looking for news, go to Google News or CNN.

The quartet - The US, the EU, The UN and Russia - have all decided to hold of on blocking funds to the Palestinian authority. Israel, however, is a bit more aprehensive and has frozen palestinian assets immediately from a Hamas government unless they recognize Israel, Disarm, and agree to the roadmap and past Israeli-Palestinian agreements.

Every four years in America a new President takes power. Can you imagine if every four years the world had to worry about weather America planned on recognizing former agreements? It seems absurd, but it is exactly what is happening in Israel right now. To have a peaceful continuation of power without a complete renunciation nullification of the former regime is taken for granted in many democratic countries, but this very cornerstone of democracy may be threatened as Hamas takes power.

Before you jump to judge Israel for witholding Palestinian assests that Israel has been collecting for them for years, imagine what might happen if each subsequent palestinian election neccesitated wiping down the blackboard and starting the peace process with fresh chalk. We'd never get anywhere. Let's just hope Hamas can temper their extremism to become a truely viable government dedicated to peace. I know it may be a lot to ask, but I guess I'll just have to remain hopefull.

Politicians aren't perfect -- they are human. I understand that. They make mistakes, some of which are reasonable and some of which are not. Cheney shot his friend and took responsibility for it. Shooting his friend was a mistake. I understand that such mistakes are possible when hunting. What I don't understand is why Cheney's staff and the White House dealt with the situation so poorly. These are political professionals! They should know how to deal with these kinds of situations.

The incident occurred over the weekend. Why on earth didn't someone leak it to the papers immediately? If news organizations printed the story over the weekend, no one would read the papers and the story would be killed. Instead, they waited until Sunday night so the story would run in Monday's paper. This is when the most people read the paper. This is how a story that shouldn't really have any bearing on Cheney's political status blew up into a huge controversy.

Now I understand that Cheney may have been more concerned with the health of his friend than quelling the political fire. Indeed this is exactly the story his staff in telling the press. While that is commendable, Cheney has a huge political staff, many of whom specialize in communications. Someone in this army of staffers should have had the foresight to take the appropriate action to put out the inevitable political fire.

What is even more surprising, however, is how Bush's communications department fumbled this story. Scott McClellan, not well known for his jokes and often merely a deadpan mouthpiece for the administration, attempted to diffuse the situation with a joke. Wearing a bright orange tie, McClellan quipped he had worn the tie that day to avoid getting shot by Cheney. It's actually a pretty funny joke, but because McClellan isn't necessarily known for his humor and the inappropriateness and proximity of the events he made light of, it was just a terrible idea - in terms of communications strategy - to tell such a joke.

The Joke, waiting to leak the story, the actual shooting in the first place. Come on people. You are supposed to be better than this. Even when I disagreed with the policy stances of this White House, I was usually in awe of its political strategy. Perhaps that awe was misplaced... I guess we'll see.

OK, so I know it was an accident, but still.... Cheney actually SHOT someone? Well... there is a pretty good cap to the Republican corruption scandal - Bush spies on people, Congressmen launder money and Cheney actually shoots people. Oy vey.

So it seems to be the new craze now in Congress: Don't make your witnesses swear in for a hearing. For everyother hearing and trial in the US, witnesses are sworn in. For every political office, politicians are sworn in. Why on earth would you not require the same standards for congressional witnesses? But when Alberto Gonzalez spoke before Congress in an attempt to legitmate domestic spying without a warrent, no one made him swear in.

In all honesty, what possible reason is there not to swear a witness in? I hope these people aren't lieing to Congress, but if they are I'd feel more comfortable knowing we can punish them for it. These are serious issues comming before a powerful legislative body that can actually do something about it. Isn't Congress interested in hearing the truth so they know how to act? Or are they merely more interested in staying in the dark to maintain plausible deniability?

This really is just ridiculous.

For all the standard loaded rhetoric of Capitol Hill, a few noble souls remain loyal to governing before politics. Unfortunately, since yesterday two of these more noble members of congress are at each other's throats.

I think Obama really is still trying to do what is right for the public and not just Democratic political gain, but he should know better than to mess around with campaign finance and John McCain.

It pains me to see two of the politicians for whom I have tremendous respect rip each other apart. I have become accustomed to seeing many politicians roll in the mud trying to rip each other down, but I was hoping McCain and Obama could remain above that. They'd done it for so long already. I can only hope it works out in the end.

At what point, in sacrificing civil liberties for security, do we forfeit the advantages of being American for want of freedom? At what point, in sacrificing security, are our lives so endangered that we are unable to enjoy the liberties we sought to protect? To stand staunchly by and advocate that the government can wantonly intervene in its citizens’ lives is as dangerous as averring that our civil liberties are so sacred that no circumstances exist under which the government can violate them. Richard Posner, in his essay “Security vs Civil Liberties,” also argues that a balance must be struck. However, because he frames the debate in terms of protecting civil liberties for their own sake and not in terms of legal boundaries, he identifies a problematic ideal equilibrium.

Posner claims, “[Civil libertarians] treat our existing civil liberties… as sacrosanct…. The basic mistake is the prioritizing of liberty. It is a mistake about law and a mistake about history.” Posner oversimplifies the argument for preferencing civil liberties. Few would claim that such liberties are absolute. The Fifth Amendment stipulates that citizens cannot be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law,” but the implication remains that the government can deprive its citizens of such liberties so long as they follow “due process of law.” The constitution even gives the power to legitimately suspend the right of Habeas Corpus to Congress. These are legitimate exercises of power. Civil libertarians object when government oversteps its bounds or circumvents the law to suspend civil liberties. The President cannot suspend Habeas Corpus. Congress cannot create laws ex post facto.

If we allow government to overstep these boundaries we risk rendering impotent the very structures that prevent our leaders from exerting tyrannical force. The framers of the constitution recognized that people are self-interested beings. They created the system of checks and balances so that the self-interests of each branch would stymie the forceful exertion of powers not delegated to other branches. Federalist #51 states, “The great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others… Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.”

When Abraham Lincoln unconstitutionally suspended Habeas Corpus, political executives at various levels of government abused this newfound power by detaining political dissidents. Today, capitalizing on this dangerous precedent, President Bush has claimed the authority to indefinitely detain both American and foreign citizens by designating an undefined label: “enemy combatant.” Taken to its logical end, Bush could imprison any American citizen indefinitely with no evidence, merely by suspecting him or her of terrorism. This would violate Habeas Corpus, the prohibition against bills of attainder, and establish the Presidency as an effective dictatorship.

Posner argues that clauses such as “due process” or “unreasonable search and seizure” are too ambiguous to place definite restrictions on the exercises of governmental power. He claims the constitution does not clearly define these terms and so the courts must weigh the relative threat level facing the nation and confer or withhold rights accordingly. According to Posner, “This fluid approach is only common sense.” Though he may be somewhat correct, the limitations implied by this doctrine push the bounds of the appropriate exercise of governmental power. “Unreasonable search and seizure” may be ambiguous, but it certainly does not condone domestic spying without a warrant. “Due process of law” may be ambiguous, but it certainly does not condone the internment of hundreds of thousands of Americans during World War II solely on the basis of their race. These are the lines that cannot be crossed without forfeiting what it means to be American. When Congress or the President oversteps the boundaries delineated by the constitution, they step outside legitimate authority. Since this legitimate authority stems from a popular ratification of the constitution, a single violation undermines our republican form of government. Civil liberties must be protected, not for their own sake, but because adherence to constitutional doctrine is how a free government remains free.

Have you ever seen an audience perform 'the wave' at a sporting event where distinct segments of the audience rise to their feet at different times? Well that is certainly reminiscent of the reaction to Bush's State of the Union Address. Though many of Bush’s blatant applause cues drew the entirety of the assembled officials to their feet, many pronouncements sharply divided the house – literally.

When touching on the standard conservative hot-button issues – tax cuts, governmental-program rollbacks, domestic and foreign intelligence – Bush received standing ovations from the Republicans seated to the right of the aisle. The Democrats conspicuously remained in their seats.

Remarkably, however, in one instance the Democrats rose to applaud while the Republicans remained seated. In the midst of a discussion over national security, Bush lamented the defeat of the reauthorization of the Patriot Act. Democrats rose to their feet to applaud themselves for defeating the bill.

Perhaps most curious was a group of nine individuals who remained seated even as the entire chamber rose to their feet. Clad in their formal black robes, the nine Supreme Court Justices (including new justices Roberts and Alito) seemed unmoved or at least unmotivated to succumb to the pressure to join a standing ovation.

You may notice that in this particular discussion of the State of the Union I have hardly mentioned anything substantive. I have not discussed how I feel about Bush’s new legislative proposals. Well that’s because there wasn’t much of that in his speech either.

Though he glanced across many of the problems facing out country today – terror, dependence on foreign oil, AIDS/HIV, math and science education – but he outlined no solutions. Apparently today it is enough to declare that we will fix these problems; how we will do it is immaterial.

Don’t get me wrong. I did actually appreciate that Bush’s address resembled a substantive discussion at times. Our energy crisis and dependence on oil are crippling though I was disappointed that Bush only mentioned dependence on foreign oil and not oil in general. I was heartened that Bush seems eager to fund advancements in nuclear, hydrogen and ethanol-based sources of energy.

Similarly, though he discussed the legality of spying on foreign nations, he did not address the legality of domestic spying. He stressed the importance of domestic spying and the legality of foreign espionage, no doubting counting on Americans to get confused and assume he had rationalized domestic spying. Well at least it was a nice try Mr. Bush.

I understand that most Presidential speeches are political rather than substantive because of today’s political and media climates, but Bush is a 2nd term President – he can’t run for another term. Can’t he lose the political façade and say something real for once? I understand the concept of the perpetual campaign, but every now and then I’d like my president to substantively address the issues of today. Is that so wrong?