The Feld-Blog

Intellectual Hubris

2008-11-09T19:59:00.000-08:00

There are two categories of intellectual weakness -- one might even say intellectual hubris if one thought I was in the mood to sprinkle irony (and I always am). Some cannot bear the burdens of human limitation and so turn to an omniscient, omnipotent God. Others cannot conceive of the burdens of human limitation and so turn to infallible Science. Each huddles in the false divinity of his idol, coddling his bruised ego in an attempt to live comfortably by explaining away the central conundrum that defines the intrinsic inadequacy of human existence: there is so much that we do not understand. Put more poignantly, neither God nor science is the source of human existence; they are symptoms of human inadequacy.

The 'Pious' reason away human inadequacy by attributing anything we cannot currently understand to God. If we cannot understand it, then we must not be meant to understand it. They couch their irrational rationalizations in romantic tones -- we were created in God's image; The Garden of Eden; Love thy neighbor as thyself. These ideas are appealing to many and they allow the clergy to fill in whichever intellectual conundrums baffle us today with a simple wave of their hands. It is an arbitrary answer without any particularly compelling raison d'etre. Belief, based on nothing more than that "someone told me so," or worse, "a book written two thousand years ago told me so," has lost its appeal to modern-day logicians.

And so, 'Skeptics' arose, combatting religion with the cold hard bludgeon of logic. But skeptics, too, have their fallacies. They believe humans invented God. To them the death of the construct of God necessarily implies the apotheosis of man, but this cannot stand. Science is no less infallible than God. Our reliance on the force of logic is founded entirely on the idea that everything must function logically -- a shakey foundation at best. No amount of scientific research or logical induction will allow us to conclude that everything must obey the laws of science or that everything must function logically. To believe that everything must follow force of logic simply because logic dictates it is no more rational than believing the world bends to the will of God simply because someone wrote that down.

Instead I believe we must learn to revel in human inadequacy. We do not know everything, and in all likelihood we never will. Even given an infinite amount of time, it is possible -- even likely -- than much of our world is simply beyond the capacities of human comprehension (appropriately enough, this so far includes the concept of infinity). This idea rang particularly true for me in the words of a fictional character. Saul Steinberg, himself a construction of Kurt Vonnegut's, once said, "What you respond to in any work of art is the artist's struggle against his or her limitations," and this rings true for me. What I respond to in humanity is our struggle against our own limitations. We struggle to rationalize our world, to codify and quantify it despite our best intuitions that this effort necessarily has no conclusion. Humanity seems to be simply inadequate for the task it has assigned itself, and hence the creation of the deities of God and Science, within their respective eras, to calm our frustration. Then again, maybe that's not it. I don't know. :)

A Controversial Treatise on Art (Parts I and II of VI)

2008-09-15T12:07:00.000-07:00

Note: As this entry will deal with distinctions between various kinds of creative individuals, I will use the term “creators” as a general term for all artists, designers and editors.

Creative identity is the realm of the artist, the editor, and the designer. The very philosophical choice to act as artist, editor, or designer necessarily colors the creator’s point of view and form of expression. Each approaches self-expression from a fundamentally different frame of mind and though our society chooses to categorize creators based on occupation, I submit that distinguishing between their basic mindsets will be a more useful tool – or at least a more accurate one – in terms of discussing the creative process. In fact, to my mind, colloquial understandings of the terms artist, editor, and designer actually obscure their respective functions.

Fundamentally, editors filter, designers solve, and artists question. Editors create by juxtaposing the creations of others. Their source material goes largely unquestioned and untouched, at least in terms of ideas; it comes pre-packaged for approval, disapproval and re-arrangement. Designers, by contrast, are problem solvers. They are given some source material, informed of their constraints and asked to create a solution. There is a beginning and an end, carving the path falls to the designer. Finally artists question our underlying assumptions. Their job is not to craft or carve any source material, but to discard it entirely in an effort to generate something unquestionably new, though often questionable in every other sense.

EDITORS:

Editors are the gatekeepers. They express point of view by sifting the good from the bad, dividing the profound from the trite, and creating sense and order from an otherwise cacophonous jumble of creative visions clawing for their attention. Whether on a large scale – choosing which films appear at Cannes – or a small scale – deleting commas and reordering paragraphs – the function is essentially the same: emphasizing and encouraging truly creative work while minimizing and revising that which… well… needs improvement? Besides the editor-in-chief of the New Yorker, the President of Cannes Film Festival, sound engineers everywhere and the President of Interscope Records who more obviously fit this mold, I think most actors, authors (prose), photographers, and the entire Dada movement fit this bill.

Gilles Jacob (The President of Cannes) and the David Remnick (editor-in-chief of the New Yorker) filter in a more easily identifiable and literal sense. They choose which works are good enough to represent the flagships of film and fiction respectively, editing out the rest. Dr. Dre, president and Founder of Interscope records, seeks out new talent and gives it a louder voice – a more proactive and constructive approach to filtering, and the compliment to the more passive and destructive (neither is meant pejoratively) approach of Jacob and Remnick. And in a stroke of literal textualism that could shock even Antonin Scalia, sound engineers and sound designers (though clearly I think the latter is a misnomer) filter musicians’ work to emphasize, exaggerate, minimize, or shape various elements of the music to afford the overall sound a depth it simply could not otherwise have achieved.

A bit more abstractly, actors observe people and filter those details of our behavior – facial ticks and verbal affectations – which betray our otherwise hidden thoughts and emotions. They sift through millions of subtle clues and they choose the most efficient combination to recreate the appearance of a desired emotion on stage.

Similarly, authors whittle away at the real world until their book captures a single narrative. They must pick and choose which details most effectively convey the story at hand. Even in works of fiction, good writing holds back the floodgates of possible information, and lets only the relevant details trickle through to create a narrative stream rather than an ocean of directionless, extraneous information.

Photographers observe everything they see with an editor’s eye. Photographers capture those moments of accidental or natural creative genius, which escape the careless glance – the filter – of most people. Thus, the beautiful images they capture, in some sense did not exist until they were immortalized on film, yet objectively their source material exists for all to see or imagine, if only we would consider everything we see with the same critical filter talented photographers uniquely posses.

Dada ‘artists’ reconstructed and re-edited the works of other people. Certainly, they created new ‘art’ out of old forms, but, in essence, they filtered what they considered to be the important aspects of creativity – the content – and destroyed or deleted the aspects they deemed unimportant – the orders and relationships between elements of content. This is perhaps the paradigmatic example of creative or ‘artistic’ editing. These editors express their creativity by juxtaposing, emphasizing, or deleting the creative works of others.

Here's to Tripping

2008-09-07T22:51:00.000-07:00

I used to be able to write. Words used to flow from my pen like… like… well, see? Now even the simplest of similes sounds trite (and are accompanied, apparently, by an abundance of aggravating alliteration*). Neglect (and schooling) has dulled the once sharp tools of my wit – to whatever extent I was witty – and voice – to whatever extent it was mine. Even when I had nothing to say, I said it well enough. When, a few days ago, I glanced at some of my previous work, I was overcome with a nostalgia for a time when words obeyed me with simple loyalty. Now my vocabulary clumsily tumbles to the page as if written left-handed.

I’m not even struggling against a writer’s block or some definite creative obstacle. I’m just lost – struck immobile by the inability to find direction. Now I’m sprinting just to move. Now I’m sprinting just to find out which way I’m headed.

And my initial steps have led me here. The Feld-blog has, in the past, acted as my clockwork muse, and is the last known residence of my talent. Now I hope it will serve as the home of my rehabilitation [efforts]. It will no longer be constrained by the theme of politics, nor stoop to the function of a daily journal. With any luck this wild freedom of theme and genre will help reveal the focus I seem to have misplaced.

⎯ No. Misplaced seems wrong… fractured maybe?

See – I’ve started to think of myself as both the nerd and the class clown, simultaneously sternly intellectual and silly, watching the West Wing and Arrested Development. And this seems incongruous somehow. Ironically, this deeper self-awareness of my personal point of view has only crippled my ability to convey it. Persistent musings on the subject have left me with neither the proper language nor the appropriate vehicle to present myself undiluted and unabridged.

So my focus fractured. My ADD spilled out of my personality and into my artistic endeavors leaving a puddle of half-completed projects – abandoned because they couldn’t profoundly capture my underlying philosophy of art. Or because they weren’t funny. So I’ll use this space to sprint. Maybe I’ll trip over the answer.

*True, this is not technically alliteration since ‘a’ is a vowel and alliteration describes the repetition of leading consonant sounds.

Merry Christmas??

2006-12-30T00:59:00.000-08:00

In quite the ironic turn for the very religious Bush Administration, The number of Americans who have died fighting in Iraq has exceeded the number of Americans killed on 9/11 as of Christmas Day 2006.

Irregular posting

2006-07-18T00:58:00.000-07:00

I will be posting irregularly until i get back to school in September. Sorry for the frequency of these blogging stutters

Different Views

2006-07-14T09:30:00.000-07:00

Progressives and Conservatives view the world in different ways. If there's one thing I have learned working in politics, this is it. Both want to "do good" for the country, but because the framework through which they view the world, their policy choices remain profoundly divergent.

Ok, that was a lot of big words, but I'll break it down for you. Progressives view immigrants, both legal and illegal, as people first - people who are just looking for a brighter future, people who have rights as citizens of the world regardless of their status as citizens of this country. Conservatives, on the other hand, view immigration through the lens of regulation, taxes and rules. Conservatives fear big government and they fear that illegal immigration will put an undue strain on American social services such as welfare, social security and Medicare that were intended for American citizens only. I think the primary impasse is that Progressives view the situation in terms of the individuals involved and Conservatives view the situation in terms of regulations and the effect on government agencies and services.

As you probably can guess, I prefer the Progressive lens. It is unethical to decide that the individuals don't matter, or don't matter as much as the increased strain on government services. The logic extreme of this is Rep. Kings new idea to build an electrified fence along the border. He even brought a model of the wall he designed onto the house floor. Here is the video.

This is what scares me. American government must be and has always been "for the people, of the people, and by the people." It must focus on the people - how government can help or protect people within its borders. It cannot afford to get bogged down focusing on the sanctity of existing laws. If every currently existing law was sacrosanct there would be no possibility for reform and really very little reason for congress or state legislatures to meet ever.

This is why I am a Progressive. This is why I think you should be too. Government exists to serve the people, not its own rules and regulations. Given the choice, government should bear the burden of hardships, not citizens. This is the Progressive framework. I think it is valuable and I think it is right. But choose for yourself.

Bush Administration Forced to be Reasonable

2006-07-11T09:23:00.000-07:00

In a HUGE step for this administration, the Pentagon recently announced that it will abide my the minimum human requirements outlined by the Geneva convention (of which the US is a signatory). Thank God. Guantanamo has been a scourge on the face of this nation for years now, undercutting our efforts to promote the rule of law and stoking the fires of anti-American animosity burning so brightly in so many places in the world. If this country wants to remain the "light unto other nations" that it has been for so long, we can't afford to become jaded and cynical. We need to continue to rule based our ideologies of freedom and democracy - of inalienable rights and civil liberties.
In the past few years, under the Bush Administration, we have had a foreign policy of "F*&CK OFF, other countries... we'll do whatever we want" and a domestic policy of restricting human freedoms and civil rights for political gain, acquiescing to the ever-present demands of the top 1% from their tax responsibilities while taxing working-class citizens into the ground. Thankfully, the pressures of approval rates in the low 30s and high 20s, a fracturing majority party and the discovery of deeply entrenched corruption, Bush has decided to give in to the demands of the Democrats, who have only ever asked Bush to be a reasonable human being. Score one for the Democrats. Score one for the Progressives. I can only hope that this is a movement towards a more reasonable government and less hypocrisy. We grandstand and scream at the Chinese and Russian governments for their human rights abuses. Finally, we've started to move towards eliminating our own.... now lets see if we can elect a government willing to enfranchise all our citizens.

BOOM! fizzle

2006-07-05T14:21:00.000-07:00

Wow. Just wow. Big Bad North Korea, one third of Bush’s ‘Axis of Evil,’ wants to scare America. Yet Kim Jung Il’s supposedly transcontinental ballistic missile fizzled out in the sea of Japan – just next door. Ok. They failed. Good. But we can’t be lulled into a sense of complacency. Simply the audacity for a tiny autocratic regime – at least in relation to the US – to threaten a world power with missile tests and nuclear programs should be of great concern to all of us sitting in our comfortable living rooms. Failed or not, when you see a little David standing up to a Goliath, often times, the little guy knows something the big guy doesn’t.

With our American President spouting off such inflammatory rhetoric as “we’ll fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here” America has all but begged the anti-western, autocratic regimes to grandstand. Bush has declared, for just about the first time in modern history, moral superiority for ‘attack first and ask questions later.’ If this isn’t an invitation for North Korea to plan transcontinental missile tests and for Iran to grandstand its nuclear program, I am not sure what is.

And what happens when a bully provokes a little kid for his lunch money day after day after day? Eventually that little kid will fight back – maybe with friends and maybe alone, and the overwhelming odds are that the little kid will lose, but the fact remains that at some point he will fight back. Now if the manifestation of this fight is just a few scratches on the bully’s face, that’s all well and good. But when the kid is North Korea and the Bully is America, a few scratches translate into a few hundred or a few thousand American lives lost. Right now North Korea is telling its friends on the playground what it plans to do to the bully and without much effect. But when a little skirmish means losing American lives, our government has a responsibility to shut up and make nice to prevent those scratches.

This is not a cost-benefit analysis. Our Government has a responsibility to protect American lives. Any foreign policy that risks civilian American lives is irresponsible. Some in the administration want to paint these failures of our enemies as victories for us. Progressives have a responsibility to tell the world what it really means: an increased audacity in nations that may not be able to wipe us off the planet, but who can inflict some serious harm. This is not a victory. This is simply evidence of growing tension around the world – a growing coalition of anti-American forces. We can’t afford it and our foreign policy needs a progressive overhaul to really protect this country.

The Political Race to the Center

2006-07-04T15:23:00.000-07:00

When have you ever heard of a Republican Politician running to the center to get elected? Last I checked, Hillary Clinton has taken flak for it, Joe Liberman has too, and of course Jon Kerry. But what all these elected officials seem to have in common is that they are Democrats (not progressives, I would say, but Democrats). Yet somehow without running to the center, Republicans have dominated the political landscape for the last few decades. It's not becuase the nation is conservative - far from it. By any metric, the large majority of voters are in the center - not center-left and not center-right, but simply the center. So why have Progressive politiicans castrated their own chances of survival by putting forth a weak, vascilating value structure? Progressives need to stick to their values and explain to the American people why those values are important. Democrats need to hold their ground and fight it out, not simply give in.

This is not a “flip-flopping” issue. If situations change, and you stick to your values, you may have to change your vote. Opponents lambasted Jon Kerry because he changes his vote revealiign and underlying change in values. George Bush, by contrast, will stick violently by his decisions, even as situations change and this necessitates a change in policy.

What? But Bush claims that his is a strong leader who stands by his values. Well…. that’s not really true. What Progressives need to show the American people is that changing positions underlie changing evidence not changing values. Progressives believe in fairness, equity, freedom, strength and a government’s responsibility to help people, not punish them. As the situation in America changes, the public policy solutions may have to change, but Progressives must unite behind these immutable values.

Stop running to the center. It is important to stick by our Progressive values. Running to the center as Kerry, Lieberman, and Clinton have done only shows weakness. Strength is in standing by our values. Strength is in doing what we know is best for the country not just what is politically expedient.

The Anti-Free Speech Amendment

2006-07-01T02:11:00.000-07:00

Would you be ok with someone throwing the original Mona Lisa in the trash can?
What about throwing away a poster-print of the Mona Lisa?
Would you be appalled if someone got the original copy of the US constitution wet and let it disintegrate?
But would you be angry if I put my pants in the washing machine with a pocket-copy of the constitution still in them?

So why do politicians raise such a fuss over people’s choice to make a statement by burning a $25 replica of the American Flag? We must make a fundamental distinction between destroying a priceless, antique symbol, such as the original constitution or the original American Flag, and destroying cheap copies of that symbol.

Democrats and Progressives have made the conscious decision to value all of the first amendment rights this country affords to its citizens. This is not as simple a decision as it might appear. It’s not easy for Progressives to accept that some people will print giant pictures of aborted fetuses to protest a woman’s right to choose. It is not easy for Conservatives to accept that some people will protest against a currently occurring war. And It’s not easy for almost anyone to accept that some people, such as the Westboro Baptist Church, have begun to protest American soldiers’ funerals. But as much as these actions turn our stomachs, our nation was founded on citizens’ rights to say whatever they want about our government.

The American Flag is a symbol of these freedoms that Progressives value so highly. Why on earth would we take away a citizen’s right to use this symbol of free speech in an act of free speech itself? It just doesn’t make any sense to me. Amending the constitution – the same invaluable, idealistic document that protects free speech – to restrict citizen’s right to use a symbol of American freedom in their speech is an affront to American values and citizens’ rights. Our truly progressive leaders have taken a stand against this hypocrisy. But these reasonable, value-driven, and consistent politicians are losing ground. I hope you will join them and help restore sanity and values to our government.

Just a Slap on the Wrist

2006-06-29T13:07:00.000-07:00

George Bush is not a particularly dynamic president. American’s generally think he is likable, but he certainly does not command any kind of wide-based popular support, nor is he particularly persuasive. So how has Bush been able to oversee one of the greatest and most sweeping power grabs for our executive branch since George Washington? I think its because our other two branches of government cannot wake up from their lazy naps long enough to accomplish anything.

Congress has largely been blinded by partisanship. Even when Bush takes giant strides into the legislative domain – ignoring congressional laws, pushing his own legislation through congress, spurning congressional investigation – the Republican majority remains loathe to take steps against a same-party President. Calls to censure the president for breaking laws and international treaties have fallen on deaf ears in this conservative congress. Even efforts to compel hostile testimony from controversial members of the executive seems to slip by.

Normally I might remain optimistic that the Supreme Court would remedy congresses reluctance to exert their power – after all, the Supreme Court has been known to overturn laws because they unconstitutionally delegate legislative responsibilities to the executive. But alas, this too has not happened. In fact, in a few recent cases, Justice Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia has parroted conservative political talking points in their legal opinions. Clarence Thomas recently dissented in a civil rights case over Guantanamo detainees stating that rejecting military tribunals for detainees not captures in war, “sorely hamper the president's ability to confront and defeat a new and deadly enemy.” Wow. I am not quite sure that Thomas didn’t just plagiarize that from one of Bush’s speeches frantically defending GITMO.

Thankfully, Scalia and Thomas are in the minority on these cases, but the majority has remained rather toothless. The Supreme Court ruled that Bush cannot institute Martial Courts for Guantanamo detainees, but despite this opportunity to take aggressive strides for civil rights and against abusing the rights of the international community, the Supreme Court relegated their decision to trials rather than the amorphous label ‘enemy combatant,’ this president’s overly aggressive foreign policy with a penchant to ignore international accords, or congresses almost complete abdication of military and foreign policy responsibilities. This is generally akin to slap on the wrist to a stampeding heard of rhinos. It’s not going to stop or stymie anything.

Our government was created with separation of powers and checks and balances so that, in the words of James Madison “ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” In other words, the success of our government is incumbent on each branch exerting the full force of their powers against each other. Congress and the Supreme Court need to wake up and fill their roles in this government.

What Your Gut Tells You

2006-06-28T12:40:00.000-07:00

How many times has your intuition been wrong? How many times have you ‘known’ the outcome of an event, only to be surprised by a different result? My guess is that this has happened to all of us more than once. Conservative pundits don’t seem to care that instincts can be wrong. Yesterday, Bill O’Reilly, Newt Gingrich, and Tucker Carlson wailed and moaned, berating Congressman John Murtha for something he didn’t even say.

Instincts can be tricky, but we fix this through experimentation. No matter what we think will happen, if we try it, we will actually know. This is why Progressive politicians and progressive pundits place a premium on ‘data driven policy making.’ Congressman John Murtha quoted a Pew Poll that highlighted the sorry state of America’s status in foreign public opinion. Congressman Murtha understands that it is important to understand what other people are thinking and that it is better to conduct a scientific poll rather than just guess using anecdotal evidence.

But Fox News Correspondents Bill O’Reilly and Newt Gingrich, and Conservative Political Pundit, Tucker Carlson seem not to have enough journalistic integrity to figure out what is true and what is false before they fly off the handle, impugning the reputation of a venerated elected official and war veteran. The South Florida Sun-Sentinel falsely paraphrased John Murtha, without even directly quoting him. The Drudge Report (notorious for reporting conservative propaganda without a thought to its accuracy) picked up this inaccurate quote and published it on their front page. Then O’Reilly, Gingrich and Carlson read it and without even checking to see if it was true called Murtha a danger to America, called on Congress to censure him and said that he is in the thrall of people who…have hostility toward the United States.”

Wow. Those are some harsh words from Conservative pundits who aren’t even sure what they’re talking about is true. I checked the South Florida paper to see what they said before I wrote this. I checked the transcripts of O’Reilly, Gingrich and Carlson’s programs. And I noticed that the Sun-Sentinel will be printing a retraction today or tomorrow. And I think this is important. Progressives look at data, Conservatives seem go on pure instinct. These guys wanted to believe what the Sun-Sentinel printed so they didn’t bother to check up on it. I wanted to believe that these guys are just as ridiculous as they have been in the past, but before I wrote about it, I actually made sure it was true.

This is what Americans deserve. If you want responsible, effective governance vote for the people who will actually check their information. Vote for the Progressives who value ‘data driven public policy.’ Responsibility is a value. In my opinion Progressives seem to have it. Conservatives don’t. Promises are one thing, but look at what these guys actually do.

Economists vs. the Government

2006-06-26T22:13:00.000-07:00

Welcome to business school…. That’s right, my quarter in Washington DC has ended and I have turned to the flip side of the coin: studying in a business school program. As a Political Science major and having interned more than once in government and governmental think tanks, my mentors and teachers have inculcated me with one perspective on government. Political Scientists and government agents write assuming that accountability, regulation and consumer input are intrinsically valuable. Many even write under the assumption that the business sector (whether they get tax breaks or not whether they get incentives or not) is a mindless, heartless profit machine that will trample over the average American if government didn’t do something. On the flip side, economists and Business academics write under the assumption that market forces are supreme and regulation amounts to intrusion rather than accountability. Many even critique government oversight of business at any level in favor of strict implementing strictly free markets.

Obviously it is possible to over-regulate. The inefficiency of a government bureaucracy style could easily cripple many private sector businesses. On the other hand, the public has seen time and time again since the inception of large corporations that many CEOs will, in fact, heartlessly gouge the pocketbooks of unwitting Americans just to make an extra dime. They will ‘cook the books’ hide faulty or shoddy products, encourage the revolving door between managerial staff and boards of directors in order to corrupt companies’ internal managerial auditing, and even outright embezzle from customers and employees. Thus private sector business leaders and government officials and regulators must strike a balance that will bolster the American economy by encouraging successful businesses and protect the interests of the American consumers.

Business is not evil. Neither is government. Corporations represent the division of labor that allows our society to enjoy the quality of life that it does. Government represents the aggregated efforts of society to control forces that, if left unchecked, could threaten the good of society. Large corporations and businesses go hand in glove with government to produce societal good. We’ve seen how corporations left unchecked (such as Enron or Exxon-Mobile) can skim profits out of the pockets of the country. But we’ve also seen how over-regulation (such as protective tariffs on trade with other countries) can clog markets and torpedo market efficiency. Furthermore, when government and industry get too buddy-buddy (such as between the Department of Defense and no bid contracts with private defense companies), money hemorrhages from the pockets of taxpayers and the halls of congress.

So then it seems as if private Business must check and balance the Government and Government must check and balance Business. Free markets may be great in economic theory, but a world with no restrictions creates the potential for corruption. Regulation may provide accountability, but rampant regulation creates inefficiency.

Well this has been long winded, but I am fascinated by the different perspectives. Through it all however, I have come to believe that both play a vital role in the healthy survival of the lifestyle Americans at large enjoy.

Teaser

2006-06-14T19:36:00.000-07:00

Here a little dish of some good, old-fashioned ridiculous media coverage to tide you over.

Thank God Fox is "Fair and Balanced." I don't know what would have happened otherwise.

Vacation

2006-06-13T05:09:00.000-07:00

Hey All,

It's finals week again. And next week I am on a trip with no internet access. (ahh scary).
Anyway, I'm taking a two week recess from posting. Enjoy.... go read Think Progress

We're 0 for 2 Today

2006-06-10T18:58:00.000-07:00

Well I think the US is 0 for 2 today in its foreign policy today. Hamas has officially revived its 'Death to Israel' stance launching at least 15 rockets into Israel and ending a 16-month truce. And conditions have gotten so bad at GITMO that three detainees committed suicide.

It just seems as if American policy towards terrorism is sputtering out of our government's control. This administration once thought that once the Palestinian people loosed themselves from Arafat's stubborn leadership, democratic elections would free the reasonable, moderate Palestinian population. Well.... This year, they elected a Hamas-led government who refuse to recognize Israel or disband the terrorist wing of their party. For a time, they remained relatively quiet - neither embracing the reforms many hoped the responsibility of government would force on them nor actively calling for Israel's destruction or its people. Now, though Hamas has renewed its purposeful, offensive assault on the people of Israel and its call for the destruction of the only true democracy in the MidEast.

This administration once thought - and I truly think they believed this - that they'd be able to detain suspected terrorists without abusing them, thus keeping America safer. But it has turned out, with our armed forces stretched so thinly across the globe and with a profound shortage of legal officers to oversee interrogations, GITMO has erupted in scandal. Eastern European Black sites and Abu Graib have forever marred the face of America - a face that once stood for civil rights... a face that once stood for an ideology... a face that once stood for freedom from oppression. The UN has already condemned Guantanamo. Hungerstrikes spring up so often it seems they never stop. And now conditions have gotten so bad that three 'detainees' have committed suicide.

America cannot force democracy before a country is ready for it. We cannot abuse the rights of some in an attempt to preserve the rights of others. The dedication to a high standard of ethics that America used to exhibit - the belief in inalienable rights on which our country was founded are US strengths not US weaknesses. I believe that respecting the rights we all deserve by being human is what keeps America Strong. My fear is that this administration sees respecting rights as merely an obstacle to security.

To win the war on terror, we must reclaim the moral high ground. We cannot win by sinking to the level of terrorists. Morality will be, perhaps, the most vital weapon in our war against the terrorists. But we need someone who can wield this weapon effectively. Right now... I'm not sure we have that.

Taxes Can Be Fun Too

2006-06-09T18:14:00.000-07:00

I've learned more about tax philosophy in the last two or three days that I really ever wanted to. Tax philosophy you say? Yes, actually. Tax philosophy. See the Progressive community has a very specific philosophy on how people should be taxed. Taxes should be (1) Fair, (2) should reward hard work, and (3) should be comprehensible. Don't worry, there are actually very few numbers and almost no technical talk in this post.

See here is the problem: Under the Bush Administration the tax code has expanded by more than 10,000 pages. Taxes are perhaps the most pervasive institution of our government. Nearly everyone pays them and without them the government would be absolutely non-functional. Why then is it that the most fundamental element of the US government also the most complicated?

But the complexity of the code isn't just annoying, it's also substantively detrimental. Here's an example. The Earned Income Tax Credit is, believe it or not, a morality-driven tax credit. It allows the government to waive or subsidize taxes for citizens who are having trouble making ends meet even before they have to pay taxes. Well that's very nice of the government, but the EITC is so complicated that 70 percent of people who file for it have to pay someone to figure out their taxes for them. As nice as the government is trying to be, they've made the code so complicated that the poor people they are trying to help have to shell out more money for someone to figure out their taxes. Oops.

Also, conservatives tax rich people's investment income at a significantly lower rate compared with low and middle income people's wages. Why? The effect this generates is that low and middle income families often pay double the percentage of their income that high income taxpayers pay. Does that make sense to you?

Finally, there are a ton of regressive taxes on the books. The payroll tax is probably the most famous. Regressive taxes are taxes that take a larger percentage of poor people's income than they do of rich people's. Essentially these are punishments for being poor. I don't think anyone would argue that this is fair.

So the Progressive community's solution - appropriately enough - is a progressive tax. Just three tax brackets - 15%, 25% and 34.6% - and progressive with equality for all forms of income. It would actually bring in $500 million of new revenue over the next 10 years.

Fairness. Simplicity. Reform. Sounds good to me.

LA LA LA LA... I Can't Hear You

2006-06-07T19:06:00.000-07:00

If you haven't gathered already from reading the rest of my blog, I often disagree with Conservatives. And yet, more often than not I understand that Conservatives and Progressives alike, usually have the best interests of the country at heart. But sometimes there are the people that feed my doubt.

Right now, Bush and Cheney are two of these people. Right now it seems like they are much more preoccupied with playing dammage control than with doing actual substantive good for this country. When the Republican Chairman of a powerful Senate Committee feels he has to threaten the administration with subpoenas just to get any kind of straight answer, it makes me doubt the sincerity of POTUS (President of the United States) and his trusty side kick VPOTUS.

Senator Arlen Specter sent this letter to Vice President Dick Cheney lamenting how uncooperative this administration has been in the congressional oversight process. And it's true. There has been practically no overisght over this administrations activities. We've seen it when congress has to find out with the public when newspapers publish investigative articles about NSA wiretapping or even Cheney shooting someone in the face.

Cheney is a Republican. Specter is a Republican. Can't we all just get along? Or short of getting along, can't this solidly, monopolistically Republican government ever share what information they have? Congressmen have security clearance. Specter, as chairman of the Judiciary committee has an especially high clearance. It's not as if they aren't allowed to see or know the information. They can discuss it in a closed hearing. They can share the info they have outside the public eye. But this administration refuses to share national Security information with the same people (Congress) who are charged with making the decision to declare war, and approve smaller military actions as well. Congress is charged with oversight and this administration is being obstructionist. Come on guys. We're all on the same team here. Let's work together ro make sure we do this right - securing our country and obeying our laws. Without both, what good is our democracy?

Whew! Some Info

2006-06-06T21:01:00.000-07:00

Ok, If you want to keep up to date,

Here are the 'official' unofficial stats
DailyKos' Home page is now reporting it, and
Christine Pelosi is doing some live blogging.

Good luck everyone and lets keep our fingers crossed.

We Know Nothing!

2006-06-06T16:59:00.000-07:00

Argh! In many cases local and state primary elections don't amount to much. Political heavyweights like Dianne Feinstein or Grey Davis mop the floor with their unknown, almost frivolous challengers. But this year is different. This year, the Westly-Angelides battle for governor may very well define the gubenatorial race against Schwarzenegger in November. And in California's 50th district, previously occupied by now convicted felon Duke Cunningham, Francine Busby and Brian Bilbray are 'duking' it out (pun certainly intended) for legitimate control of that Congressional seat.

And yet, noone is publishing exit polling; no campaign has any idea how things are going... I called Bilbray. I called Busby. I called Angelides. I called Westly. Noone knows. And may I say, its very frustrating. I know it can be difficult for Westly or Angelides to have pollsters all around the state, but the RNC just poured millions of dollars into the race for the CA-50 in the last week alone. Couldn't they have spared a thousand or two more to pay some exit pollsters. I am sitting on pins and needles here!

All we know is that there has been remarkably low turnout: about 38% of registered voters. I think this is probably a good thing. In a district where there is a 3-to-1 ratio of registered Republicans to registered Democrats, low turnout means that many of the voters who would normally turnout are disillusioned and aren't showing up. This, in turn, means that only the really vocal people are voting - and in all cases these tend to be the minority. When they're low turnout, it tends to advantage the underdog. But now I'm just grasping at straws. Someone tell me what's going on.

ARGH!!!

GO VOTE - California Primary

2006-06-05T19:16:00.000-07:00

Even some of my most politically minded friends forgot to register or send in their absentee ballot. It never ceases to amaze me. Your vote does matter. Even if your vote wasn't going to change. Even if you think you live in a 'safe' district or a 'safe' state, getting out the vote matters. All the communications and political science research shows that very few people change their minds; elections are decided by turnout. It's not about how many heads you can turn, it's about how many of your supporters show up to vote for you.

Of course I think you should vote for Steve Westly for Governor and Francine Busby and Susan Davis for Congress (in the CA-50 and CA-53 respectively) and Yes on Prop 81 and 82. But really you should go vote no matter what your preferences or political leanings are. I truly mean that. No matter who you want to vote for, I think you should get out there and punch that ballot card... and remind all of your friends too. I'm appalled ever year at how many of my friends don't go out to vote because they don't care enough to or because they don't think their vote matters or because they forgot.

Rule #76: No Excuses; Play like a champion.

Don't forget. Go VOTE.

Amending the Constitution

2006-06-03T03:49:00.000-07:00

So I was thinking… (I know, always a dangerous activity for me)…. The Republican Party platform calls for smaller government, i.e. less government intrusion, and more personal accountability. Basically they seem to want government to do only what it needs to do, and give more autonomy to individuals. But both significant Constitutional amendments that the GOP has proposed would significantly restrict personal liberties. Think about it: The flag burning amendment (also known as the anti-free speech amendment) and the Federal marriage amendment (also known as the intolerant bigot amendment; see my post earlier this week) are designed to tell private citizens what they cannot do. In fact, besides the prohibition amendment, which if you remember was a tremendous, almost awe inspiring failure, no constitutional amendment has ever before restricted the rights of private citizens.

I’m astonished. The Framers of the Constitution were suspicious of government. They knew it was necessary, but they set up checks and balances and an elaborate constitution in order to temper the powers of government. The constitution is meant to protect the people against the government. If you look at any article, clause, or amendment (as I said, with the exception of the Prohibition), they are all designed to protect the rights of citizens against the powers of government. But what do the Republicans want to do? They want to grant the government sweeping, brutally intrusive powers to restrict your freedoms of speech and even steal the rights of millions of Americans to publicly and officially declare their love for one another and commitment to each other.

These would be unprecedentedly damaging and intrusive powers. For the party that stands for smaller government, they sure want to add a lot of new and unheard of powers. When you think about what Democrats want to do with their bigger government, pay you money so that you can retire, pay your medical bills for you, help educate you and your children, provide for the academic research that has helped to keep America on the technological edge….Maybe that kind of big government doesn’t sound so bad. It almost sounds like the ideal best friend. The republican form of big government sounds more like the drunken belligerent father who used to ground you for no good reason.

Of the 27 times we have amended our constitution, the only time we tried to restrict personal liberties, the policy ended in a miserable failure. I know that George Bush doesn’t like to read the paper, but maybe one of his staffers could read him the constitution. Maybe one of his aides can let him know what he should have learned in high school history class – that the prohibition was a miserable failure that is actually largely responsible for the creation of organized crime. Why on earth, with that knowledge, who Bush or the Republicans ever try to constitutionally restrict our ‘inalienable’ rights? Well? You tell me.

Hey Jealousy

2006-06-02T18:20:00.000-07:00

WARNING: what follows is only partially serious. If you are allergic or adverse to sarcasm, this post may not be for you. Also you must be as tall as this line to read the following post ________________________________________________

So here’s my new theory: President George Bush Conducts his public policy out of jealousy. It seems to be the only way I can explain the decisions that drove his approval ratings into the 20s or the decision to allow his ambassador to the United Nations to tell Iran, a dangerous axis-of-evil country on the verge of being a nuclear power, to “Put up or shut up.”

Here’s the nitty gritty of my theory. George Bush senior had job approval ratings that hit about 28%. George Bush junior got jealous and so he kept Rumsfeld onboard to drive the Iraqi mission into the ground until Bush juniors approval also hit about 28% or 29%.

Next, the NFL offered Jeb Bush the job of NFL commissioner. Perhaps George W. Bush said to himself “Hey! My brother’s not the only one who can draft people.” So he directed Mr. Bolton, his ambassador to the UN to aggravate one of the most dangerous leaders in the world, to force us into a war we don’t have the troops to fight – thereby necessitating a draft.

Ok… it’s a little bit funny, and it’s a little bit far-fetched. But if this isn’t the explanation for the actions above then what is?

Leave the Guy Alone

2006-06-01T07:42:00.000-07:00

Blake Gottesman is Special Assistant and Personal Aide to President Bush. He dropped out of Claremont McKenna College after taking classes for one year in order to take his job at the White House. He dated Jenna Bush back in high school and part of his job as personal aide includes the menial tasks like making penut butter sandwiches and babysitting the dog. Yet he just got into Harvard's Business School.

A ton of Blogs and paper have jumped on this tidbit saying that he doesn't deserve it - that making sandwiches does not prepare someone for Business School or that this is Bush's form of Affirmative Action. But I say: LEAVE THE KID ALONE! Many of my fellow progressives, eager to jump on any anti-Bush bandwagon would take the above information and say flat out that Blake doesn't deserve to get in to Harvard Business School. My response is: YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT HIM. So he didn't finish college? So what? If Bill Clinton had come to me in my first year of college and said, "Hey, I want you to come be my personal aide and have an office in the West Wing Right next to the oval office," I would have dropped by books in a blink and been on the next plane to DC. Most people I know would have... so give the kid a break for stopping out of college to work for the President of the United States.

As for his menial tasks, I answered phones and sorted mail and stuffed envelopes when I was working on the Hill, but I also drafted statements and speeches for my Congresswoman, did legislative research to make vote recommendations and wrote "dear Colleague" letters that ended up being signed by 5 Members of Congress and 2 Senators. And that was just on the hill. Imagine what Blake Gottesman gets to do for the President. Just to say that he does menial tasks as part of his job doesn't mean they are his whole job. Ask an executive assistant what they do for their boss. I'll bet they tell you its harder than you think. Being a personal aide is even harder. It takes a tremendous work ethic, sleepless nights and uncanny organizational skills - and for this information I am only going off my understanding of personal aides to the doctors and lawyers I know. I can't imagine what it must be like for the President.

I am not saying that Blake absolutely deserves to get into Harvard Business School. I don't know the kid. I couldn't say for sure. All I am saying is that, with the information presented, it's impossible to determine that he isn't deserving. Of course he gets a tremendous leg up by having a letter of recommendation from the President, but doesn't he deserve it for working 4 years as Bush's personal aide? Gottesman could be brilliant - Claremont is a very good school - we don't know. Maybe he was getting straight A's. It hasn't been reported. I'm not saying we need to roll out the red carpet. I am just saying stop and think about what you're saying before you say it. You probably haven't met this kid. Don't dismiss him out of hand just because he worked for George W.

Way To Go Gore

2006-05-31T18:27:00.000-07:00

Democrats have started to fight back. It used to be that much of the Democratic leadership was afraid to throw a punch, but it seems that Gore is not. Gore rips the Republicans a new one on the Early Show. When confronted with the idea that global warming might not exist Gore responds, "Well, I guess in some quarters there’s still a debate over whether the moon landing was staged." Way to go. Gore finally made these people look as ridiculous as their argument. You can watch it here.

But its true. There is no more argument in the scientific community over climate change than there is about the moon landing or crop circles or any other ridiculous conspiracy theory. So there you have it. Anyone spouting off about how smog and fossil fuels aren't contributing to climate change must either be ignorant of the evidence or just plain crackpots.

This is what Clinton brought to the table - the ability to fight back. As much as I may agree with Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton's policy stances, they simply roll over and play dead when the GOP message machine rolls out its megaphones. Finally, Clinton's VP has rolled out a few megaphones of his own. Thank God there is finally a Democrat who will do some shouting of his own.

Common Misconceptions

2006-05-30T14:28:00.000-07:00

People think Conservatives are for smaller government and less federal spending. They are wrong. People think Democrats spend the hell out of the government. They are wrong. Historically and even today, Republicans have jacked up the charges on the Federal credit card without producing any real or lasting benefits.

I am not sure where this misconception came from... Republicans have always claimed to be "strong on the economy," but over the last 50 years or so, they seem to have done more harm than good. Reaganomics was a failure.

See Reagan wanted to try what FDR did - spend your way out of a recession. The problem is that Reagan's 'conservative' tack he used ballooned the federal debt, and only served as a band-aid for the gushing wound that was the federal deficit. See FDR created governmental programs that gave money to the 'little guys' of America - the ones who truly had it tough during the depression. Because they needed the money, they spent it, and it stayed in the economy. True to flawed Republican values, Reagan whipped out the Federal credit card and tried to spend his way into an economic boom, but unlike FDR, he gave all the money to large corperations and those who were already rich. He vainly hoped that this money would eventually "trickle down" to the people who actually needed it. Unfortunately, since these rich companies and individuals already had the money they needed to spend, this additional money was invested in stocks or kept in savings accounts and did not ever really reach the people it needed to help.

If you look at George W. Bush's record, he campaigned on decreasing federal spending, but today, the federal debt is larger than it has ever been - in real dollars or today's dollars or however you want to measure it. By any rubric, he's spend the most. In 1999, he said he would Âoppose and veto any increase in individual or corporate marginal income tax rates or individual or corporate income tax hikes.Â But Guess what? He did just that this week. He raised a variety of taxes on Americans oversees anTRIPLEDED taxes on students with college savings accounts.

Whatever you think about the policy itself, Bush violated a campaign promise. Not that I am surprised, but maybe those of you who think "Dems are good on social issues and Republicans are good on the economy" need to reevaluate.

Democrats know how to run the economy - Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton both oversaw booming economies and both reduced the federal debt and the federal deficitThroughgh his hard work, Clinton created a federal surplus by the end of his term (that was quickly squanderebybu George W.) Democrats are good for the economy. Period. Maybe we should start to vote like it.

I Think Therefore I Tank

2006-05-26T18:50:00.000-07:00

WARNING: the opinions expressed in this article (and in the rest of my blog for that matter) are my own and not necessarily shared by any of my employers current or former.

In Democratic Athens, Greece there was no difference between the citizenry and the government. The citizens were the government. In early European and American democracies there were two entities: the government, and a separate citizenry who elect the government. We call this a Republic. In modern American (and to some extent European) democracies there is now a third entity: the Non-governmental organization (NGO). And just as Athenian and early American democracies transformed the topography of government, this new, powerful, and growing level of entities is transforming modern politics.

Some NGOs are exclusively dedicated to a advocating for an issue or issues. These are usually called interest groups. Then there are the organizations that advocate for a variety of issues, but that also do their own research to back up there positions. These are called think tanks. Finally there are the groups that specialize in communicating the ideas of other NGOs and getting paid for it. We call these the lobbying groups.

What I don’t understand is certain think tank’s adamant asserting that they are purely research organizations – that they don’t have any policy preferences. Yeah Right. It isn’t possible to spend your entire life researching the problems of the world and not have some opinion as to the better or worse ways to go about solving those problems. Some Think Tanks claim they need to remain nonpartisan, while others reply that they are “a think tank, not lobbyists.” But here’s a newsflash for you: No matter how much you emphasize the ‘non-governmental’ part of NGO, Think Tanks are a part of the political process. The virtue of think tanks is that they employ experts and specialists who can enlighten politicians (who tend to be generalists) about the best ways to solve this world’s problems.

So get off your high horse. What any NGO or think tank wants is to have the best public policy come out the other end of the political process. So then, if you as a think tank have spent years researching something, don’t just try to present dry and boring facts…TELL government what the best idea is. Think tank’s research exists to support governmental decision making. The employees of think tanks, then, should be helping elected officials make the decisions the think tank thinks are important. If you want to do pure, unadulterated, unfiltered research…get a job at a University somewhere. But think tanks need to begin to understand their role in the political process. Think Tanks are invaluable, but only if they tell elected officials what they think, not just what they’ve found.

Bush Governing in a Fact-Free Zone

2006-05-24T16:45:00.000-07:00

We all thought Colbert was exaggerating when he told us to look up all the facts we need in our gut. Surely no politician is that blind to the facts. But it seems he was more right than many of us care to admit. When asked about Al Gore's new movie called "An Inconvenient Truth," Bush quipped "In my judgment we need to set aside whether or not greenhouse gases have been caused by mankind or because of natural effects."Hmm.... Bush has pledged to solve the climate change problem, but he doesn't know what's causing it. In fact, when people tell him the definitive reasons, he ignores them. And this is the man leading our country.

Look at the facts. Not a single peer-reviewed study conducted between 1993 and 2003 challenged the consensus that the earthÂ’s temperature is rising due to human activity. Yet Bush pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Why? He used tobelievee science and now he doesn't? I think Bush has a term for people like that. Ibelievee it was "Flip-flopper."

The White House Council on Environmental Quality Chairman Jim Connaughton has apparently "been giving him [Bush] the same advice [as Al Gore] for years." So every important study in the last 15 years has agreed with Bush's lawyers and environmental advisors and Al Gore, but Bush "isn't sure." What the hell does it take to convince to this guy that we have a problem? As per usual, it seems everyone knows the story and everyone knows the solution except for Bush.

Government has a responsibility to the people of the United States. Time and time again it seams that Bush sees fit to ignore thatresponsibilityy. We can't put up with this anymore.

Can Democracy Stop Terrorism?

2006-05-22T11:55:00.000-07:00

Bill Clinton famously said "Democracies don't fight each other." Since this famous utterance (and even before it) political scientists have scurried about trying to answer the question 'Why?.' But what if it's just a coincidence? What if it is not Democracy that stops wars and stops terrorism, but rather something else entirely?

I think political scientists may have missed the boat on this one. It's true that there have been very few wars between Democratic countries and that the biggest threats of terrorism today come from authoritarian, Middle-Eastern regimes, but it is also true that most of the Western democracies today are rich, independent of their regime-type.

Ok, that may have been confusing. Let's go through this slowly. In all likelihood, American and Britain will not be going to war anytime soon. Neither will France and Spain or Canada and Japan. But these countries are among the richest in the world. If we look at India or 'Democratic' Afghanistan or Iraq - all of these democracies are incredibly war-prone and are hotbeds of terrorism (Even if you want to take Iraq and Afghanistan out of the mix for obvious reasons, India has a tremendous terrorism problem and it has been a Democracy for a while now). Maybe it's because these countries are ranked 152, 153, and 218th respectively in per capita GDP.

Islamisism doesn't inspire terrorism single handedly - Qatar and The United Arab Emigrates are Predominantly Islamic states. And Democracy alone cannot prevent Terrorism (see India discussed above). In fact, if you buy into David A. Lake' argument in his paper, Rational Extremism: Understanding Terrorism in the Twenty-first Century, Democracy might actually make terrorism more effective.

Lake posits that terrorists are rational - that they commit acts of terror in order to provoke a disproportionate response from the victim country, thus swaying moderates to the terrorists side back in the home country. This theory, however, necessitates that public opinion matters. In order for this theory to work, swaying people needs to make a difference, and it makes the most difference in a Democracy. Thus, Democracy may only feed terrorism. Look at India or Northern Ireland. They fit Lake's argument perfectly. They both have very low per capita GDPs and their people are not doing very well at all. Although they are both highly democratic, terrorism thrives - both transgressors and targets because terrorists believe they can sway people.

Instead then, perhaps it is a measure of sovereignty that stops terrorism. Folks in Northern Ireland and Terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan feel oppressed. What's more, one of Al Qaeda's most oft-repeated demands is American withdrawal from the Middle East. What they want is sovereignty. What they want is an end to de facto, if not outright Imperialism.

I am not advocating that America just stand up and walk out of the Middle East. I realize that is dangerous and impractical. Instead I just think that America needs to take a real look at its 'Democracy Promotion' initiative. I don't think it is going to stop terrorism.

Hippocratic Paradox

2006-05-20T11:19:00.000-07:00

The Bible decrees the death penalty for a variety of crimes. But when they started to interpret it, the Rabbis thought it was so morally reprehensible that they made it practically impossible for anyone to qualify for it. They made it almost a non-issue, even though it technically remained on the books. Since February of this year, California developed the same stance. A new law declared that only a licensed doctor can administer a lethal injection, but Hippocratic oath which begins "First, do no harm" prevents any doctors from agreeing to perform the injection. As a result, all death penalties in California are stalled.

Here is an interesting dilemma (and in my opinion a beneficial one). I think most of us can agree that a doctor (or nurse) should be the one to administer an injection, be it lethal or otherwise. And I don't think anyone would fault a doctor or nurse for refusing to violate the oath of their profession by doing so. And so we are at an impasse. Perhaps, however this speaks to the 8th amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment. When doctors refuse to administer the only death-penalty method that California believes isn't "cruel and unusual," we have to ask ourselves "is it possible that ALL death penalties are cruel and unusual?"

I have made my stance on the death penalty before, so I won't bore you with it again, but I thought the above facts, which just came to my attention, were interesting and speak well to the moral vacuum surrounding many people's discussions of the death penalty.

Is the CA-50 in Virginia? Um... No

2006-05-19T10:25:00.000-07:00

Francine Busby (Democrat) and Brian Bilbray (Republican) are vying for a seat in Congress (the CA-50 was recently vacated when Duke Cunningham resigned in bribery scandal). But something doesn't add up. Mr. Bilbray has his permanent residence listed as Fairfax County, Virginia. But Congressmen have to live in the district they represent(NOTE: see David Daitch's comment to this post - I was wrong about this statemtnt), so Mr. Bilbray also has his permanent residence listed as Carlsbad, CA (where CA-50 is). But wait... there's more. Bilbray also owns a House in Imperial Beach, south of San Diego.

Where does this guy live? How many counties does he vote in? Exactly how illegal is this? It's not just that he's a carpetbagger, it's that this is VOTER FRAUD. I know Members of Congress often have multiple residences since they spend half the year in DC and half the year in their home district, but legally they can only have one permanent residence (as any other citizen) and it must be in their home state.

So now, not only did he get his but kicked by Susan Davis (D-CA-53) a couple years ago (when he was running in that race), now he is gonna get his but kicked by a Democrat in a signigicantly more Republican district (CA-50) becuase he is such a schmuck that he has 3 permanent residences. Oy Vey. What these people will do...

The Intolerant Bigot Amendment

2006-05-18T12:29:00.000-07:00

I am sorry... I normally try to avoid unbridled rants on my Blog, preferring instead to approach issues with conviction, but reasonably calm, collected and even handed. Today, I simply don't have that choice.

Today Arlen Specter's Senate Committee marked up a proposed Federal Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage. Knowing Republicans affinity for renaming bills to sway voters, I would like to rename this the "intolerant bigot" Amendment. Honestly, in the 21st century is it still an uphill battle against the ornery forces of ignorance and intolerance just to afford equal rights to citizens of this country?

There are still problems in America. Women are earning 70 cents to the dollar compared to men, Black Americans, Latino Americans and other minorities are still discriminated against throughout society. But at least the overwhelming percentage of the population understands that these are problems. How can a majority of Americans still see members of the Gay, Straight, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender (GLBT)community as less than citizens. It is unfathomable to me.

Come on people, get out of the dark ages. Come to the light. Realize that no matter what your opinion of someone is personally, every American is entitled to all the rights of citizenship in this country - including those associated with marriage.

The only, and I mean only people in this country whose rights are legitimately abridged are convicted felons. Not just the accused and not the probably guilty and not even those who have committed misdemeanors, but FELONS. Felons lose their right to vote. Other than that, they retain the right to a trial, to a lawyer, to freedom of speech, to be married, and to live life as an American.

Shame on Mr. Arlen Specter for even allowing this exercise in intolerance and bigotry to enter the legislative process. Shame on Majority Leader Bill Frist for brining it to a vote.

Kudos only to Senator Russ Feingold who stormed out of the meeting in disgust. I cannot imagine a more appropriate response.

To donate to the Human Rights Campaign to stop this amendment in its tracks go here. Until May 1st, any donation you make will be matched by HRC Board Member Bruce Bastian, doubling the effectiveness of your contribution. Go do it now. Even $10 will help.

Click here to fill out your information so that the HRC can hand deliver a post card to your Senator Declaring your opposition to this amendment.

I normally don't condone this kind of a call to action in my Blog, but even considering such legislation infuriates me. We are America. Land of the free. Let's start acting like it.

On the List?

2006-05-17T06:22:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, four years after GITMO opened its gates, the Department of Defense released the names of the prisoners being held there. Keep in mind that the DoD never actually contested the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) petitions that the AP filed, they merely refused to release the information. Finally, though, The DoD released 558 names of prisoners who had been or are currently detained at Guantanamo Bay. Almost one third of these people (201) had never been released before. Yet many of the known, big-name terrorists are not on the list.

The absence of many terrorists who are known captives of the US from this GITMO list has prompted many to ask "so where are they being held?," but this is the wrong question. The right question is this: So then, who are we holding in this detention facility?

This administration has tried to appease the public by telling them two things about GITMO: (1) that these are terrorists who don't deserve our sympathy, and (2) We are treating them well. But are either of these claims true?

GITMO holds "enemy combatants" without benefit of charge, trial or lawyer. Furthermore, the term "enemy combatant" is undefined and Bush and Condi and Rummy refuse to define it. So we are holding a classification of possibly suspected terrorists, but we don't know how to classify the group and now it seems that the actual suspected likely terrorists we were holding there, AREN'T THERE. So who is there? Are we holding innocent American citizens who placed one unlucky phone call caught illegally by the NSA? Are we holding American political dissidents that this administration just decided to call 'suspects' or "enemy combatants? SO MUCH FOR statement 1.

As far as treating them well goes, the static GOP talking points look more like bald-faced lies. The Red Cross has said that GITMO interrogation techniques are tantamount to torture. The RED CROSS! This is not some partisan game, as Limbaugh would have you believe. This is not a battle in the left-right war. This is the American government committing acts of torture.

The Political game only enters it when Limbaugh and others attempt to mollify the American public by reading us gourmet GITMO menus. If you feed people well and then torture them, YOU ARE STILL TORTURING THEM. Not to mention, the people I know who have visited GITMO have said the food was rather dry and not good. Also, look at the leaked picture I have included in this post. Does that look like America is treating these people well? So much for statement #2.

Who are these people we are torturing? The primary terrorists aren't there. Are these just unlucky shmucks who were in the wrong place at the wrong time? Are they just distant family members of informants? America needs to get a grip. I understand that terrorism is a crisis, but adding human rights abuses is not the way to solve the terrorist threat.

Bank-rolling Yourself

2006-05-16T09:13:00.000-07:00

Where does corruption come from? Well... In the United States, campaigning for office is incredibly expensive and if you're a politician and you don't get elected, you're out of a job. This leaves a gap for lobbyists and special interests to sneak in. If they can bankroll a politicians campaign, that government official can't risk offending his donors, or he will be out of a job come election time, with no money to campaign to get re-elected.

The situation is even worse in state and local elections. It is much harder to raise funds for lower office, but oftentimes, national companies will pour money into an opposition candidate in order to oust and incumbent. This makes state legislators, governors and mayors even more susceptible to the wiles of interest groups and lobbyists.

So how do we save ourselves from this trap? Well in the long run, public funding of campaigns (as occurs in many other countries) could easily mitigate the problems we experience today. Until then, Candidates who can finance their own campaigns, though often eccentric, hold the promise of uncorrupt government. When people like Steve Westly (running for California governor) can back their own campains, it is a good sign they won't be in the pockets of the interest groups (or at least not as much as other candidates.

Steve Westly is now independently wealthy from his time as an eBay executive. He has poured millions of dollars of his own money into his campaign instead of soliciting money from oil companies, unions or other special interests. As such, he will be less susceptible to such political forces once in office. Furthermore, the friends and allies he made while working at eBay position him ideally to govern California and its huge tech industry.

As we begin to scratch the surface of the pervasive culture of corruption seeping into every corner of our government, we must turn to those we know can weather the political storm - those who aren't taking huge contributions for the corporations and interest groups that are hurting honest public policy around the nation.

Performing Military Surgery With an Ax

2006-05-15T06:09:00.000-07:00

Well... I was gone for the weekend... hope you weren't too disappointed, but now I'm back to fill you in on the absurdity of that institution we call our government.

So tonight President Bush is scheduled to announce that he will send about 10,000 troops to the US-Mexico Border. But deploying troops to secure our borders will likely only hurt the US immigration situation. It strains an already overstretched, underpaid, overworked military; it aggravates US-Mexican relations; and it doesn't really help the border patrol do their job.

Military force is a very specific kind of tool. You wouldn't want your surgeon to perform open heart surgery on you with an ax, and trying to control immigration flows with the national guard is no better. Many situations call for military force, but this isn't one of them. Our military is trained to kill. That is simply what they do. They carry guns and when charged with defending a city, a building or anything, they shoot at the people they are defending against. Now I know there are a lot of people in this country who don't like illegal immigration, but shooting people trying to cross the border seeking a better life seems terribly excessive.

Border Patrol are trained in the delicate art of securing our borders - how to spot people trying to cross and how to scoop them up, arrest them, and send them back without actually harming them. The military simply isn't trained for this task. Maybe they could be, but at the moment they aren't. It is bad policy to send American armed forces to do a job they don't know how to do. The whole country roared when they found out Bush had appointed an Arabian-horse trainer to direct FEMA. It's no different now. 'Brownie' wasn't trained to clean up after hurricanes and look what happened. Our military isn't trained to control immigration, I shudder to think what Bush wants them to do.

And finally, we don't have any troops to spare. Since the military cant really do anything to help the border patrol, I can only assume that this is some kind of political game, but if so, its a dangerous game to play with the few troops we have left to defend our own country. For more on this see my post: "Victims at Home, Victims Abroad."

Sometimes, political situations require a scalpel, not a hammer. There is no cosmetic solution to America's immigration problem. We need to train more border security agents, and we need to have a meaningful discussion with Mexico, California and Texas (primarily) about what to do about the illegal immigrants already here. Bush seems to think that throwing troops at any situation will solve it. This philosophy has already inspired most of the world to hate America. Are we really going to try to bolster those statistics?

Lieing Beneath the Podium!

2006-05-10T20:16:00.000-07:00

Contrary to popular belief, podiums are not fountains of eternal truth. In fact, in Washington today, it seems that lies and inconsistencies flow freely from Bush, Jackson, Snow and Rumsfeld's respective podiums (or rather "podia," which, as my co-worker David has pointed out to me, is the correct pluralization of the word podium). Elected officials and appointed bureaucrats fling them at reporters so often and with such veracity I can hardly keep up. Here's a quick rundown.

The Administration released a 'list' of the times Jack Abramoff visited the White House, but it leaves off at least 5 or 6 visits per year that are photo-documented in the press already (including Christmas and New Years parties as well as Bush's press conferences where he appointed Abramoffs old colleagues).

Alfonso Jackson, director of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) took the podium and publicly stated that he rejected contract bids because the bidders "criticized Bush." When members of the Press pointed out to him that this is illegal he quickly changed his tune saying he hadn't mentioned a specific contract and even stating that he is not involved in any of the contracting procedures. Both are blatantly false and contradict his statements as well as his spokespeoples'.

Finally there's good old Rummy. Giving a speech a few days ago, 3 protestors stood up at various points throughout his speech to criticize him and accuse him of war crimes. When a 27-year CIA veteran took to the microphone to ask a question, I was hopeful that reason would prevail. This 27-year veteran prefaced his question with a quote from Rummy where he said "we know where they [weapons of Mass Destruction] are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad, and east, west, south and north somewhat." Even though he is on record saying this and it is one of Rummy's more famous utterances, He flat-out denied ever having said it. HE WAS ON MEET THE PRESS WHEN HE SAID IT. IT'S DOCUMENTED ON TV. There is no doubt he said it, and yet he refuses to come back to reality.

Another interesting Rummy moment was when he spent only 40% of the billions of dollars allocated to train Iraqi troops. The Defense department appropriated billions of dollars in 'emergency' supplemental spending bills. How emergency could they have been when more than a year later, only about 40% of that money was spent? And furthermore, Rumsfeld railed the congress for threatening to scale back future defense appropriations. He had the gaul to pass blame onto congress for his underfunding this war effort.

And this concludes tonight's episode of liars and Crooks.

P.S. The Primary elections are coming up on June 6th (in California). Are you registered? If not, do it. And vote in the primary. These are just as important as the general elections for deciding who will be running your state or your country. Register absentee if you have to. If you're from California, go here or call (916) 657-2166. Do it today. Deadlines area approaching fast.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's letter

2006-05-09T13:52:00.000-07:00

Go here right now and read Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's letter to President Bush. It is worth every second you spend reading it.

Some of it is brutally incisive. Some of it is outright offensive. But in its entirety, it is an important document that ANYONE interested in politics of any kind must read.

Education's Exit Strategy

2006-05-09T11:16:00.000-07:00

We all remember standardized testing. We all hated the SAT. Those of us unlucky enough to be subjected to the PSAT, or worse, the GMAT, GRE, LSAT or MCAT cringe at the very mention of the word standardized test. But Schwarzenegger and some other California legislators want to give California students one last punch in the gut before they swing their tassels and toss their mortar boards. They have instituted a standardized high school exit exam, with no function other than to rip diplomas out of the hands of high school seniors who fail the test.Now, they are resisting Superior Court Judge, Robert Freedman's tentative injunction against the test.

Now, don't get me wrong, I am all for accountability and raising California's education standards. I truly believe that education is what will maintain this country's greatness. But a standardized exit test is bad policy, and possibly unconstitutional (according to the California constitution).

Non-native speakers of English and kids who live in underprivileged areas and in poor school districts simply don't have the chances to pass this test that others do. It is an inherently unfair system - punishing kids who have already had to endure bad school districts and underfunded schools. Any law with such a disparate impact on racial and socioeconomic groups is unconstitutional according to California law. And besides, what is more likely? That students who fail this test will renew their efforts in the next year to get their diploma or drop out and simply look for a job without the benefit of a high school diploma? Probably the latter.

If you really want to make schooling better, administer the test at the end of sophomore year. If students fail then, give them specific goals they have to reach before they can graduate. At least in this instance the test can act as a motivator - inspiring the student to work to get their diploma. By administering the test at the end of senior year we are just ripping diploma's out of student's hands without giving them so much as the slightest chance to remedy the situation.

This simply isn't helping anything. California's educational system certainly needs improvement, but encouraging students to drop out at the last minute not the way to improve graduating seniors' test scores. It might make the statistics look better, but it is an incredibly dangerous band-aid on a deep, hemorrhaging wound in California. The band-aid may cover up the problem, but just because we stop seeing it in the statistics doesn't mean we've actually improved anything.

Voices in the White House

2006-05-07T20:29:00.000-07:00

On Friday Porter Goss, Head of the CIA resigned suddenly and effective immediately - an incredible rarity for Washington resignations. On Monday, Bush is expected to name Gen. Michael Hayden, currently the deputy National Security Advisor and General in the Air Force, to Goss' old post. Republicans in Congress think this is a bad idea, and get this: I agree with them.

Right now this Administration is only hearing from the voices that are telling it what it wants to hear. Rice, Rummy, Cheney and Negroponte seem only to tell Bush what he wants to hear. Appointing Hayden could only make this worse. While I would like to have confidence in Hayden, his current boss is Negroponte and he has worked directly under Cheney before as well. Furthermore, as a military general, obedience to Secretary Rumsfeld runs in his veins.

Suddenly appointing him to head his own agency will effectively castrate the CIA. It would be nice to have a former military officer heading the CIA to add more credibility to his position so that he won't merely be drowned out by Rummy. Even if he does get promoted, however, it isn't easy to suddenly see your former bosses as equals. Hayden will most likely (consciously or not) treat Cheney, Negroponte and Rumsfeld as if they were still his boss. (Rumsfeld technically still is his boss since he is an active military officer). What Bush needs right now is a powerful new voice. Someone who can hold his or her own in the intelligence community's debates and one who won't feel sheepish about contradicting former bosses.

The last thing this administration needs right now is another yes man.

Oh yeah... and then there was that whole NSA wiretapping thing. Hayden created and subsequently defended the warrentless domestic spying program that has drawn so much flak.

He's looking down the road at a rocky confirmation process and with Democrats and Republicans lining up to give him the thumbs down, it looks like the world will soon see Hayden for the empty shirt he is.

Progressive Strength

2006-05-06T09:44:00.000-07:00

Progressives cannot deny that we are a country at war. National Security must become a central tenet of the progressive platform. Luckily, progressives can offer a viable, responsible and superior defense strategy. I call it: 'Progressive Strength.'

War Hawk Conservatives sent hundreds of thousands of troops, reservists and national guardsmen abroad, draining the forces we needed at home to protect against Katrina. War Hawk Conservatives forced the defense industry to pillage their own Research and Development funds to pay for the billions of dollars of repairs the Administration failed to budget for. War Hawk Conservatives are scraping the barrel - desperately begging the poor and destitue in our country to replenish our diminishing forces even as the Administration hacks military health care and benefits.

Progressive Strength will protect our nation's interests at home - not just abroad. Progressives understand the necessity of keeping troops at home to protect this country. Progressives understand the need for R&D to maintain America's military edge in an increasingly globalizing market. And Progressives seek to help the poor and destitue in our country and give our men and women in uniform the health care, pay and benefits they truly deserve for serving their country.

War Hawk Conservatives have squandered our military assets. Progressives can take it back.

It's all about marketing. It's all about packaging. It's all about the pitch. Progressives have come up with bold solutions to our nation's national security problem, but they are still afraid to shout this plan from the rooftops because the 'compassionate conservatives' have 'owned' the national security issue for so long.

Progressives need to sell their plan to the American people and do it in a way that will convince them it is a viable alternative. Actually funding the military, budgeting for it rather than begging for billions in supplementals, increasing not decreasing health and retirement benefits - moving our military forward: this is progressive strength. The strength of our nation is progress and Progressives are its core.

We need these tag lines. Rove has been feeding analogous ones to Conservatives for years. It's about time we fought back.

San Diego Decides to Respect the Constitution

2006-05-04T12:55:00.000-07:00

After a 17-year battle, a Federal judge forces the San Diego city government to actually respect the Constitution. For years a large, imposing cross has sat atop Mount Soledad on city property, overlooking the Pacific Ocean. 2 years after citizens brought legal charges claiming it is unconstitutional for the city to maintain a religious monument on public ground, a Federal appellate court confirmed the cross' unconstitutionality. Now, 17 years later, that same court gave San Diego 90 days to remove the cross and imposed a $5,000 per day fine if it isn't removed. Finally, San Diego will be forced to comply.

Citizens and city councilors in San Diego have pulled out every last trick in the book and every last obstructionist tactic to keep that cross on top of Mount Soledad, and although Mayor Sanders wants to appeal the decision (again), it's uncertain whether or not the city council will approve the appeal. They really have tried everything though - selling the site to a private owner for $1, designating it a historical monument, passing referenda with subversive language, land transfer schemes - but none of this negates the fact that "law[s] respecting an establishment of religion" are unconstitutional.

The Framers respected religion. Indeed, many of them were devoutly religious; but they believed emphatically that government should never have the power to impose any one religion on any of its people. Freedom of religion does not require that politicians relinquish their faith. But government cannot legislate religion.

A cross sitting on public property is hardly government prostheletizing, but it is certainly evidence of government-endorsed religious symbolism. And it is not acceptable. San Diegans who beleive that the separation of church and state is important haven't given up their struggle for constitutional vindication.

VOTE!

2006-05-03T23:47:00.000-07:00

Meddling Minutia – Micromanaging Our National Anthem

2006-05-02T20:18:00.000-07:00

America is fighting two wars, drowning under the advancing tide of high oil prices, limping from corrupt politicians gushing from every corner of government, and this administration is crumbling beneath the lowest poll numbers they have even seen. So what is the president worried about? Apparently he’s worried about what language people sing our national anthem in.

This President rarely ever accepts pre-screened questions. When he does he often avoids answering the critical ones or has to pause for a few seconds to gather his thoughts. Instead, however, when asked last week in the rose garden what he thought about a music star singing the American national anthem in Spanish, Bush immediately quipped, “I think the national anthem ought to be sung in English, and I think people who want to be a citizen of this country ought to learn English and they ought to learn to sing the national anthem in English. Responding so quickly, he must have been prepared for this question.

First of all, doesn’t the President have more important things to worry about than what language people are singing our national anthem in? Illegal immigration has a powerful effect on this Nation’s economy, but instead of emphasizing the importance of his guest worker program – actually a very moderate and relatively reasonable proposal – he jumps at the bait and spins the media into focusing the spotlight on this completely trivial, idiosyncratic detail (Yes, I am aware of the irony of my blogging on this subject after articulating this particular criticism)

Second, Bush himself has sung the National Anthem in Spanish during his 2000 campaign for the presidency. He also invited Jon Seceda to sing America the Beautiful in Spanish at his first inauguration.

Finally, such thoughtless quips are irresponsible. Republican Senator Lamar Alexander took up the Presidents remarks, drafting legislation that would require that the National Anthem be sung only in English, citing that the Star-Spangled Banner has “never before…been rendered in another language.” False. Not only has Bush himself sung the National Anthem in Spanish, but in 1919, the Bureau of Education commissioned a version of the Star Spangled Banner in Spanish – this even before it was declared our national anthem by Congress in 1931. The history of alternative-language versions of the Star Spangled Banner actually predates our National Anthem.

I don’t always approve of the decisions this administration makes. In fact, I rarely agree with Bush at all, but I would rather the President concentrate his efforts on more important issues – of which there is no shortage. Government should return to its responsibilities to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Stop micromanaging citizens and start doing some actual substantive good.

Who Has The Final Word?

2006-05-01T12:41:00.000-07:00

Who has the final word on our constitution? I thought we settled this long ago. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and John Marshall had this debate in the formative years of our great nation. The Framers of our constitution followerd Montesqieu's advice that governmental powers must be seperated to prevent any one person or group of people from accumulating abusable power. Thomas Jefferson thought he could impose his own constitutional interpretations on Congressional law, disobeying what he thought violated the constitution and even ignoring Supreme Court rulings when they told him he was wrong. Eventually, the powers of the Supreme Court were vindicated - the Judiciary has the power to interpret the constitution, not the Executive or the Legislative Branch. Now, hundreds of years after we settled this debate, President Bush has tried to stir the pot again by quietly declaring that he, by himself, can declare hundreds of acts of Congress unconstitutional and ignore them.

What happened to Balance of power? Because of Presidents' ambitious tendencies, the Supreme Court of the United States had to fight an epic battle in the early years of this country to win the power granted to them at the very outset of our country's founding. See Article III and Article VI of our constitution and Federalist 78.

The Supreme Court must be the supreme arbiter of our laws. Mr. Bush - if Congress steps over their line and into your power sue them. I am serious. If they do something unconstitutional, take them to the Supreme Court and have the court tell them they are wrong. But you can't just take that power on yourself.

Bush seems to be trying to consolidate the powers of all three branches into his own office - undercurrent the very foundation of our society. By quietly overturning about 750 congressional laws by himself, he seems to be acting as a court, and when Attorney General Alberto Gonzales came to congress to testify, he said something to the effect of "If congress has any legislative ideas, we're happy to listen," implying that Bush wants to be the primary legislator as well.

Well Mr. Bush, if you wanted to legislate, you should have run for congress. If you wanted to arbitrate, you should have become a judge. But as President of the United States, you simply do not have the powers to do what you are doing.

Party of the American Dream

2006-04-29T22:43:00.000-07:00

Democrats are the party of the American Dream. They stand for higher quality, better funded education – to help give citizens' upward mobility a kick-start. They believe in small-business-friendly policies – to foster economic growth. They believe in keeping government regulation out of your private life – to prevent undue restrictions on how you choose to live. And just in case, Democrats are there to catch you if you fall – with concrete programs like Social Security and long-term visions like universal healthcare. Democrats want to help the little guy become the big guy and they want to help the big guys keep America strong.

100 words. The entire above paragraph is just 100 words, and yet neither Howard Dean, nor Nancy Pelosi, nor Harry Reid, nor Russ Feingold, nor any Democrat seems to be able to rally his or her colleagues around a consistent vision. The Republicans have been sucessfully toting ‘tax relief’ and ‘family values’ for years. These four words have caused the Democrats world of trouble. The Republican vision is not really any simpler than the Democratic one, just better packaged. I think few Democrats would disagree with the above paragraph, yet getting them to articulate it succinctly has proven unreasonably difficult. But it’s very simple: Democrats are the party of the American Dream.

Democrats realize we are in the middle of a war in Iraq. In 2004, Kerry consented to allow the campaign to be about the war on terror. But while the war is important, it does not and cannot define the entirety of this country’s governance. By squandering money abroad and fumbling funding at home, the Republicans have set the ball, but the Democrats need to choose their swing carefully. Midterm elections should not be about the war on terror or even about tax cuts or raises. They probably shouldn’t even be about the pervasive Republican culture of corruption. Democrats cannot afford to fight another battle on Republican territory. They must bring the struggle back home to Democratic strongholds: healthcare, the environment, honest and open government, and providing the nation with the economic safety net they need to take the risks necessary to realize the American dream.

Since Bush’s election in 2000, the Republicans have suffocated the American Dream. Low-income families have only a 1% chance of reaching the top 5% of American income distribution compared to 22% for high-income families. 43 years after Dr. Martin Luther King told this nation of his dream, race still plays a dominant factor in whether or not a child will realize the American dream.

This is the fight the Democrats should be fighting. This is the fight they can win.

The Lost Art of the Protest

2006-04-27T15:23:00.000-07:00

The Protest is a dying art - not because citizens around the world have forgotton how to speak out, but because government has forgotten how to listen. After the right to vote, the right to free speech is perhaps the next most essential right of citizens in a free democracy. But governments seem to ignore protesters entirely or merely brush them aside.

This week, Police arrested a group of 24 'grannies' who entered a military recruiters office to sign up. When a Fallun Gong protester screamed at Bush and Hu Jintao at the state welcome, she went completely ignored. Police also arrested 3 Stanford students for peacefully protesting President Bush's meeting at the Hoover institution on campus. They stood in the road (on private property) and were haulled away by police in riot gear. See the video here. But at least we are only needlessly arresting our citizens. Egyptian police arrested and beat their citizens for suporting judges who are standing trial for objecting that the executive branch is the sole watchdog for electoral corruption.

I've complained before that declaring an undefined category of "enemy combatants" and holding Americans and foreigners without benefit charge or trial is remarkably unconstitutional. It is an abuse of executive power, as is arresting people for convenience. But how do we solve this problem? Granted, unwarrented arrests are nothing compared to the plight of enemy combatants, or the vicitms of police riots in Egypt, but the fact remains - in the abscence of a Judiciary willing to stand up and fight for citizen's rights, executive abuses of power, both small and large, go unchecked.

American Police officers are doing better than Egyptian officers or Chinese government, but a growing American sentiment that condones arresting peaceful protestors is more than a little bit disconcerting. It is not ok to arrest protesters just to try and silence them. Americans have the right to speak out without being thrown in jail. And at a 32% approval rating, maybe Bush could benefit from some of the things these people have to say

FRIDAY APRIL 28TH -- Speaking of Protests...
Five Members of Congress publicly protest the genocide in Darfur. They were arrested.

Arnold Running Upstream

2006-04-26T12:55:00.000-07:00

Even George W. Bush has admitted publicly that our country is addicted to oil. He announced a campaign to make renewable energy a viable and sustainable alternative, but Governor Schwarzenegger seems determined to let the bandwagon run him over - he just accepted $2 million dollars from big oil companies. A Governor who campaigned against special interest money just accepted $2 million from one of the most dangerous special interests facing our nation today.

I was actually proud that Bush finally capitulated to rising oil prices, launching an investigation into price gauging and temporarily halting deposits to the national reserve. These may only be superficial remedies, but at least the President of the United States has found the courage to use his power to stir the currents of policy change in the right direction. Schwarzenegger, on the other hand, launched a similar investigation and only days later accepted a enormously 'generous' campaign contribution from the same people he said he would investigate. If you ask me, this significant undercuts his credibility - whatever he had left.

There was once a time when Arnold refused to meet with Bush because W's poll ratings were so toxic that Arnold didn't want to infect his own administration. At this point, Arnold might actually be able to learn something.

Now I know this information is something you might be able to find in any given California newspaper, and normally I try to avoid stories when I don't have much to add in the way of interpretation, but The Governor has been trying to keep a low profile recently. He's been biding time after an incredibly politically damaging special election, and as the 2006 election approaches in November, I think we need to be reminded that even when he's laying low, Arnold's day-to-day actions are no less subversive then when he makes the front page.

Snow in May

2006-04-25T13:01:00.000-07:00

Rumors in Washington scurry about with lives of their own, yet as Scott McClellan's resignation begins to fade into the distance, reports that Fox News correspondent Tony Snow may accept a position as the new Press Secretary seem increasingly likely. Moreover, reports of Snow's bargaining power have bubbled to the surface. Many have reported that Snow predicated his acceptance of the position on being given more latitude to actually craft the President's message rather than merely act as the administrations mouthpiece.

Well, my initial inclination was to gawk at how this administration was extending its hand to someone outside the administration. Knowing Bush's proclivity for cronyism, many originally expected an internal promotion. What I quickly realized, however, is that Mr. Snow is a crony. In 1991 he served as chief speechwriter and deputy communications director for Bush Bush 41. Bolton wants to give more weight to White House Communications and setting up a Press Secretary with more powers is a good step, but don't be fooled, Snow has some practice with this.

As a side note, however, I would question Snow's talent. Here is the opening of Bush 41's 1992 State of the Union Address,

I mean to speak tonight of big things, of big changes and the promises they hold and of some big problems and how together we can solve them and move our country forward as the undisputed leader of the age.

We gather tonight at a dramatic and deeply promising time in our history,and in the history of man on earth. For in the past 12 months, the world has known changes of almost biblical proportions. And even now, months after the failed coup that doomed a failed system, I am not sure we have absorbed the full impact, the full import of what happened.

Wow. That is some pretty bland speech. I know we don't always have the most articulate Presidents, but speechwriters traditionally pull out all the stops to make the President's words glimmer for inaugural addresses and States of the Union (just think of Bush 41's inaugural address and "1000 points of light" written by Snows predecessor).

Many have said Snow's job title will change, but not his job description - he has been and will remain a mouthpiece for the administration, but this is simplistic. I am sure that both pubilcly and privately snow has been a Bush supporter, but now he will actually have a hand in forming the President's message. This is fairly significant change. The bottom line is Snow represents a new, yet experienced face, but don't look for newly shining rhetoric. If the above SoTU is any indication, this administration seems quite comfortable and complicit in its bumbling, inarticulate public face.

Victims at Home and Victims Abroad

2006-04-24T08:18:00.000-07:00

Two Thousand Six Hundred and Seventy. Two Thousand Six Hundred and seventy. 2,670. Any way you write it, it's an ominous number. This is how many American soldiers have died in the War on Terror. Are these trumped up numbers by some anti-war liberal group? No. They come from the Department of defenses official casualty report. More than 2000 American Soldiers have died since President Bush stood on the Deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln to declare "Mission Accomplished" - an average of more than 2 soldiers dieing every day we keep our troops in harm's way.

Even so, Bush pledged to keep American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan through the end of his term come hell or high water. Not only does he want to "Stay the Course," He isn't even looking for an exit strategy anymore.

Perhaps this would be an appropriate price to secure American safety at home, but the longer our troops remain in Iraq, the more vulnerable American soil becomes. Bush has called up over 400,000 reserve troops - not the regular volunteer army, but the reserves. Many of these reservists are policemen, firefighters and paramedics.

Only after shipping off 8000 Louisiana and Mississippi National Guardsmen to Iraq did he realize that perhaps we need some security forces at home too. When Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast, Louisiana and Mississippi were shorthanded - by 8000. Yet, the Administration refused to allow any troops to come back early to assist with the clean up. They only allowed a few individual soldiers who's families and homes had been ravaged to return.

And this is not an isolated case. The Republican governor of Idaho has complained that more than 62% of his national guard has been shipped overseas. The same troops and civilians who are supposed to be protecting Americans, are instead wedged into the middle of a brutal insurgency in the Middle East. And they certainly aren'tÂt happy about it. US military suicides have almost doubled from 2004 to 2005. Do we really want to subject our troops to such horrendous conditions as the police force in another country while we are losing our own police forces at home?

So it all comes down to this: Has the War in Iraq even made us safer? And the answer is simple: No. We are more vulnerable now in America and our troops abroad are in danger. There have been more terrorist attacks on Americans in the 5 years since 9/11 than the 5 years preceding it. Bush stirred the pot and now he just wants to sit back and watch it spin.

Hope is Slipping Fast

2006-04-21T13:42:00.000-07:00

coming soon...

Crisis of Plenty

2006-04-20T07:19:00.000-07:00

Is oil compatible with democracy? Can country rich in natural resources ever truly sustain the kind of democracy we in America have been so hopefully will grow in the Mideast? Yesterday, I attended a panel discussion with Thomas Friedman, author of The World Is Flat; Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel-prize-winning economist and author of Globalization and its Discontents; and 40-Emmy winning Ted Koppel. Friedman and Stiglitz brought up an interesting concept known in economics as the crisis of plenty - the idea that when a country is rich in natural resources such as oil or natural gas, its government doesn't have to pay as close attention to the desires of its people.

Oil-rich countries survive on oil exports. Other countries, such as America, India, and most of Europe survive on human labor - we are 'services-based' economies. Yes we have natural resources, but they are not the overwhelming foundation of our economy as in other countries. Because this second group of countries relies on its people to sustain its economy, these countries' governments must work hard to keep their citizens working within their borders. Oil countries, on the other hand, aren't worried about their largest industry - oil - leaving for some other country. Their sources of income are relatively fixed at the moment, and since human labor, especially intellectual labor, is only a relatively small contributor to their economies, their governments simply do not need to pay as close attention to their citizens in order to sustain themselves economically.

The question, then, is can a democratic government survive in an area where political leaders do not need the support of their people to survive economically? Can the international community bring a similar responsibility to bear on these countries merely through expectation that elections will remain free and fair and that these governments will truly remain accountable to their citizens? Can the international community's scorn ever truly replace the benign yoke of an economically necessary citizenry?

I would wager that it is, in fact, possible to create a sustainable democracy even in countries like Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela, whose oil and natural gas reserves can sustain their economic independence for decades, if not centuries, to come. The constitutional framers of these countries, however, must be cognizant of the unique challenges they face and not merely assume that what works for other countries or even similar cultures, will also work for them.

Each country and Culture is unique and, in creating their own democracy, must think of themselves as such - tailoring their own systems of democracy to their own strengths and patching up their constitutions to shore-up their own weaknesses. America framed its constitution in retaliation to the injustices and weakness it saw in colonial, imperial government. Now, as more countries import democracy from the west, they must frame their own constitutions in reaction to their own former governments, closing the loopholes and plugging the leaks of their former rulers' governing philosophies. This is clearly not a simple task, nor is there truly an answer than can be 'imported.' Britain, France, The United States, and many other early modern democracies had to suffer through a long period of uncertainty and adjudication before everything became as stable as it seems today. New, Fledgling democracies, must understand that a new constitution is not a magic pill. It will take work and it needs to be tailored to the countries own specific symptoms, but eventually and with help, it can work.

I'm the Decider!

2006-04-19T06:52:00.000-07:00

Today President Bush shook up some of his White House staff, but stood loyally by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, even after 7 retired generals called for Rummy's resignation. That he made some concession to the complaints that have been shouted at the White House for months now is admirable, but the way he defended Rumsfeld bordered on Childish.

That Bush fired anyone from his staff is pretty impressive. Most of his inner circle has been with him since his time in Texas. Bush does not quickly forget his loyal cohorts. In fact, if you look at some of my previous posts, you'll see that when someone screws up in his administration, he or she usually gets a promotion in proportion to the egregiousness of his or her mistake. Still, after a series of press bungles, McClellan is walking out the door. Even Karl Rove - mastermind and architect behind most of Bush's political maneuverings has been demoted and stripped of his policy responsibilities. So the fact that Bush consented to transfuse any new blood into a paling White House shows some effort.

Granted, this so-called 'new blood' isn't very new. Josh Bolton came from across the street, and Bolton's own replacement is just an old crony. But what I found most disconcerting was how childish Bush's defense of Rumsfeld was. He said,

"I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the secretary of defense."

Honestly, I wouldn't have been surprised if he stole the ball and walked off the field. I wouldn't have been surprised if he complained to his teacher that people were making fun of his friend. Come on Bush, all you have to say is "He has my confidence. I think he is a smart guy and that he's doing a great job. He stays." Instead, you said "I'm The Decider?" How exactly did you think that was going to play to the American public?

Bush has made some effort to appease the Republicans and Democrats who have been calling for new faces in the White House for ages. Still, he seems to want to hold on to those who are drawing the most heat. I am just not sure if its because he actually thinks it's right, or if its because Bush just doesn't want to back down. This is one occasion, Mr. Bush, where a staunch position against flip-flopping may be hurting the country more than helping it.

Rhetoric and Deed

2006-04-17T07:30:00.000-07:00

How can a suicide bombing be an act of self defense? An official Hamas spokesman described a terrorist suicide bombing as an “act of self-defense” against Israeli occupation. Bombing innocent civilians, no matter what the circumstances is still offensive in both senses of the word.

No matter what you think about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, killing innocent civilians can never be the policy of a legitimate government. I was hoping Hamas would ease towards the political center as it accrued actual governmental responsibilities. They’ve made some progress – implicitly recognizing Israel and asking for a two-state solution – but this one statement is a gigantic leap backwards.

President Abbas, of the Fatah party, condemned the attack imploring Palestinians to “abide by the cessation of violence,” but his party is no longer in power. How can Hamas flail its arms calling international sanctions blackmail and screaming at the world for the injustices they feel and then turn around and quietly condone terrorist bombings. Before the world can bring itself to recognize Hamas and the Palestinians as a legitimate, fully-functioning government, Hamas themselves must learn to act like one.

I remain hopeful that the burden of running a country will weigh heavily on the radical wing of the Hamas party – that eventually, political tides will erode Hamas’ extremist factions in favor of a passionate, but civil (also in both sense of the word) government. It hasn’t happened yet.

Dodging a Bullet

2006-04-14T06:27:00.000-07:00

In January, Rep. Jeb Bradley (R-NH) visited Iraq. Upon returning, he wrote an article berating the media saying,

"the media’s predominant focus on suicide bombs and IED attacks will do precisely what the terrorists want: undermine our nation’s confidence and resolve."

So Mr. Bradley, you believe that the media is off base criticizing the state of rule-of-law in Iraq? You think their focus on the violence is unwarranted?

Well... An article in the Boston Globe yesterday disagrees. In fact, it states that Mr. Bradley's plane had to dodge a shoulder launched missile immediately upon entering Iraqi airspace. It also mentioned that

"Bradley told the New Hampshire Union Leader that shortly after takeoff from Baghdad, “the crew started taking evasive measures. They started swerving and diving the plane and sent off flares that distracted the missile.”

The C-130 was carrying Bradley, five other congressmen and four military officials.

Bradley said he kept the incident quiet because he wanted any news from his visit to focus on the troops. “The story was about them, not us,” he said."

Well the story may be about them and not about the congressmen and military officials involved in the visit, but the story certainly was not about the steady successes.

What confuses me, however, is this: How is Rep. Bradley capable of clinging to his Republican talking points while he's being shot at. I don't know about you, but if I was shot at by a shoulder-launched missile on my vacation, I think i would have included it when telling people what happened while I was gone. I suppose to some extent I am in awe. On the other hand I am appalled that Rep. Bradley's partisan loyalty extends so far as to completely ignore being shot at in what otherwise is an incredibly reasonable article. In fact, when I read the article, i was heartened to see that there are some moderate conservatives who can be pro-troops-in-Iraq, but with a reasonable understanding of the difficulty of the situation there. After reading the Boston Globe article, however, it seems much less reasonable and my once heartened opinion of such moderate conservatives has fallen back to merely hope.

Deadly Interpretation

2006-04-13T14:36:00.000-07:00

Most people in this country can't even name 2 Supreme Court Justices. Still, someone who pays close enough attention to politics to know the names of O'Connor and Ginsburg and their styles of constitutional interpretation has threatened to kill them. I suppose it is not uncommon for far-right or far-left politicians, whether serving in the judicial, legislative or executive branches, to receive death threats. This country has seen, time and time again, when people 'violently' disagree, violence can occur. What is curious about this death threat, however, is that it targeted two relatively centrist Supreme Court Justices, one of whom had already retired from the bench.

What an obscure rationale for a death threat! Read the article. I know that this is a very serious issue, but it almost feels surreal to me.

O'Connor and Ginsburg's lives are being threatened because they sometimes refer to international law when writing their court opinions. Ok.... First of all, O'Connor and Ginsburg are not the only justices to refer to international law. Many justices throughout history have done this, perhaps most poignantly in American civil rights and slavery cases. The Somerset case, which was cited off and on during the crusade for civil rights in the 60s and in the debates over Plessy v. Fergueson and even stretching back to Dredd Scott v. Sanford, was a British Case where Lord Mansfield, the presiding judge, declared that "The state of slavery is of such a nature, that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political."

Many politicians and federal judges argue that citing international law to support an American Supreme Court decision imperils the protections conferred upon us by our Constitution; Justice Antonin Scalia is amongst the most vocal. Scalia bases his argument on 'Originalism,' a doctrine of constitutional interpretation to which he subscribes which hold that constitutional clauses must be interpreted as originally intended and understood by the framers and ratifiers. Let us leave untouched, for the moment, the inherent and overwhelming complexity of sifting though the mountain of different intentions and understandings that surround and support any given constitutional provision. Even if we could pin down a single original meaning, our world is quickly becoming irreversibly interconnected. As globalization sprints forward, no proposed policy or constitutional clause can avoid international debate and scrutiny. Although members of other countries may never have a vote in ratifying any American Constitutional amendment, their understandings of the intent and execution of American policy certainly and undeniably plays a role in its 'Original Meaning.'

So Mr. Justice Antonin Scalia... You are an originalist, why don’t YOU cite international law when discussing more modern laws and constitutional amendments? It seems to me that as globalization continues, you can't be a true originalist without considering international law.

Expelling the Tolerant.... Anyone Else See the Irony?

2006-04-12T14:29:00.000-07:00

This week, a Florida Student may have been expelled from his school merely for being gay. Not only that, the school's handbook explicitly states that there are only three reasons a student can be expelled: (1)for committing a felony, (2)for assaulting a teacher, or (3)for possessing a weapon on school grounds. Obviously being gay does not fit into any of these categories.

Although the school denies that Jeffery Woodward's (the student) sexual orientation is the reason for his expulsion, Woodward's school record is spotless and the only topic of conversation other than expulsion in that final meeting with the principle was Jeffery's homosexuality.

Really.... I thought we as a country would be past this by now.

I understand that there are still people out there who think that 'marriage' is a religious institution, and I am not about to argue that someone else's religion should change, but I would hope that, whether or not you think a person is destined for salvation, you would be willing to provide him with a decent education.

After all, it seems to me that the most deeply pious individuals throughout the world specifically reach out to those individuals they see as morally deficient in an effort to help them repent and change. Deeply religious members of any community are often seen tutoring in prisons or donating to continuation schools. In fact, it seems that the only people who definitively reject those who disagree with them, are the superficially spiritual.

Tolerance is a major tenet of Judaism, Christianity AND Islam, yet it seems today that the people who publicly cite religion as their motivation for controversial actions actively practice intolerance. Religion, as I have said before can be a powerful tool for good, but having only a little knowledge rather than a deep understanding of these issues, can lead to the dangerous, and often offensive intolerance that Woodward's expulsion seems to symbolize.

Rigging the Scales of Jusitce

2006-04-11T06:57:00.000-07:00

"I don't know" have become the three most unaccepted words in politics and the media. "Who cares if you have the facts right? Who even cares if you have all the facts? Just take a stand. Any stand." Could anything be more irresponsible or dangerous? In the beginning, the Media largely assumed that the Duke Lacrosse team was guilty of the alleged assault and rape and passed these views on to their audiences. They held interviews attesting to the horrific condition or race relations on the Duke campus, only further stirring unnecessary controversy and sending Americans everywhere into a near blind panic.

But less than a week later, DNA evidence doesn’t match any of the players on the team, and the Defense claims to have time-stamped pictures of the Dancer arriving at the party already bruised and battered. The Media immediate jumps on this and the boys are painted as entirely innocent. This after the students' lacrosse season was already canceled and the coach fired.

Come on people. There is no middle ground? Can't we just present information impartially without taking such a biased stance that the media already convicts someone before charges are even filed?

By assuming the players' initial guilt, we and the media have ruined their careers. Anyone who puts the words "Duke Lacrosse Team" on their resume now evokes a sense of dread and prejudice rather than the respect and admiration that used to be associated with those words. The media and people around the country have sat down in conversation with their friends about "how terrible what these kids did" was, or afterwards questioned whether or not charges would even be brought without DNA evidence. By associating this alleged crime with the team and not individuals, we have even condemned previous and future generations of Duke lacrosse players to the possibly unfounded prejudices the current team feels now. Even for players who were on the team in years past and not now, or students who will come to play in future years will bear the weight of this stigma on the whole team. People don't forget this kind of thing, and once the media assumes guilt, the nation does as well.

On the other side of the coin, the ridiculous swing from pitying the possibly victimized exotic dancer to suspecting her of drumming up the whole story marks a similar tendency for the media to avoid any kind of subtlety. Even if DNA evidence does not corroborate the allegations of rape by certain individuals, we cannot rule it out as a possibility. Even if there was no rape, it doesn't mean she wasn't attacked. Rape and assault are both horrific crimes. What it comes down to is that WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HAPPENED.

The Media doesn't have all the evidence - prosecution and defense teams never release all the evidence pre-trial for fear of 'showing their hand.' In all likelihood the prosecution and defense lawyers don't even have all the evidence yet. So here is my suggestion: Perhaps we shouldn't jump to conclusions. Perhaps we shouldn't ruin 46 boys lives without giving them the benefit of a trial. Perhaps we shouldn't assume or stereotype the motivations of a possibly victimized exotic dancer. Perhaps (novel concept) we should actually let the judicial system do what it's supposed to do.

In today’s world, you are guaranteed due process of law within the judicial system, but it seems equally possible to be convicted by a jury of the media long before your case even goes to trial. When did that happen?

The New French Revolution

2006-04-10T08:43:00.000-07:00

The Mass Youth Protests have paid off. President Chirac decided to scrap the Youth Work Law that had incited so many demonstrations throughout France in the past few weeks. Youth can be a powerful political force, so why aren't they in America.

Media in Britain, France, America, in fact, nearly everywhere, tend to portray youth as delinquent, apathetic or even dangerous. 18-24 year old voters in America turn out in incredibly low percentages and so politicians tend to support policies that help the elderly at the expense of the young because they think they can get away with it, and the electoral evidence seems to support this. It is too bad that it took a law, essentially stripping French Youth of any job security, to inspire any kind of political movement. Moreover, it is unfortunate that the youth chose mass demonstrations and riots. Still, It is important to note that, when pressed, the youth vote can have a powerful political impact.

BioFuels

2006-04-08T17:43:00.000-07:00

So this Spring I am working for the Center for American Progress, and President and CEO John Podesta has developed an interesting idea. He is a big proponent of biofuels, and to hear him explain it, it is almost like the wonder cure politicians have been looking for for ages. A concerted government effort to increasing the percentage could bolster the American economy, dissolve trade distorting agricultural subsidies, solve our energy problem, reduce world poverty and safeguard American National security. What's more, biofuels are becoming economically and politically feasible for the first time.

Oil is drying up around the world, and as it runs scarce, prices are skyrocketing. To boot, America has grown economically dependent on one of the parts of the world we fear most and that poses the greatest threat to our national security. If we can make America energy self-sufficient, we can finally cut our self-afflicting, oil-filled umbilical chord to the Mideast that motivates so much dangerous foreign policy.

If we can stop brining fossil fuels, we can slow the detrimental effects of climate change. Climate change perpetuates developing nations poverty. Because many of these countries are in the areas of the world most prone to natural disaster, the increased frequency of storms caused by climate change condemn developing nations to always rebuilding infrastructure rather than dedicating funds to for war-looking economic stability. Furthermore, under global warming, sub-Saharan crop yields are projected to drop by 20%. When yield drops, prices go up and many of these countries who are spending upwards of 80-90% of their national income on food imports. They simply can't afford it. If we can find new sources of energy, we can slow climate change and stop this damaging progress.

Furthermore, concentrating on biofuels would allow the government to deal with an age old American political problem - agricultural subsidies. The government could reroute current agricultural subsidies into biofuels, thus keeping the money in the same industry while still reducing the trade distortions current subsidies create. These distortions are at the crux of the impasse in the current round of Doha trade negotiations and force developing nations to compete against American subsidies - not a fair fight if you ask me.

After Bush declared that we are addicted to foreign oil, political winds have begun to shift. Whereas politicians only saw the drawbacks of renewable energy before, many are beginning to see just how necessary it is. As politicians begin to support renewable energy initiatives, it becomes more and more feasible to get the votes necessary to pass relevant legislation. It is also becoming financially reasonable. Brazil was able to go from no cars running on biofuel to 70% of cars on the road running on some degree of flexfuel in just over a decade. Biofuels can power cars and electricity generators and have stimulated Brazil's economy and have already begun to augment our own.

It's an exciting new frontier in energy, and though it isn't perfect, it holds remarkable potential.

Hammas Mentions Israel, Seeks two-state solution? Maybe? We Hope?

2006-04-05T06:56:00.000-07:00

See my previous Blog posts on Israel and Hammas if you want a litte 'I-told-you-so.'

Hammas has tempered some of its extremist tendancies to fill the shoes of an actually functioning and responsible government. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it is certainly forward movent. Hammas' newly formed government sent its first correspondance to the UN condemning the Israeli occupation, but expressing the hope that they will someday live in peace with their 'neighbors'.

Even if they didn't explicitly mention that Israel is the neighbor in question, it is a tacit admission of Israeli existance and of suppor for a two-state solution. If they move to far to fast on this issue they risk losing popular support among palestinians. On the other hand, if they dont move at all they riski losing the support of the international community. I hope, and there seems to be evidence that, the burden of responsibilty that Hammas now shoulders as a legitimate government has mitigated some of their more extremist tendancies. Baby steps. Baby Steps.

Impatient Democracies

2006-04-04T17:56:00.000-07:00

Countries look to the current relative stability of the US and cite the constitution as the source of that stability. However, the US went through many trials and tribulations in its formative years - a fact many new democracies seem to ignore. The revolution of 1800, the first time a new political party took control of the Presidency, was a revolution only because the transfer of power it was peaceful.

In Thailand, citizens were tired of coalition politics. They started to feel the pangs of legislative corruption that powerful parties foster. They began to cringe under the centralizing power of a strong central Prime Minister and they immediately and violently react against these as well as quickly as they had rejected coalition politics. What they don't realize is that a country must find a balance of the good and bad in any political system. No perfect government exists. If they are looking to America to find a better constitutional system they are missing the fact that there is also American corruption and presidential power grabs.

Furthermore, by resigning the Prime Minister of Thailand is only perpetuating a destructive cycle for democracy there. 100,000 people showed up to protest the Prime Minister's seemingly oppressive consolidation of power, but 16 million voted for him in a referendum election. In America we have an effective, stable government even though only about 50% of voters voted for Bush. This administration, no matter how much Americans may complain, is stable. Even with approval ratings in the low 30s, Bush can hold America steady (similarly, British PM Tony Blair's approval ratings are in the toilet, but the labour party maintains a strong and united front, keeping English government intact and stable). In Thailand 57% (a huge majority by American standards) voted for him. By succumbing to a substantial, but not prohibitive protest movement, The Thai Prime Minister is only weakening Thai faith in democratic governance. More recall votes makes government weaker - an unpopular president or PM in office does not.

Honest Motivations?

2006-04-04T06:12:00.000-07:00

Well..... In a way. Tom Delay announced this morning that he will not be running for relection to the House of Representatives. Citing his motivation for such surprising and seeminly drastic measures, DeLay vowed, "I refuse to allow liberal Democrats an opportunity to steal this seat with a negative personal campaign."

We were all thinking it and maybe you didn't even notice the sudden and equally surprising outbust of honesty, but DeLay completely skipped the requisite "I beleive this is what is best for my party" or even "I want to spend more time with my family." He short circuited the talking heads, all dying to attribute political motivations to every step politicians take.

In 2004, Republicans pulled off a virtual coup by unseating the Democratic Minority Leader, Tom Daschle. Presumably DeLay wants to avoid any kind of reciprocal attack, espessially since, in light of recent Republican corruption scandals, Democrats have newly energized resolve and new strategies of attack.

With a new majority leader already in power and DeLay having already been arrested allong with its obligatory media feeding frenzy, DeLay's descision not to return to Congress will likely fade peacefully into memory. His loss will likely change very little in Congress as the midterm elections roll around, and by announcing this descision early enough, he alleviates much of the political weight Republicans might otherwise have felt during the run up to November. All in all, however, I found it pleasantly surprising to hear truth drop from Tom DeLay's lips.

Rookie Mistakes

2006-04-03T11:53:00.000-07:00

No Press Secretary has ever survived the entirety of a two-term Presidency. Just by virtue of the delicate balance that the job demands - be honest enough to win the trust of the press and closed-off enough to maintain the confidence of the administration - the Press Secretary's reputation is sometimes seen as 'disposable' and often evaporates quickly under pressure. Whether because current Press Secretary Scott McClellan is starting to suffer from this disease passed down from predeccesor to successor, or merely because he has started to stumble over relatively simple mistakes, the media has started to whisper rumors that McClellan might follow Andrew Card out the White House door (Andrew Card resigned early last week).

As new chief of Staff Josh Bolton begins to bail Bush out of a sinking Presidency, it is likely he will begin with Communications and Press Relations. Although this has been one of the most tight-lipped administrations in our nations history, evidence of fatigue has begun to show though McClellans now threadbare facade of calm. From fumbleing the leak scanal, to failing to contain the stream of informations concerning Cheney's recent hunting accident, to contradicting statements between White House Communications and President Bush on the Dubai port scandal, McClellan's credibility is on the brink of extinction. Bush may soon ask Dan Bartlett, current Communications Director and staunch party-line spokesman, to take over McClellan's position, as widely rumored by the media.

On the other hand, Bush seems to trust McClellan a great deal, and such personal relationships seem to be of utmost importance to Bush (regardless of the political dammage they seem to inflict on him). In this time of crisis for the Bush Presidency, Bush himself may be loathe to release trusted allies. Furthermore, the most opulent failures transgressed by high level officials seem to have garnered only praise from Bush. Rice's failures as National Security advisor secured her seat in the Presidents second-term cabinet; Tenet's failures as CIA director earned him the medal of Freedom. Bush certainly rolls out the red carpet as he kicks people out the door; perhaps McClellans fate, then, is not as sealed as we think.

Regardless, Bolton has some tough decisions ahead. There is no question that White House Communications has stumbled through the last few months. In order to keep the White House afloat, Bolton will have to institude some sweepign changes, whether or not they become public. Perhaps, now, we will see once and for all whether failure to perform on Bush's staff earns you a pink slip or a medal.

Blogging

2006-02-22T11:43:00.000-08:00

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.

Israel and Hamas

2006-02-19T23:16:00.000-08:00

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.

I Cringed

2006-02-15T13:23:00.000-08:00

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.

Cheney Shoots Someone?

2006-02-12T23:03:00.000-08:00

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.

Right Hand Over the Bible

2006-02-09T23:57:00.000-08:00

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.

Noooo!!!!!!!

2006-02-07T01:37:00.000-08:00

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.

Securities and Civil Liberties

2006-02-05T22:25:00.000-08:00

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.

Can You Tell Where the Dems were sitting?

2006-02-02T10:26:00.000-08:00

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?

The Golan Heigts and Other Issues of Controversy

2006-01-29T19:18:00.000-08:00

So Palestinians just voted into power a political party who some think are terrorists, but who also do not recognize the existance of the state of Israel. Now answer me this: how exactly are we supposed to move towards peace between Palestinians and Israelis, if Palestinian leaders won't even sit down at a table with the Israelis because they dont recognize Israeli legitimacy. This seems like a pretty big stumbling block to me.

Mahmoud al-Zahar, one of the top Hamas officials has stated that a long-term truce may be possible if Israel retreats behind its pre-1967 borders and releases all Palestinian prisoners. He wouldn't commit to recognizing Israel or even commit to negotiating with Israel, just that they might be compelled to stop organizing terrorist attacks against Israel if these conditions are met.

To those of you who engage in this debate: I would say go to Israel. Go to the Golan heights, and if you can go to the West Bank. When you see the Golan you will realize exactly why it is that Israel is loathe to give up this prime territory. In the Six-Day War, Syria used the Golan to pepper all of Israel with Artillery. When you stand on the Golan heights you can see almost all of the DMZ and nearly all of Israel. Israel miraculously survived a war without this terrirory once (they took it during the war). To cede this territory back would almost certainly mean to lose any future war. Israel was lucky (or incredibly skilled) once. I don't think they want to run that risk again.

Palestinians also claim that Israel is not truely committed to a two-state solution (this in spite of the fact that Israel has been party to many international agreements including the Road Map for Middle East peace which were solid commitments to this end. It was Arafat who walked away from solid offers time and time again).

Pre-1967 borders didn't work for Israel. Merely lacking a claim to the Golan could easily spell the doom of Israel. I think it's probably understandable then, that Israel might be resistant to ceding such strategically invaluable territory to a terrorist organization whose main platform is the destruction of Israel.

So to anyone out there who thinks the solution is simple, that Israel such merely confine itself to its originally granted borders and more forward in the peace process - it's much much more complicated than that.

Palestinian Elections

2006-01-26T16:10:00.000-08:00

I am about to utter a disconcerting statement: “Bush said something intelligent.” That said, he also uttered a series of disturbing statements surrounding that intelligent one. All this confusion surrounds the recent Palestinian legislative elections in which Hamas won a majority of the seats – 72 out of a total of 132. The Israeli and American governments both contend that Hammas is a terrorist organization and as such are understandably reprehensive about the consequences of this election.

Here was Bush’s intelligent statement: he said that no organization party can be a partner in piece if there is an “armed wing” of its party. Good job. If part of the ruling party platform of the Palestinian government includes the military destruction of Israel, this obviously presents a formidable obstacle to the peace process between the Palestinians and Israelis.

On the other hand, Bush has staunchly stood by his affirmation that advancing the causes of democracy in the middle East will increase the security in that area and mollify the security threats this area poses to our own country. Well…so far the empirical evidence seems contrary to this point. Iran has elected a president who has openly called for the destruction of both Israel and America. The recent Iraqi elections gave a majority of seats to Shiites who haven’t exactly had positive effects on the internal relations between Sunnis and Shiites. Finally, the Palestinian elections have put a party into power who many think is a terrorist organization. Well Mr. Bush you are 0 for 3 in making me feel safer.

There is one interesting tac that should be discussed here surrounding the election of a Hamas government. Perhaps I am naïve, but their election may serve to temper their extremism. Before the election there was a great deal of chatter that Hamas didn’t want a majority of the seats. As a strong minority they could still set the moral and legislative agenda without also adopting the responsibilities of running a government responsible for the well-being of its citizens. As the ruling party, they must now focus the majority of their efforts on ruling their people rather than moving to destroy Israel and Israeli citizens. Though it may be idealism, I would like to think that this added responsibility could take the edge off of Hamas’ extremism.

In accordance with my theory above, Hamas has mentioned that although it has earned enough seats to rule without a coalition, it may seek to create a coalition government with some of the other parties. Lets see what they do with a coalition. They have stirred up their people for decades now. Now, in ruling them, Hamas will need to find a way to rope them in for fear of losing control and being perceived as a weak and ineffectual government. If they can’t rule effectively, they will lose the confidence of their people both in the civil/political spheres and in the military spheres which some claim are more aligned with terrorism.

There is much more to come on this point as I learn more on this topic and do more research, but these are my preliminary musings.

Kerry Calls for a Filibuster

2006-01-26T15:37:00.000-08:00

So someone has had the guts to stand up, but is that really a good idea at this stage? Since I will go ahead and presume that you already knew that Kerry called for a filibuster, I will use this time to analyze two ideas – the political effectiveness of calling for a filibuster at this time and the rationale for democrats to oppose Alito’s nomination.

So how smart was it for Kerry to call for a filibuster now? Frist has already threatened to end the institution of the filibuster if democrats attempt to use it to oppose Alito. There is the distinct possibility, then, that pulling that trigger will come with dire political consequences which may actually change the entire political landscape of congress if not our entire federal government. Would trying to filibuster Alito have sufficiently positive effects to justify provoking Frists’ wrath? Probably not.

There are only 45 democrats in the Senate. Three of these have already pledged to vote for Alito’s confirmation – Senators Nelson, Johnson and Byrd. This brings potential supporters of a filibuster down to 42 (I am assuming whether or not any republicans will vote against Alito, none would support a filibuster). Democratic Senators Landrieu and Salazar have already stated their opposition to a filibuster bringing the number down to 40. 41 Senators are needed to sustain a filibuster and even if the Dems could rally 1 or two republicans (very unlikely to filibuster) Senator Feinstein has already said she is unsure about the appropriateness of a filibuster. Mr. Kerry – it seems you don’t really have the support. I applaud you for your efforts, but it seems for naught.

At this point the filibuster would likely only be a profound, but ineffectual statement of disapproval by about a third of the senate. This is a fairly impotent political move for the retribution it will likely invoke. If you read back through my posts you may see that I supported a filibuster at some point, but its too late in the game and too dangerous to try it now. Sorry guys – I think we lost this one.

But lets talk abstractly for a moment. There has been a lot of talk as to whether Senators can feel justified in opposing a candidate not on the basis of qualifications, but on the basis of issue stances. I say yes. The Senate is vested with the powers of “advice and consent” for many federal appointments (as well as treaties and other executive powers). Yet as elected legislators, they have a constitutional responsibility to control the legislative agenda of the United States federal government.

Whether or not you are willing to admit it the court affects the legislative agenda for the government as well as for the several states. People often complain of judicial activism and “legislating from the bench” but the fact remains that through the doctrine of judicial review – the power of the court to invalidate state and federal laws if they are unconstitutional – directly affects the legislative agenda. I know of very few people – scholars or citizens – who think judicial review is not a legitimate exercise of the courts power.

If the Supreme Court can affect legislation and Senators are charged with responsibility for advice and consent of these justices, it seems to me wholly justified for a Senator to oppose a judicial nominee based on ideology or issue stances. It is just as reasonable a justification as opposing a justice based on insufficient qualifications.

Now you might say that opposing a judicial nominee is different from opposing a piece of legislation with which a Senator disagrees, but let’s look closely. Often times a Member of Congress will oppose a bill, not because of what it says outright, but because of the likely effects it will have when put into practice. This maps surprisingly well to opposing a judicial nominee. Whether or not a nominee states outright how he or she will vote in certain cases, aggregating evidence from past decisions and position papers, it is often a simple task to deduce the likely effects of confirming that nominee just as it would be a simple task to surmise the unwritten but still very real effects of a piece of legislation.

So for all you Senators who are too afraid to oppose Alito solely because you disagree with his ideology, get it together and realize that you, as a Senator of the United States, are charged with a responsibility for the federal government’s legislative agenda. You cannot just let this sail by. For all you Senators who are hiding behind the excuse that you shouldn’t oppose Alito based on his ideology stop hiding and say what you really think. The voters have a right to know who and what they are voting for.

Now I'm glad They're Around

2006-01-23T23:54:00.000-08:00

For all the exasperated rhetoric I spew onto this Blog about how simple some choices seem to be and how unimaginably off-base some politicians and judge's reactions are, there are times when the decisions are difficult. Sometimes it actually is good that we have smart people sitting on the bench for the highest court in the land. The Supreme Court just heard a case involving free speech, campaign finance and lobbying that I truely am not sure I could decide with much confidence.

The McCain-Feingold campaign finance law restricts the ways in which interest groups and unions etc. can spend their money on behalf of a candidate. It says that if they wish to create and air an add in support or opposition of a candidate in proximity to an election, the money cannot come out of a general fund, but must come from a political action committee fund which has significantly more restrictions attached to it.

A Wisconsin Right to Life Group designed and aired an add that painted Russ Feingold in a negative light during his campaign for re-election to the Senate. Although the add focused on Feingolds proclivity for obstructionism in the Senate and not abortion (which is the groups main focus), the Right to Life group claims the add was not meant to be campaigning, but merely to lobby senators to confirm Bush's judicial nominees. Becuase it is lobbying and not campaigning, they say, the add should not be subject to the provisions of the campaign finance laws.

But exactly who is right? I am not sure. Though I think it is likely the Right to Life group is streatching the facts to claim their add is solely issue based and 0% campaigning, should we as a country rule for or against a groups intentions? or are the effects more important? Shouldn't Wisconsin's Right to Life be entitled to their free speech? On the other hand, shouldn't they be required to comply with campaign finance rules when they make a TV add and air it at a time when it will clearly affect an upcoming election? Sometimes the decision seems clear. Sometimes I am comforted that some of the most brilliant legal minds sit on that bench to do the hard work for us. Other times I am concerned that the process for getting people to that bench is becoming so politicized, I soon won't actually trust those sitting in judgement to be impartial enough to effectively decide such difficult cases.

They May Stand and Fight

2006-01-20T14:47:00.000-08:00

According to Dick Durbin, 45 Senators currently oppose Alito's nomination. Good. Only 41 are needed to sustain a fillibuster. Let's see if they can actually muster that kind of courage. They would also only need 6 more senators to defeat Alito in a strict up or down vote (though that is incredibly unlikely).

See the full story here.

What 4th Amendment?

2006-01-19T15:25:00.000-08:00

When was the last time Bush read the Constitution? The Presidential oath is the one and only oath for public office that is written in the US Constitution. It is also the shortest and most succinct of any oaths for public office. You'd think, then, that even Bush could actually remember to uphold it. Instead, he has continued on his path of destruction. Having seen that no one can stop him from wiretapping whomever he wants (another instance of illegal search and seizure), his administration is now trying to subpoena Google for its search results without just cause for suspecting them of anything.

This action is even more insidious when you peel back further layers. Not only does the government not have a warrant against Google, Google is not even a party to the lawsuit in question. What's more, the government doesn't have just cause to suspect anyone of any related violations.

Ok, so what is this really about? Well first of all the government passed a law to attempt to prevent children from seeing pornography on the internet. However, in a case called Ashcroft vs. ACLU The Supreme Court told the Bush administration it wasn't allowed to enforce this law. Now, not only is the government looking for ways to enforce the law, they are subpoenaing Google to release documents, not because they have reasonable cause to suspect anyone of infringing the invalid law, but because they are trying to build a case to prove that.

So lets recap: Bush passed a law that the already incredibly conservative Supreme Court has told him is unconstitutional. Now he is infringing on the constitution again - this time in the form of illegal search and seizure - in an attempt to build a case in support of a law we already know is unconstitutional. What is wrong with this picture?

Strictly Constucting the Conservative Constitution

2006-01-16T18:04:00.000-08:00

The Originalism or Strict Constructionism touted by Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas seems appealing in theory. Whether or not you agree with their conclusions, it seems logical that, in order to faithfully interpret specific clauses of the constitution, we must think of the language the same way the authors would have thought of it. Still, when analyzed empirically strict constructionism may be as prone to whimsy as the doctrine of a "living constitution" often attributed to more liberal judges.

In reading some of Scalia's or Thomas' opinions, it seems they claim to hold the definitive answers to what the framers intended when they wrote certain clauses of the constitution. This argument is weak on many levels however. First of all, the historical information we have about how the framer's would have interpreted the constitution is sparse and perhaps biased since it is almost exclusively written by James Madison.

Furthermore, to claim that the original interpretation of this document hold the sole authority on contemporary decisions is an appeal to the idea that Americans ratified the constitution, thus legitimizing its authority through the idea of popular sovereignty. On this assumption, the popular understanding of the meaning of these clauses should hold the sole authority rather than the intentions of the framers. This information is even sparser and dramatically more biased since most of the documents we have which speak to this understanding were published in the midst of a campaign for and against constitutional ratification. Thus is carries with it a not-so-subtle undercurrent of propaganda. Though much of this information helps put constitutional decisions and understandings in context, it certainly isn't sufficient evidence to draw a definitive conclusion as to the "correct" interpretation of any part of the constitution.

Thanks to Pulitzer Prize winning author and historian Jack Rakove whose class I am taking and whose copious background in early American history has helped me find evidence for the nagging hunch I have had all along that Originalism is not quite as perfect as its proponents would have us believe. The debate over intention rages on, but still this should not be the be-all, end-all of constitutional interpretation. Finally, I would like to think that the framers, conscious as they were of the consequences their actions would have on all representative government to come, would have left some clauses intentionally vague to accommodate the changing culture-in-flux that they knew the Constitution would have to continue to govern for many years to come.

A Constitution that creates functional governmental structures to solve the problems and dilemmas of the day, but also articulates generalizable ideals and ideas to cope with the issues of the future would be the most effective governing document. I think the framers tried to do exactly that. Maybe we should give them that much credit. They spent a long time just discussing political philosophy. Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt that they did a good job. It seems to me that to subscribe to originalism means to subscribe to the idea that the framers were only concerned with their present and not our future. I think they were smarter than that. Don’t you?

Primal Scream

2006-01-14T21:05:00.000-08:00

No I am not talking about Governor Dean's famous speech. I am talking about my own frustrated primal pent-up scream that I am dying to unleash everytime I watch Democrats fumble political opportunities.

The Republicans are hemoraging political capital. With Abramoff singing like a canary, a full blown fight raging for the new Majority Leader of the House, serious doubts about Bush's respect for the constitutional separation of powers, and dozens of other scandals freckling the face of the Republican party, you might be tempted to think the republican party is vulnerable. You might be tempted to think that the Democrats might choose this time to strike and take decisive action either through legislature or in the Media. But it seems you can never underestimate the current Democratic party's ability to allow these opportunities to fly by.

Some people are trying to do something. Dean is making as big a fuss as he can about Frist's hypocricy in threatening to eliminate the fillibuster and minority whip Steny Hoyer is quickly moving to illuminate the true ideological differences between the two parties, but it's not enough.

Come on people. Republican interest groups have it together and Republican leadership has been incredibly effective, even from jail and incarceration. Can we really not rise to meet their leadership and productivity without sinking to such a low ethical level?

Clinton was great at fighting back. He wasnt afraid to throw a few political punches. Who is going to step up to the plate and be that person for the Dems. We need a strong Presidential candidate and someone who could hold his or her own in a media battle stands a good chance to be elected. Who's it going to be?

What Would You Name Your City?

2006-01-11T18:54:00.000-08:00

Do you watch the Daily Show? If not, then you should. Besides being hilarious and an incredible platform from which to call politicians on their often ridiculous maneuverings, every once in a while, they dig up a story that is so bizarre you'd think it had to be faked. This week Ed Helms reported that the city of Clark, Texas has taken marketing and product placement to a new level of absurdity. In exchange for providing satellite TV to every person in the city, Clark Texas has changed its name to DISH, Texas.

This town of 125 residents is so new, its founder and namesake, L.E. Clark, is still alive and well living in the town. Though he is outraged that Mayor Burgoff has resorted to such crass marketing, he loves his new Satellite TV. He hasn’t refused it.

I wholeheartedly recommend you watch the Daily Show report which you can find here. Enjoy.

It’s the American dream - becoming so subservient to our capitalists market forces that such sentimentalities as naming a city or state after its founder fall by the way side. I think I might just have teared up a little bit just then… ok, maybe not.

Lets be Blunt.... or maybe Boehner

2006-01-08T22:55:00.000-08:00

The Congressional Culture of Corruption has had a few casualities recently. Abramoff plead guilty to a variety of charges and Tom Delay has decided not to try to reclaim his former position of Majority Leader. Will this be a fundamental and critical blow against the Culture or is it just a superficial wound -- something we citizens can obsess about for a few days, but that doesn't truely reflect substantive change in government?

Either way Blund and Boehner, the two House Republicans vieing for the position of Majority Leader will roll out their platforms in the comming weeks. Republicans are expected to elect a new leader before the month is out.

Both candidates will look to stop to stop the corruption, or at least mop up the mess it has made. Both want to rekindle the Republican vision to outshine the recent setbacks the GOP has felt. Well... Good luck with that.

Democrats can't let this pitch slide by. They have missed a few opportunities. THe last few elections have been huge body blows to the Democratic image and yet they are still too fragmented to put together a coherent platform. Come on guys. The GOP is handing this to you on a silver platter this time. If they can put together some kind of interesting platform and make sure America thinks of Republican and scandal as synonymous terms (this shouldnt actually be that difficult a task), Dems might be able to hit back rather than merely being a Republican punching bag.

Oh Yeah... That....

2006-01-06T13:25:00.000-08:00

Hey remember that Alito guy? President Bush is trying to get him a seat on the Supreme Court. And Refreshingly enough, the hearings seem to be focusing on something other than abortion. Charles Schumer and Edward Kennedy are concerned with the seemingly unchecked nature of Presidential power and they are pressing the issue with Alito.

Doesn’t it seem recently as if Bush can just do whatever he wants and get away with it? I really feel pretty helpless as an ordinary citizen. He can hold American and foreign citizens indefinitely without charging them with crimes or affording them the rights of POWs. He pushed to leave torture an option for extracting information from suspects. He has bypassed the national security courts to institute roaming wiretaps on American citizens without a warrant. It seems he can’t take a step in any direction without leaping his bounds. For a Republican who claims the federal government is too powerful, he has certainly made some ridiculous power grabs.

Congress always have a difficult time checking the power of the president. There are simply too many of them. There are simply too many hoops to jump through before they can do anything to hold the President truly accountable. The Supreme Court stands the best chance of knocking the President back into reality, but Alito is certainly not the one to do it. He has often written about the importance of Presidential autonomy and the expansiveness of Presidential power. With the current trends in Bush’s actions, Presidential power needs to be addressed now! We can’t afford to have someone like Alito on the Court.

Please don’t forget we aren’t through this whole Supreme Court nominee process. Remember it, we still have some important work to do. This is a lifetime appointment for someone who will likely condone the wanton disregard for civil rights transgressed by the Bush administration. Someone needs to stand up and stop Bush from steamrolling the rest of our government. I don’t think we can trust Alito to do it.

Why War?

2006-01-03T22:18:00.000-08:00

Why War?

In Introduction to International Relations we studied theories of why war happens. There’s the powder keg theory, the spiral model and bargaining theory, but maybe this is the problem. Maybe Economists and Political Scientists only see the numbers. Maybe they can’t see the human component. Is experimentation all its cracked up to be when it comes to social science or can intuition sometimes win out?

Thomas Hobbes said countries go to war for competition, diffidence or glory. But exactly how rational are countries? Do they really go to war when they calculate the potential gain with and without war? Or is it a bit simpler than that?

Walking down the street the other day, a little boy, no more than 9 years old ran to the top of a little pile of snow and shouted “I am the king!” scuttling away to follow his family. I thought it was adorable, but bubble burst quickly. I overheard the statement “attitudes like that are what lead to war.” It was a bit jarring to have the mood ruined, but not inaccurate.

When you push past the tremendous volume of ink spilled in an attempt to explain war and look at the psychology, it might all comes down to an attitude we cultivate in our earliest years. If we weren’t competitive we would never achieve. If we didn’t have leaders who wanted to be in charge, we would never progress. This same instinct for competition – this same proclivity to seize power which can so readily provoke war – is the same quality that sparks movement towards peace and progress.

The Punishment Should Fit the Crime

2006-01-01T21:01:00.000-08:00

Thieves used to have their hands chopped off, but I’m pretty sure this isn’t common practice anymore. In fact, there is a constitutional ban on “cruel and unusual punishment.” The recent torture ban says that the US won’t degrade anyone, or treat them inhumanely as a form of punishment or to extract information. This means the United States fines criminals or throws them in jail. Sometimes we now subject transgressors of some more minor crimes to community service, but as a country we officially retain the idealistic view is that criminals can be reformed or at least deterred from committing crimes. Then why has Tennessee passed a law intended to humiliate certain criminals?

Tennessee just passed a law outlining punishment for convicted drunk drivers whereby they are required to clean up trash off the side of the road while wearing a reflective orange jersey that says “I am a drunk driver.” What? Do they seriously think this is going to be more of a deterrent? I mean don’t get me wrong, drunk driving really sucks and I am sure people caught drunk driving would hate to be subjected to that, but that’s just the problem: I don’t think criminals should ever be ‘subjected’ to something like that. The word subjected has this connotation that they are purposely being embarrassed and degraded. Is this really the way to reform someone? Aren’t they just going to be angry about it? That doesn’t seem like a very good idea to me.

Maybe more jail time would be a better idea. Maybe heavy fines – people don’t like to lose their money. But merely officially humiliating people probably isn’t the best plan. Drunk driving is a problem and addressing it, trying to come up with a good way to stymie drunk driving is a very good idea, but I don’t think this is the way to do it.

Civil Rights Aroung the World

2005-12-29T22:17:00.000-08:00

Sometimes it’s important to keep things in perspective. America today seems preoccupied with a woman’s right to choose. Granted this is an incredibly important issue, and one that is hotly contested. It may, however, be overboard for so many voters and citizens to consider this as their primary if not sole voting criteria or criteria for support of a Supreme Court nominee.

In Civil rights, America may be behind much of the developed world, at this point, but remember there are still atrocities against women being committed around the world which are much more heinous than overturning Roe v. Wade and thus relegating abortion decisions to the state (Keep in mind that if Roe is merely overturned, abortion will not be illegal, but merely left up to the individual states to decide how it should be regulated).

South Africa just recently passed a law banning virginity tests for women. These unscientific and frequently incorrect tests can decide a woman’s fate for the rest of her life in Africa. In some areas, the social stigma a woman carries from failing such a test might make her a pariah in her own town. Though a new law declares a maximum penalty of 10 years to towns and people still administering virginity tests, this will not stop many villages who have firmly entrenched traditions which include these tests.

Though it is true that America must continue to fight for womens’ rights in the US, we must keep in mind how far behind some countries are lagging. Though it is not always our responsibilities as Americans to stymie civil rights abuses around the world, maybe more of our civil rights efforts should be focused abroad where they can make the most difference rather than continuously screaming our heads off about details here in the US.

(NOTE: I am pro-choice and believe that it is a vitally important issue. I merely think that we should not allow any one issue to develop a stranglehold on the political process. Government affects many aspects of our lives and each should be given due consideration.)

The Purity Of Politics

2005-12-27T22:30:00.000-08:00

To all of you who think ‘politics’ (in its dirtiest sense) should be stripped out of policy making – To those who think Presidents and Senators and Members of Congress should replace their political advisors with more policy experts, take a good look at the final session of the Senate before it adjourned. The Senate voted to extend the Patriot act for 5 weeks for further consideration, but they did it with only one Senator even present in the Senate Chambers.

Education: (Skip this if you already understand Senate Rules)

The Senate requires a quorum (a minimum number of Senators present in the chamber) to conduct business. Though a quorum is rarely actually present, any member of the Senate can make a “point of order that quorum is not present” – essentially saying that what it happening is not allowed by Senate rules and the Senate must wait until a quorum arrives to actually do whatever it is they are trying to do. Usually this occurs for votes. The Senate’s President Pro Tempore (or the appointed stand in) will call for a voice vote and declare who he thinks to be the winner (usually whatever position he himself holds). Because there is almost always someone who disagrees, someone will call for a recorded vote and ask that quorum be present for that vote. In this way, the minority party can make sure that their votes are counted and that the Pro Tempore can’t merely say he thinks his party wins every vote.

Something went wrong though on December 22rd. The acting Pro Tempore, Senator John Warner, gaveled the Senate open just long enough to call for a voice vote on the one month extension of the Patriot Act that Senator James Sensenbrenner, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, released to the floor to be voted on. Warner called for a voice vote, voted in favor, and since no other senators were in the chamber to claim a point of order, the motion passed just as if a majority of Senators had actually voted for the bill.

If opponents of the Patriot Act really wanted to shove this bill in the dirt and bury it forever, they would have needed someone in the Senate Chamber on the 22nd. Anyone, citizen or Senator, could easily have missed this. Political Advisors are the ones most likely to have caught such a devious scheme. It is also true that President Bush threatened to call a special session of Congress (it would have been the first since 1922) if the Senate allowed the Patriot Act to fizzle as its expiration date passed.

Good policy ideas don’t matter if you can’t get them passed and good policy sense doesn’t make any difference if you can’t implement it in Congress. You need to know the tricks of the trade. It’s a skill set and a knowledge base as broad and as intricate as any policy area. So why not dedicate a staff position or two to expertise in the art of politics. It might not be the prettiest job, but if last week is any indication, it’s certainly an important one.

Jews File Suit on behalf of Jesus

2005-12-23T13:27:00.000-08:00

My own opinions on the Jews for Jesus aside, did each and every member sleep through the entirety of the dot com boom? Jews for Jesus are quite literally suing Google for not releasing jewsforjesus.blogspot.com. Google isn’t squatting a dot com, they aren’t even squatting a .blogspot.com. Google created a free blogging website and have allowed whomever applied for the url jewsforjesus.blogspot.com to have it. I am pretty sure Google is allowed to do that.

So I haven’t seen the papers for the suit – I have been looking for them, but haven’t yet found them. If anyone wants to send them to me or show me where they are that’d be great. As it stands though. Google is providing a free service and I don’t think Jews for Jesus have a right to their namesake webdomain. The squatting phenomenon during the dot com boom clearly showed that just because your organization has a name, you aren’t necessarily entitled to .com. Why oh why, then, should the Jews for Jesus be entitled to a subdomain within blogspot.com. Shouldn’t the owner of blogspot.com be able to do whatever they want with their own property? Am I missing something? What exactly entitles the Jews for Jesus to tell Google what they can or can’t do with their website?

What’s next? Are the Jews for Jesus going to sue for jewsforjesus@aol.com? jewsforjesus@aol.com? I go to Stanford…. are they going to sue for jewsforjesus.stanford.edu? Where does this line of reasoning stop? Do I get to sue for michaelfeldman@gmail.com? ‘Cause that might be nice. I actually have wanted that. Do you see what I am saying?

Jews for Jesus – I know this might be a lot to ask, but stop being ridiculous. Google has the right to give their subdomains to whomever they want. Furthermore, you can’t just silence your critics by suing to take their voice away. It’s just ridiculous. If you don’t like what they say, refute it. But don’t take a cheap shot trying to undercut their platform. Get some chutzpah.

20 Questions

2005-12-22T15:06:00.000-08:00

What do Yasser Arafat and Mother Theresa have in common? Desmond Tutu and Dalai Lama? Gorbachev and Martin Luther King, Jr.? They all won the Nobel Peace Prize. That’s right. All six of them won the Nobel Peace Prize. Now granted not all of these people lived virtuous lives from birth, but all were able to make significant progress towards peace at some point in their lives. So where am I going with this? I think the point is that it is possible for someone to reform his or her life. Tookie Williams, former co-founder of the Crips, and late children’s author and Nobel-Peace-Prize nominee, is a perfect example.

Schwarzenegger, the California Supreme Court, and The US Supreme Court failed to stay Tookie William’s execution. His funeral was held on Tuesday. Why did it come to that? In the end, Schwarzenegger had the last say in whether or not Williams was to be executed. So now for my next rhetorical question: How does anyone publicly refuse to save a man who is nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize?

I am not necessarily saying Williams should have been set free, but someone could have at least stayed his execution. I won’t deny that he did a lot of harm in his early life, but America needs to recognize the potential for people to reform. At this point I hope he wins the Nobel Peace Prize. He has done a tremendous amount of good to stem gang violence in his adult life. Furthermore, who else is going stand up and face gangs? To reach these kids, we need someone with credibility and no one but Williams had that kind of credibility.

I hope Williams wins the Prize. He deserves it. To turn his life around and do all that good in America when it would have been infinitely easier to give up on himself and the world while staring at the inside of his prison cell is an incredible achievement. Desmond Tutu turned his life around and his efforts were recognized. Yasser Arafat put left his terrorist ties to sit down at the negotiating table for peace in the Middle East (though little came from it). Williams has definitely earned this status. He turned his life around and worked his entire adult life to fix the problems he caused in adolescence. He deserves it. He deserved to live, but now, this is the least we can give him.

A Closer Look

2005-12-20T12:06:00.000-08:00

Something just doesn’t add up. Well actually, a lot of things don’t add up. Bush recently announced that secret wiretaps won’t stop claiming "I swore to uphold the laws. Do I have the legal authority to do this? And the answer is, absolutely."

Yet despite this seeming confidence Bush is scrambling to overcome the Senate’s recent filibuster of certain provisions of the Patriot Act including the one that gives the government the power to get secret warrants from secret courts to secretly tap Americans’ phones. Exactly what laws is he referring to that give him the right to blatantly violate Americans’ constitutional protection against illegal search and seizure. Is it the Patriot Act? Because if we spin it that way, I would guess that many fewer Members of Congress would vote for it. Furthermore, if it is the Patriot Act, will Bush finally stop these obnoxious atrocities against American’s civil rights when these provisions aren’t renewed? And if he thinks these powers of his come from somewhere other than the Patriot Act, why exactly do we need the Patriot Act at all.

Now lets take a closer look at these suspected terrorists we absolutely need to spy on. Lisa Meyers at MSNBC published a report outlining exactly who the Pentagon is spying on. I’ll give you a couple of interesting tidbits, but I really just recommend that you read the article. Many of the targets are remarkably biased and partisan. Apparently the Bush administration doesn’t just want to disenfranchise homosexuals, he actually thinks they are terrorists. A UC-Santa Cruz "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" protest, which included a gay kiss-in, was labeled as a "credible threat" of terrorism. An NYU protest organized by LGBT undergrads and the law schools LGBT group “OUTlaw” was labeled as “possibly violent.” The Pentagon also spied on groups demonstrating in opposition to Military recruiting in underprivileged high schools and colleges.

Does this sound like effective use of the Patriot Act to you? Whatever your position is on gay marriage, I seriously doubt that these rallies mentioned above constitute credible threats to our nation’s security. Time and time again Bush comes to the plate to take gigantic swings at defending the Patriot Act, The Iraq war, etc. What does it say that he has to step up to the plate almost every week to keep making pleas to the American people? The more the public knows the less they are approving of these issues. When is Bush going to realize this and back off? I’m waiting for the day.

The War on Christmas

2005-12-18T11:52:00.000-08:00

Great Britain just legalized homosexual civil unions. South Africa declared that full marriage rights must be extended to homosexuals. This on the heels of Italy and Spain’s similar declarations. Still in spite of these powerful, world-wide, progressive breakthroughs in civil rights, you’d have to dig through quite a few pages to find the mentions of these cases. Instead, everywhere you look front pages of magazines and lead stories on broadcast news are flooded by stories about the war on Christmas. I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who truly believes that anyone is waging a war on Christmas and no matter how PC we are getting, Christmas will be clearly apparent in the coming weeks. Furthermore, why are Bill O’Reilly and Conservative interest groups mad at the malls who have changed the words “Merry Christmas” into “Happy Holidays” rather than those who changed Christmas from a celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ into an excuse to blow a ton of money on presents and wrap a bunch of flammable tinsel around a rapidly dehydrating pine tree? (two quick comments: 1. I think it odd that I am now defending being politically correct since it is one of my pet peeves. 2. I do understand the irony in the fact that I am about to continue to discuss the war on Christmas and conservative groups in general rather than talking about the worldwide breakthroughs for equal rights).

I will hand this to conservative interest groups: they know how to turn up the volume. When the ACLU or PFAW get ticked off, they are sometimes profiled for a day in the New York Times or earn a 30 second spot on national broadcast news. When the conservative Christian base feels the whim, they seem to be able to initiate a media feeding frenzy on command and merely by snapping of their fingers. The right-wing Christian base of this country is powerful enough to create an uproar over something as absurd as a war against Christmas in this country where Bush is president; the anti-abortion movement is alive, kicking and starting to get a majority on the Supreme Court; and our civil rights movement for homosexuals is so stagnated that we are now less progressive than Italy and South Africa. Somehow when you stop and look around, Christians aren’t doing so badly in this country.

I guess I just wish the ACLU or PFAW or MoveOn.org could learn to turn up their volume as effectively as the conservative interest groups. Either that or Democrats need to make a concerted effort to pick up some seats in the House and Senate. Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America helped the GOP pick up 50 seats in Congress. That’s uncanny. Come on Democrats, lets see some initiative. Not only are you not fighting for liberal causes, you are losing wars you haven’t even started to fight.

Citizens: 1, Bush: 0

2005-12-16T23:49:00.000-08:00

For those of you keeping track, you may remember that last month (November 16th) I lamented that British Parliament was able to swat down overreaching and obtrusive anti-terrorist legislation while American Congress was not. Well apparently that has changed. Although the House renewed the Patriot Act, the Senate stopped it flat in its tracks with a bipartisan filibuster. In the cloture movement 47 Senators voted against renewing the Patriot Act. BRAVO!

Kudos as well to Senator Russell Feingold (D-Wisconsin), pictured above, for leading the charge. The only member of the Senate with the foresight to have voted against the Patriot Act the first time around (in a 99-1 vote – talk about chutzpah) seems to have attracted some followers. It has taken a little more than four years for Congress to realize that perhaps giving the FBI the right to request secret warrants from secret courts to tap everyone’s cell phone in an 20 mile radius because one person who lives or works in that area has been to the Middle East recently might be overstepping the bounds of citizens civil rights. OK, I am exaggerating of course, but is scary how little exaggeration is there. Roving wire taps really are allowed. Secret court documents are not available to anyone but the FBI and those with security clearance. And as we’ve seen from Bush’s proclivity to hold ordinary citizens at GITMO and in overseas detention centers along with the legitimate terrorists, it doesn’t take much for the Bush Administration to assume someone is a terrorist.

If the Patriot Act had come up for a legitimate vote, it might have passed. 52 Senators voted to end cloture. When the filibuster is all that stands between the citizens of the United States and legislation that would cripple civil rights, it is a wonder that Majority Leader Frist is still threatening to wipe it off the face of the books. Though I understand he must be frustrated that the filibuster has been invoked and threatened so often during this administration, perhaps he and Bush should take a look at their own hands and see what exactly it is they are doing that is inspiring so many filibusters. Congress is largely the same. Relatively few seats changed hands in the last Senate election so most sitting Senators sat under the first GWB administration and many under Clinton and before. Perhaps, then, it is not Senatorial whimsy that has caused the uptick in filibusters, but Bush’s slap-in-the-face, cronyism-infused appointments and ridiculously overreaching legislation. If you try to shove pure conservative ideology written down in bill form though a senate with 45 Democratic Senators, you shouldn’t be surprised when you meet powerful and determined opposition.

The Big Cheese Stands Alone

2005-12-13T00:04:00.000-08:00

The Senate has turned up the heat. Republicans may be in power; they may threaten the nuclear option of detonating the filibuster, but Democratic Senator Byrd stepped up to the plate this week threatening "If the senator wants a fight, let him try. I'm 88 years old but I can still fight and fight I will for freedom of speech," Byrd said. This in response to Majority Leader Frist’s preemptive warning that he will attempt to erase or heavily restrict the filibuster should the Democrats attempt to use it to block Alito. Frist said, "Supreme Court justice nominees deserve an up-or-down vote, and it would be absolutely wrong to deny him that."

Where has Frist been for the last few months? Members of his own party, the Republicans, wailed and called so loudly for Miers to withdraw her nomination to the Supreme Court. They wouldn’t allow her an up or down vote. Where was Frist’s nuclear option when Republicans wouldn’t give Miers an up or down vote?

I understand that Frist called upon Senators to come to the Floor to support Miers in the height of the scandal, but has he yet noticed that he is alone. Did he notice that only one other senator answered this call for public support on the Senate floor? And what of his double standard? Why the incredibly inflammatory rhetoric even before Democrats consider a filibuster on Alito while standing idly by as Republicans scream to avoid a vote on Miers?

This is a double standard at best and most likely outright hypocrisy. The rules and regulations of Congress exist in order to provide mechanisms to tie up legislation. If a simple majority of voters can turn any bill into law, what is to stop 51 Senators from logrolling or passing a bill that is actually bad for America but good for the Senators themselves or their individual constituencies.

The point is, how dare Republicans threaten to remove a traditional and important elements of the legislative process just because they are annoyed at Democrats use of obstructionist techniques, espessially when Republicans use similar tactics just as often.

Premature.....

2005-12-10T14:45:00.000-08:00

In one week my Fall quarter will be over. I will breathe a sigh of relief and head home until early January when I dive back into my books. Fortunately, this means I’ll be able to be will my family for Chanukah. Unfortunately, this means I wont get to see my school friends over the holidays. Because of this, my friends and I have will throw a Chanukah party early before we all go home.

While we college students are going home, however, President Bush is already at his home - the White House, He lives there (or at least is supposed to live there) year-round and will likely stay there through the holidays. Why then, did he hold a Chanukah lighting ceremony more than three weeks early?

Every year the President pardons a turkey (another silly tradition) on Thanksgiving. I am sure there is a Christmas tree in the White House this month, and I am sure there will be a commemoration of the celebration on the 25th. To boot, the White House has a big target to aim at with this holiday. Chanukah is 8 days long! He could have held the ceremony any time that week, but instead held it almost an entire month early. Check a calendar every once in a while. There’s gotta be a Jew somewhere in the White House. Right?

Anyway…. I know this isn’t the biggest problem the White House is facing right now, but sometimes it is just the little things that bug me.

The Frye Campaign for San Diego Mayor

2005-12-08T00:32:00.000-08:00

Whew.... It has been quite a week so far, and its barely half over. Once finals are over I hope to return to posting on a fairly regular schedule.

Now, as promised here is a nearly 20 page paper analyzing Donna Frye's campaign for mayor of San Diego - specifically her campaign's shift in emphaisis from transparency and open government to her financial plan to rid San Diego of its financial woes.

The Paper is posted on My Stanford Webspace and is titled Frye4Mayor.
Enjoy.

Sigh....

2005-12-04T21:07:00.000-08:00

Hey All,

So I haven't been posting as consistantly as I might like recently. Finals are coming up and papers are coming due and its been pretty hectic. Just so you know I haven't been ignoring the glut of political strife out there, however, let me just show you what I've been working on.

I, along with 3 other students in my Introduction to International Relations class wrote a policy brief proposing trade-barrier reductions for Africa in lieu of increased aid which has proven ineffective due to African governmental corruption. Perhaps not your individual cup of tea, but if you are interested you can find the report on My Stanford Webspace. It is titled "Feldman-Ruiz-Foster-..>."

I am also working on a research paper on Donna Frye's more than year-long campaign for San Diego city Mayor. That should be done wednesday, so I may post that as well. Enjoy.

I'll be back with another installment of political rantings on the absurdities of the day as soon as my schedule permits. Looking forward to it. (beleive me)

Jury Duty

2005-12-01T16:37:00.001-08:00

President Bush has been summoned to jury duty in Waco, Texas. While it's true that Jury Duty is an often annoying but important civic duty, even I will readily admit that it is likely Mr. Bush has more important issues to tend to than flying to Texas to sit in a waiting room waiting to be screened to sit on a jury. I will also admit, though, that this whole situation is just a little bit funny.

Just to throw in a pinch of seriousness into this post: it is true that John Kerry was called to and served on a Massachussetts jury last month. With an upcoming Congressional recess, serving on a jury was probably a bit more feasible for Kerry than for Bush. Still, Kerry's willingness to serve his call to jury duty is an impressive showing of his sense of civic duty (he was actually elected foreman of the Suffolk Superior Court jury). Afterall, Bush is known to take long vacations for no apparent reason. Maybe this would be a good reason to head home for a bit.

The Texas court judge quipped that he is not about to send the sherriff after Bush to drag him back to a Texas courtroom, which is probably reasonable, but still sorta funny.

They Might as Well Protest Katrina

2005-12-01T16:34:00.000-08:00

Americans love to walk in circles and show off their hand-painted signs. If there’s a big controversial event going on in America, someone will protest it. It’s possible though that we’ve gone too far. While the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Ayotte vs. Planned Parenthood, the court’s first abortion case in about 5 years, demonstrators on both sides of the abortion issue lined up outside the courthouse to protest. Why?

America has worked hard to preserve an independent judiciary. Good laws are not always popular and so if the courts were accountable to public opinion through votes, they would not be able to impartially interpret and administer the law. Supreme Court Justices do not and should not allow themselves to be swayed by public opinion much less by protestors. As such, it seems a futile effort to demonstrate in front of a political body whose job it is to ignore what you have to say.

Abortion has become such a charged subject that people merely hear the word and are automatically compelled to tell you their opinion. If these people are truly concerned about the future of abortion cases in the Supreme Court, they should be lobbying their Senators for or against Alito’s confirmation rather than marching their egos in front of the media’s cameras for no purpose but publicity - as if this issue needed more publicity. Think before you protest. What are you trying to accomplish and is this the most effective use of your time to accomplish that goal? In these protesters’ cases, I would conjecture that it’s not the most effective strategy.

Duke

2005-11-28T22:09:00.000-08:00

The Republican battlements have finally been breached. While in power, the Republican party has understandably done all it could to protect the jobs and reputations of its members in the House and Senate. Even when Randy “Duke” Cunningham threw punches at another Member of Congress on the Floor of the House of Representatives, the shield provided to him by the Republican majority in both houses deflected much of the potential blowback. Finally, however, his corruption has caught up to him. Today Duke delivered a tearful confession and resignation.

At the end of the summer he affirmed his innocence, but declared he would not run for reelection for fear of besmirching the campaign or his party through the ‘wrongful’ allegations. Any way you slice this, it was a smart political move. He probably couldn’t win with such heavy accusations, but declaring his intent not to run for reelection allows Republican candidates for his seat the time they need to collect the necessary bank roll to stage a successful campaign. If he can't win, at least he can guarantee a Republican victory rather than allowing a Democrat to rise above the chaos and be elected while the GOP squabbles between one clean candidate and one incumbent.

Now that he has confesed to bribery, tax fraud, ethics rules violations, conspiracy and other crimes, Duke faces substantial jail time and heavy fines. It will certainly be a trying time personally as well as for his family. I hesitate, therefore, to discuss the political consequences of his shameful resignation, but I believe they at least deserve a quick nod.

From the time of resignation, the governor has 120 days by which time a special election must be held. This accelerated campaign schedule and short time frame favors the Democrats. Francine Busby, the Democratic candidate has been fundraising and strategizing since Cunningham won last November. Republicans have only had since Duke’s declaration in August. By hastily evacuating his seat, he has left it vulnerable to a partisan swing even in a staunchly conservative district, but we’ll see how this plays out.

Apathy - an American Achilles Heel

2005-11-25T20:01:00.000-08:00

You know what really grinds my gears? Americans. Much of the time I am pretty proud of America. It’s not hard to point out the many things we do right, and by the same token, it’s not hard to point out the many things we do wrong. It is heartening, when you think about it, that our big governmental scandals revolve around exploiting tax loopholes or committing adultery (relatively tame crimes when compared to the world at large) rather than the mass murdering of citizens or the involvement of high-level government officials in well-known terrorist cells (as is the case in some less stable countries). What concerns me most about America, however, is apathy.

I saw the above cartoon late thanksgiving night, but I felt its truth during my thanksgiving dinner. In America politics are taboo. While in London, I’d walk into a hole-in-the-wall breakfast place and there would be old men sitting in Burberry caps and articulately debating the politics of the Westminster parliament as well as that of the EU and even the US Congress. Apparently the only thing more amusing than hearing this over breakfast, is hearing it over dinner when the old men are drunk and yet somehow still articulate and educated.

In America, the most common topic of conversation in a bar or restaurant is probably sports. At the thanksgiving table people talk about sports. If you want to bring up an interesting conversation of substance, such as one relating to politics, be prepared for the immediate volley of glares that will ambush you from every direction. Why are sports a more suitable topic of conversation? Why is anything a less suitable topic. We are so uptight here in America, and so obsessed with being Politically Correct (ironically enough), that we skirt complicated or charged topics of conversation when we are together with multiple viewpoints (via many family members) in favor of infinitely more vapid conversation.

The American electorate is grossly uninformed, and perhaps this is due to the fact that any attempt to disseminate political information is much like trying pushing water back into a gushing hose. If someone have an interesting political thought, or reads something in the newspaper that might affect our government, it rarely makes it past that person’s own consciousness since few Americans are willing to listen to or partake in a conversation of substance. Rather than debate and discuss the difficult issues of our time, we shove them in a drawer and hope someone else will sort them out. Even high profile debates like abortion rarely see debate. Battles are waged on the personal level – so-and-so wants to kill your babies, or so-and-so wants the government to tell you what you can and can’t do with your body. I can’t remember the last time I saw or heard a real substantive argument about whether or not the death penalty or abortion are right.

A large majority of people say they favor the death penalty when asked the question “Do you favor the death penalty for some crimes?” On the other hand, a majority of people often respond negatively to the question “Do you support the death penalty when life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is also an option?” Is America being contradictory or does this merely demonstrate that Americans are largely uninformed and that opinion can shift dramatically with the addition of one little bit of information? (Click here for polling information. Click here for any other information you might want concerning the death penalty and its efficacy. Current polling supports the conclusion that Americans support the death penalty. Though I think this is not always the case, I have included it in the spirit of education and accurate information dissemination)

Does anyone think that forming opinions out of ignorance is a positive thing? I hope not. But if it isn’t true, then what motivates us to be so active in our avoiding any kind of informal education on these issues. Why let propaganda drive public opinion when we as America can engage in discussion and education over our own dinner tables and work to drive public opinion based on real knowledge and understanding?

Do you have thoughts on this? I’d love to hear them. Post a comment.

King Me!

2005-11-23T06:02:00.000-08:00

A British politics class that I sat in on while visiting the UK turned me on to an interesting dilemma involving third parties. This is purely an intellectual exercise and has nothing to do with the news of today. If interested keep reading. If not, skip to the next post.

In a two party system, such as in the US, voters have no real mechanism to hold a specific party accountable. If the Democrats are doing something liberals don’t like, liberals are SOL since their only recourse is to vote for someone else (negative reinforcement for the Dems and a negative - ie, moving away - reaction for the individual citizens trying to hold the Dems accountable). In most cases, even if a conservative doesn’t like the Republican representative running for her district, she is stuck since the Democratic candidate would likely be a much much worse fit for her views. Often this problem can be alleviated by a competitive third major party.

The main criticism attributed to the LibDems in the UK is that they don’t stand for anything unique from what Labour or the Torries stand for. The difference is - and it is important - that the LibDems hold many of the same views as Labour or Conservative, but in different combinations. If I'm an anti-war, pro-EU UK citizen, neither Labour nor the Torries represent my views well, but the LibDems do. In this specific case, the LibDems actually represent me better even though any single policy stance they hold could also be attributed to one of the other two major parties. This provides a positive outlet for voters. If I am Labour and Tony Blair starts to push legislation that I don’t like, rather than merely not voting or taking the nuclear option and voting for a party that just doesn't represent my views at all, I can vote for the similar party that has a different view on those few areas where my ideals break from those of the Labour party. As such, a competitive third party provides a mechanism for citizens to hold their parties accountable by allowing more subtle motions in public opinion to have a greater effect on the electorate. This stymies the tendency we see in the US for parties to polarize and run towards the more extreme ends of the political spectrum. Even now, with only a marginally competitive third party, the UK parties are converging towards the median voter and the center of the political spectrum rather than the political extremes as in the US.

But there is a unique problem. If there are three parties, often times there will be no clear majority party, but only a plurality party. This will foster coalition governments between the plurality party and the more minor third party (or the party closest in ideology). When this happens, the median voters become the king makers.

Oops. ok.... I am writing this from the airport and its time for me to go check into my flight. I’ll finish this off later, but for now... ponder the meanings of what I have said. Think you know what I am going to say? Think you can point out interesting subtleties? Post a comment.