d.c.podhaskie

Glenn Beck: Without a Paddle

2009-11-06T09:14:00.002-05:00

Glenn Beck has had a good year. Right now, the disc-jockey turned news pundit is compiling a resume that includes two best-selling books, a TV show on FOX that attracts over two million viewers daily, a radio show that hauls in about six and a half million listeners, and a tea-party movement that draws crowds from anywhere between 70,000 and two million (depending on who you ask). He is the darling of the populist right-wing and the scourge of Obama-defending liberals. The media seem to be infatuated with the crying conservative from the Pacific Northwest and he has left the rest of America scratching their heads. Whether he is being mocked, lampooned, or defended, Glenn Beck has emerged as a legitimate pundit of the right-wing. But before christening him as a populist hero, the right should figure out what exactly is behind the smoke and mirrors of Glenn Beck.

Every weekday at 5 p.m. viewers can watch Glenn Beck make chalkboard illustrations and slide shows about the torrid state of the union, with President Obama being Beck's favorite target. Beck has garnered much criticism for his continual lambasting of Obama, calling the President a racist, a Communist, and frequent violator of the Constitution. Lobbing such accusations at Obama is par for the course on the right-wing and shouldn't make Beck any different than his fellow conservative pundits, but what sets Beck apart from Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh is the same thing that makes Jason Bourne cooler than James Bond: Bond works for Mi6, Bourne works for no one; he's a rogue. While Hannity and Limbaugh love to hit back at Obama and the Democratic Party for the betterment of the GOP, Beck is a loud voice for a public disaffected with both parties; he has even said McCain would have been worse than Obama (much to Mark Levin's chagrin). With no political party to call home, Beck has become a truthy champion of the people and his timing couldn't be more perfect: his message continues to resonate with a branch of the right-wing terrified of its current President and his supposed socialist agenda.

While Hannity and Limbaugh have never been stellar models of journalistic integrity, Beck takes fact-flubbing to a whole new level. At the 9-12 protest on Washington, many of the protesters held signs praising Glenn Beck, the unofficial sponsor of the march. The carriers of these signs echoed many of the gripes Beck has with the Obama Administration, and some even sported the tears Beck often sheds. The Obama Administration's numerous "czars" were frequently mentioned, and the public voiced their worry over the "unchecked" advisers with "unlimited" power. What Beck has either failed or chosen not to mention is that the term "czar" arose in the Reagan Administration and has lasted through each Presidency since. George W. Bush currently holds the record for appointing the most czars (who are really advisory committees with very little power) and a large portion of Obama's are leftovers from the Bush Administration.

Over the summer Beck turned much of his attention to Obama-appointed Van Jones, who was selected to be the Green Jobs czar. Glenn Beck brought up Van Jones's past affiliations with Communism, two arrests, and membership in groups like the Apollo Alliance. What Beck failed to mention to his viewers was that Van Jones was a co-founder of the group The Color of Change, which has led a boycott against Beck's show (along with two dozen other sponsors) after Beck called Obama a racist. But perhaps in one of Beck's more intellectually languid rants he suggested that Rockefeller Center contains artwork that was designed by Communists at the beckoning of the Rockefeller family. Several art critics were forced to correct Beck, who got everything from the artist who designed the artwork to the meaning of certain figures in said art, wrong. Although Beck's failure to produce any facts whatsoever in support of his arguments is a daily occurrence, it is his incredible insinuations against the Rockefeller family (which he eventually connected to NBC) that shows from where he gets his hysterical line of thought.

Beck has referred to Cleon Skousen, a Mormon historian and one-man right-wing think tank, as his personal hero. He even went so far as to call Skousen's book, The 5,000 Year Leap, as "divinely inspired." Leap, through the use of Mormon history and eschatology, makes an attempt to re-brand America as a nation founded as a Christian State as opposed to a secular republic. Skousen was never revered for his fact-finding ability and it seems that trait has been passed on to Beck, one of his most enamored disciples. Now thousands of tea-party participants are familiar with the writings of Skousen, all because Beck promoted the book and its message frequently on his show. What most of Beck's followers do not know about Skousen is that he had highly publicized feud with the David Rockefeller and often suggested Rockefeller was part of a "secret cabal" of families hoping to take over the world. This was what Skousen referred to as a "New World Order," which is a conspiracy theory usually involving Freemasons or wealthy Jewish families hoping to create a one-world government. The New World Order is frequently cited by 9/11 conspirators as the group responsible for not only 9/11, but almost every other tragic event in history. It seems that through Skousen, Beck has finally found a link between himself and the 9/11 Truth Movement, a link he tried to attribute to Van Jones. Perhaps the one difference between Beck and his mentor is that Beck often admits he sounds like a lunatic, while Skousen did not.

Though Beck's show is rarely filled with insightful commentary or hard-hitting facts, it is unlikely that Beck's rise in popularity will cease. Much like when people flood into churches when a natural disaster hits, so will Beck's show be a haven for those worried about America's turn to Communism (or Socialism or Nazism, which are all linked in Beck's eyes). Though Bill O'Reilly has touted Beck as "a regular guy" who is merely espousing his views, what we know about the regular guys found amongst the American public is that while they may be hard working and intrepid entrepreneurs, it does not mean all of them should be journalists. While Liberals may be driven crazy by Beck and his supporters, the left should not pay too much attention to Beck; his fact-starved arguments are just as easy to brush away. Who should be concerned about Beck's influence are his temporary allies on the right. Should NY-23 turn out to be a liberal victory, the GOP will have to ask itself whether or not Beck and his constituents are worthy bedfellows. Though the Republicans could just as easily leave Beck on the sidelines, his influence is too hard to ignore. The real question is how valuable Beck's populist followers are: Jon Stewart summarized Beck best when he said, "Finally a guy who says what people who aren't thinking are thinking."

The conservative movement is still leaderless and rudderless. Behind all of the tears and emotional ranting, what we see in Beck is a man who is not only neither, but all too ready to begin preaching that the hull is leaking and we should all abandon ship. What the GOP needs is a leader who can fix the holes and start paddling, and that person is found nowhere near Beck or his line of thought.

A version of this post appeared in the Tuesday, November 3rd Print Edition of the New York Law Review.

Answering the Iran Question

2009-10-09T09:23:00.006-04:00

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." - Dick Cheney August 26, 2002

The country of Iran has been a persistent headache for just about every American President who has held office in the past thirty years. This long story doesn't begin or end with the current regime, but goes all the way back to the installation of the Shah and America's forays into a Middle Eastern world it still fails to understand. Although the history between our two countries offers insight into the current struggle, it does not help us answer the ever-lingering question: what the hell are we supposed to do about this slippery little country Iran?

Though Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons is not a new development, its current fervor for the bomb is a little more than unnerving. While in the past Iran has embarrassed itself by using photoshop and propaganda to greatly exaggerate its nuclear capabilities, the rhetoric the regime is using now - coupled with reports from the U.S. - suggests that Iran may actually be serious about building a bomb this time around. The mental image of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with one of his chubby digits on the red button is scary enough to make anyone convert to Islam, but there are still a few things Americans should remember before we get hysterical about Iran.

Firstly, Iran is in a state of chaos. The regime has lost almost all legitimacy following Ahmadinejad's stolen election, which continues to inspire rioting and protesting in the streets. And as people of Iran air their displeasure and reject their illegitimate government, public officials in Iran have also begun speaking out against Khamenei's theocracy. It would be wise for the U.S. to keep this in mind before it does something rash, like pass sanctions, which would do almost nothing to the corrupt government but would significantly hamper the people's ability to gather and protest. Mir Hossein Mousavi, the de facto leader of the opposition movement, has spoken out against sanctions, saying only the people of Iran will feel the negative effects of such action.

Secondly, a new factor has entered into the equation: Russia. During the Bush years the Russian government refused to budge on Iran, often supplying the Persians with the materials needed to build a nuclear bomb and turning a deaf ear to America's protests. Now that Obama has closed the doors on the needless Missile Defense Shield - which the Kremlin opposed - Putin and Medvedev may finally be ready to discuss Iran. The Russians could be a link to dealing with Ahmadinejad's government: the Kremlin has managed to hold continued talks with the Iranians while also keeping moderately peaceful ties with Israel. If a country like Russia can do this, who is to say the United States cannot? The cooperation of the Russians is a necessity if the U.S. hopes to get anything productive out of its talks with Tehran.

Finally, Iran remains a state with many enemies. The world has often looked towards the Middle East and seen a black and white struggle: Muslims vs. Jews. What the world doesn't realize is that many Muslims in the Middle East view Iran as a heretical state due to their adherence to Shia Islam. A long-developing alliance between Israel and the Sunni nations poses a very real threat to the Shiites in Iran. If the United States understands this and uses it in its diplomacy with the Persians it could very well lead to a mutual understanding our countries have not seen in decades.

Though negotiations with a country like Iran will be draining and perhaps futile, there is one thing all Americans can be excited about: there are actual negotiations on the table. For years we were told that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and war was the only way to remove them from his grip, only to realize that faulty evidence and confessions (produced by the use of torture) lead to one of the biggest foreign policy blunders in our nation's history. Because of the nature of the Iranian regime's beliefs (Khamenei and his followers are part of an apocolyptic sect of Shiites who are ready to bring about the end of the world) it is easy to feel uneasy about the prospect of an Iranian bomb. But just as we were lead to believe in Saddam's WMDs, we may be jumping the gun when suggesting the Iranians are ready to produce a nuke. Ex-CIA officer Philip Giraldi offers a helpful word of caution: “The real question for the United States and its citizens should be whether or not Iran constitutes a serious danger and whether the threat level mandates Washington’s launching of another war on the heels of two unsuccessful forays into the Muslim world. Many Americans might also observe that the cost of such a journey into darkness would have catastrophic effect on a crumbling US economy. One could reasonably ask why Congress and the media seem intent on setting the US on a path that can only lead to war, a conflict that could easily have consequences that would gravely damage the United States and its people. Remember the WMD, pilotless drones, chemical weapon labs, and mushroom clouds? The same song is being sung again, but this time everyone should recognize a con job when they see it coming.”

There is a lot to consider before jumping into a war or even diplomacy with Iran. But the sole comfort in this nerve-wracking situation is that there is actual diplomacy happening. Gone are the childish foreign policy tactics of the Bush Administration and finally the adults can sit down and have a conversation. Though the negotiations will not be easy, we should be thankful we have a President who realizes he does not need to beat his chest to show his enemies that we are stronger; we do that by simply being America.

A version of this post appeared in the Tuesday October 5th, 2009 print edition of the New York Legal Review.

Actually, It is About Race (A Little)

2009-09-22T16:38:00.001-04:00

Last week writer David Brooks wrote a column in the New York Times explaining to his buddies on the left (namely Jimmy Carter) that Obama's critics don't hate him because of his race, but because of a long-standing struggle between cosmopolitan elites and small-town folksy folks. It was a good point to make, because we are all too quick to yell "Racism!" in America. But Brooks misses something that many others - specifically Republicans - seem to be missing as well.

At the 9/12 Rally Against Everything Obama there were numerous signs reminding us that there is a large portion of America that doubts Obama's citizenship, ancestry, and religion. Now, it goes without saying that we would never see a protester carrying a sign suggesting Sarah Palin is a Muslim. It's just that when we think of Muslims, we usually envision them - in our ignorance - as brown-skinned. This is not to say that there is no such thing as a white Muslim, but the point is that Barack Obama has to deal with certain things that a typical, old-fashioned white President does not. Obama dealt with these accusations as a candidate for the Presidency and he continues to deal with them now. And maybe he likes it.

Most of the country needs no reminding that President Obama is black, but it seems that a large portion of conservatives have trouble grasping Obama's birth in Hawaii: in a recent poll, 42% of Republicans - the response with the highest plurality - said they do not believe Barack Obama was born in the United States; 22% of Republicans haven't made up their minds, but at least 37% are tuned into reality. Does any of this affect Obama? Not in the slightest. In fact, Barack Obama could easily solve this skepticism by asking the State of Hawaii to parade his birth certificate down the streets of cities all across the country. But he won't do this. Instead, Obama had his birth certificate sent to factcheck.org, which after verifying and vouching for the certificate's legitimacy and calling for an end to the conspiracy, not only failed to end the debate over his citizenship, but only led to more skepticism. So why did Obama do this? Because the more time Republicans spend arguing about where Obama was born or what religion he adheres to, the less time they spend attacking his policies. It also makes the Republicans look a whole lot sillier. If the average American catches a glimpse of some of those Tea Party Protest signs questioning Obama's citizenship, then hears the Democratic leadership calling those protesters "crazy," and then a poll comes out that a large number of what is left of the Republican party just might be crazy, then GOP looks a lot less attractive than it used to. It's a cunning strategy and Obama is milking it for all its worth.

So there is a racial element to the GOP's opposition to Obama, but the President happens to use it in his favor. Perhaps it is less about Obama's race and more about the Republican Party's swift descent into irrelevancy: very soon a health care bill will pass through Congress and will be signed into law by the President, an economy that was on the brink of falling off the face of the earth will be in an upswing, and quite a few Republican Senators and House Representatives will be forced into nail-biting races against their newly invigorated Democratic opponents. With all of this on their plate, it is hard to believe that the Republicans are still worried about where President Obama was born. The Republican Party needs to have a long talk with itself and needs to realize that just because they can stand up to a health care bill and draw 70,000 people to D.C. does not mean the rest of this country is ready to throw in the towel on Obama just yet. The road to a Republican revival is still a long ways ahead and much of their leadership have yet to even start the journey.

A version of this post appeared in the Tuesday September 22, 2009 Print Edition of the New York Legal Review

The Million Moron March

2009-09-14T20:33:00.005-04:00

"No, I don’t see [a distinction between Bush and Obama]." - Congressman Ron Paul

You'd be hard-pressed to find a person in a more blissful state of patriotic euphoria than a protester in America. Thousands of people lined up like sardines, holding home-made signs, all fighting for the same cause shoulder-to-shoulder; it is the political junkie's hipster rock concert. And yet at every protest the country endures, whether it be anti-war or anti-Bush, anti-Obama or anti-health care, we see the same people in warn out t-shirts and baseball caps that we would rather not see at all: the loud, angry, and largely unpatriotic Neanderthals who compare our leaders to mass murderers and reviled dictators. It was ugly when the left did it to Bush, and it is ugly when the right does it to Obama. But this is not the only thing wrong with this weekend's protests.

The protests held this weekend are a distant cousin of the Tea Party rallies held in support of Republican Primary candidate Ron Paul during the 2008 election. Even though this weekend's protests still retain the Tea Party name, they are less about support for Ron Paul and more about opposition to government spending; Obama's government spending, to be specific. If you walked through the crowd and tried to count the number of signs that decried Obama and his "socialist" agenda, you'd likely give up after 10 minutes. And though the signs comparing Obama to Hitler and Stalin do not represent the Tea Party's message as a whole, the signs calling Obama a socialist do a pretty good job.

The protest was a very hopeful slap in the face to Obama. It is no secret that Obama is vilified by what remains of the Republican party and this protest (largely Republican in its numbers), made no attempt to keep its hatred of all things Obama a secret. Listening to the protesters condemn Obama's increase of the deficit, his bailout of the auto industry, and his massive new health care bill, one can only wonder: Where have they been for the past 8 years?

One of the best examples of the building up of a coalition and a strong air of purpose is the political career of Ronald Reagan. Springing to political life in 1964 as he gave a speech in favor of Barry Goldwater at the Republican Convention, throughout the years that followed Reagan built a movement that breathed new air into conservatism and attempted to restore it to its former glory (which should read: pre-Nixon). Once he was elected, Reagan had the confidence of the American people and four years later he retained that confidence, as the American people re-elected him in one of the biggest landslides in our nation's history. When Reagan spoke out against Jimmy Carter in 1980 and fended off Walter Mondale in 1984, the President had something the Tea Party protesters do not: legitimacy.

Prior to his election in 1980, Reagan spent years speaking out against the big-government policies of the left like: Medicare, the Department of Education, heavy taxes, and the ever-increasing debt. When the protesters now speak out against Obama's health care program, you have to wonder what they thought of Bush's Medicare bill, which will end up costing the country far more money than Obama's current health care proposals. The same can be said of Obama's bailouts (Bush bailed out the banks as well), and his stimulus package (Bush had his own sets of economic stimuli and rebates). All of this is mentioned before we get to Bush's energy bill, farm subsidies, and the creation of Homeland Security - one of the largest expansions of government power in recent decades. For the protesters to give Bush a pass on these issues for 8 years and now do an about-face, it looks less like true concern for the size of government and more like petty partisan politics.

One of the highlights of the weekend was the emphatic support of Congressman Joe Wilson, who famously shouted, "You lie!" at President Obama during his health care speech. It is ironic that many of the protesters have come to call Rep. Wilson their hero (indeed many held signs in support of Congressman Wilson), because he very much represents the Republican movement today. Wilson's gripe with Obama's speech came during the President's correction of false assertions lobbed at his health care proposals. Obama tackled the death panels issue (which funnily enough did not produce any shouts of "You lie!"), and once the President got to the idea that illegal immigrants would be covered by his plan, Joe Wilson "let his emotions get the best of him" and publicly accused his President of lying. While Wilson spent the weekend talking about how much he opposed giving health care coverage to illegals, what he failed to mention is that in the past he has voted to provide taxpayer money for illegal immigrants. When did this happen? In 2003, when he voted for Bush's Medicare bill which gave hospitals that chose to treat illegal immigrants $250,000 annually. Though he can accuse the President of being a liar, the soapbox upon which Joe Wilson stands is made of straw. And the same goes for the Republican movement that now follows him.

In 1910 psychologist Henry Goddard coined the term "moron" when describing patients espousing mild forms of retardation. He got his word from the Greek root moros which means "dull," as in "not sharp." Today's Republican movement has lost all of the tact and sharpness it once possessed, yet retains its fervor. That fervor, aimlessly rage-filled and without conviction, is now directed towards Barack Obama and independents can only look on and be puzzled. As the Republican party continues its battle with amnesia and lobs the same complaints at Obama that they refused to lob at Bush, the political wedge that has already been driven between the right and the rest of the country will only sink in deeper. What the Tea Party protest shows is that 70,000 people can put a whole lot of effort into saying absolutely nothing.

A version of this post will appear in the Monday September 15th Print Edition of the New York Legal Review.

*Intern Zachary Kassover contributed to this article.

Investigating Torture

2009-08-27T01:45:00.004-04:00

“A government of laws, not of men.” — John Adams

Yesterday Attorney General Eric Holder announced that he was appointing special prosecutor John Durham to investigate alleged detainee abuse that occurred during the Bush Administration. Much of the news surrounding this announcement painted a picture of a reluctant Eric Holder having his hand forced by the law, all the while hoping not to anger his boss, President Obama. During his presidency Barack Obama has said repeatedly that he does not wish to investigate the torture allegations directed at the Bush Administration, most famously saying that he wants to look "forward instead of backwards." The Obama Administration, while hoping to look forward, looks as if it will be forced to investigate the prior Administration, much to their chagrin. But that is only what it looks like. If we have learned anything about Barack Obama in these past nine months it is that there is always more than meets the eye.

In a 2007 interview with radio talk show host Christiane Brown, Barack Obama said, unequivocally, that if the Bush Administration had broken laws, his Attorney General would investigate: "One of my first acts as president is going to be to call in my new Attorney General to review every single executive order that's been issued, to overturn those that are undermining the Constitution, undermining our civil liberties, that are promoting this cockamamie theory of Unitary government, that says somehow the executive branch does not need to obey the Constitution...and during that process of review, if it’s determined that laws have been broken, then obviously accountability would be part of my Attorney General’s job." So if an investigation has always been on the table, even if it has not been enthusiastically endorsed, why is Obama now against an investigation? The simple answer is that he really isn't.

If the White House had an enthusiastic show of support for a torture investigation it would no doubt encourage many of those on the right and left who hope to see the Bush Administration held accountable for whatever laws it chose to break. But President Obama knows that this would be a politically expensive position to take. Firstly, with a teetering/recovering economy and a nearly blown healthcare bill on the President's plate, the public condemnation for such an act would be difficult to endure. The right would really have at it with Obama over the torture program, and though most polls say Americans disagree with the Republicans on this issue, a public skewering of the President does not often bode well, especially if the Democrats are trying to push important legislation through Congress. By making it seem as if he is simply letting Holder do his job, President Obama basically ties his own hands: there is evidence the Bush Administration broke the law; Holder is investigating and there is nothing Obama can do about it. It allows Obama to retain some of his political capital but to also see what he most likely wants to be done. Obama campaigned against the Bush Administration's use of torture; do we really believe that a civil rights attorney and constitutional law professor merely wants to "forget" that the prior Administration broke the law repeatedly and jeopardized the safety of the country by doing so? Of course not. Obama is for an investigation, he just cannot take the position publicly.

So Obama comes across as reluctant to endorse an investigation, but in private he wants to see it done and through Attorney General Holder, a thorough investigation will occur. Is this political cowardice? Perhaps a little, but most politicians act in their own self-interest anyway. But there could be a point to Obama's hiding in the shadows: while a public call for an investigation would speak volumes to many foreign government's across the world, it would also vindicate the feelings of many terrorists who feel that America is a demonic entity. By allowing Holder to conduct an investigation, almost against Obama's will, America is showing foreign government's that this is how democracy works; even the guy in charge does not get to pull everyone's strings. It is a stark contrast from the Bush Administration, which fired Department of Justice officials that failed to tow the executive branch's line. In this case the Department of Justice is merely doing its job: Bush Administration officials broke the law and we must investigate; we have no choice. It sets a powerful example for world governments hoping to continue experimenting with democracy.

Through all of this, it seems as if Obama still wins, but what is most important is that the rule of law wins, and that is what we are all about, isn't it?

A version of this post appeared in the Tuesday August 25th, 2009 print edition of the New York Legal Review.

Did Conservatism Die with Buckley?

2009-08-11T09:57:00.003-04:00

"Conservatives pride themselves on resisting change, which is as it should be. But intelligent deference to tradition and stability can evolve into intellectual sloth and moral fanaticism, as when conservatives simply decline to look up from dogma because the effort to raise their heads and reconsider is too great," - William F. Buckley Jr.

For years, William F. Buckley Jr. was the leader of the Conservative movement. Brilliant, poised, and always ready for a fight, Buckley could run intellectual circles around any liberal that crossed his path and was gutsy enough to expose some of the lunacy that infected the Right. He was a different breed of Conservative; much more capable of of persuading a stalwart liberal than a shouting Rush Limbaugh or a babbling Sarah Palin. Though it has only been a year and a half since his death, it feels as though Buckley has been gone for much longer, which perhaps only speaks to the conservative movement's dire need of an intellectual mind. As Buckley's political activity declined in the new millennium, the Republican party, which for so long held all of the stock in Conservatism, descended into madness. With politicians like George W. Bush and celebrities like Sarah Palin pulling the reins, it is difficult to equate the current GOP with Buckley. In 2009, the party is bereft of the intellectual clout and conviction it had throughout the 20th Century. As the party is dominated by strong personalities as opposed to powerful intellects who egg on the loons that show up at the Town Hall meetings, shouting and refusing to engage in a simple debate about health care, one can only ask: did Conservatism die with Buckley?

In October of 2008 William F. Buckley's son, Christopher, famously endorsed Barack Obama for the Presidency. The move led to Christopher's split with his father's National Review and the "right" almost immediately issued an intellectual fatwa against him. It was indeed strange to think of a Buckley pulling a lever for a Democrat. Buckley wrote an article (published in the Daily Beast, not the National Review) in which he apologized to his father, but admitted he would be voting for Barack Obama. It was less an endorsement of Obama and more a critique of what McCain had allowed himself to become, but one sentence in the article really captures Buckley's reasoning and perhaps also speculates on his what father's convictions would have been come November: "Let me be the latest conservative/libertarian/whatever to leap onto the Barack Obama bandwagon. It’s a good thing my dear old mum and pup are no longer alive. They'd cut of my allowance. Or would they?" After observing John McCain's campaign - which Christopher believed corrupted an otherwise moral and capable leader - and the Sarah Palin pick, would William have followed Christopher's reasoning; like son, like father? It is a scenario left only to speculation (Buckley died in February of 2008), even though William F. had begun to fall out with modern conservatism just before his death. It was no secret that Buckley Sr. was less than a fan of the Bush Administration. In an interview in 2006, an 81 year-old Buckley stated that, "I think Mr. Bush faces a singular problem best defined, I think, as the absence of effective conservative ideology." Buckley made no attempt to hide his disapproval of the Iraq War, a quagmire that he thought would effectively destroy the Republican brand he had sought to create. In fact, Jeffrey Hart, a close friend of Buckley's, wrote in the American Conservative that Buckley felt the Republican party's failure to distance itself from the Bush Administration was intellectual suicide.

Fast forward to 2009 and Buckley's point seems all the more poignant. Bill Buckley the Conservative would have loved a robust debate about health care and would have relished the opportunity to stick it to some liberals who think they know what is good for this country. But sadly it is the lack of debate and the overabundance of asinine arguments and conspiracy theories that make up the gist of the Republican Party's efforts to derail health care. Instead of making an attempt to discuss Obama's healthcare plan, the cartoon characters of conservatism on the right seem content creating dubious straw men and setting them ablaze. Rush Limbaugh has compared Barack Obama to a Nazi, Mark Levin has said that Obama is "at war with the American people," Sarah Palin believes that Obama is trying to create "death panels" that will lead to the euthanizing of the elderly (despite the fact that it was a Republican Congressman who authored to "death panel" portion of the House Bill), Sean Hannity has said he believes Obama resents most of America, and Glenn Beck, in all his brilliance, has stated he believes Obama has a "deep-seated" hatred of white people and white culture (which would have made things awkward for his white mother, if it were true). On top of all this is the "birther" fantasy which purports that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, making his presidency illegitimate. This is what is on the discussion plates of the so-called leaders of the conservative movement. Is there a discussion about what the Republican party plans to do when Medicare and Medicaid consume 20% of GDP in 15 years? Any inquiry into how some Americans have been left financially crippled with medical costs? If the country is looking for answers, its current brand of conservatism has failed to offer any.

One can only wonder why the pundits on talk radio and television have descended into quirky conspiracies and absurdities, doing their best to avoid any real discussion about health care reform. Some would say the answer is that the nuttier the pundits get, the more people listen. But perhaps it's because there really is an intellectual void in the conservative movement. How would Buckley react if he saw Katie Couric interview Sarah Palin? What would he do if he was forced to sit through the Glenn Beck Show? Buckley, the Conservative intellectual, would hopefully call out the charlatans for what they were. William Buckley could easily hold his own against a liberal White House and Democratic Congress, but those he passed the torch to lack the character and wit to follow in his footsteps. As the Republican party falls further out of touch with the American people and the base dwindles down into Congress approval-rating numbers, one can only wonder where Buckley's intellectual conservative movement went.

While there are real, serious objections to Obama's health care plan (cost, over-reaching government control, feasibility), those who harbor these objections are forced to sit back and watch as the hijackers of Buckley's brand of conservatism attempt to do battle with Barack Hussein Obama, the America-hating Kenyan who hopes to drag the country into the depths of socialism. It is a battle they cannot win, because no one but their rabid followers take them seriously. And because of the term they use to describe themselves: "conservative," independents and Democrats find it difficult to take any conservative, Buckley-inspired or not, seriously.

"You cultivate the essential virtues: high purpose, intelligence, decency, humility, fear of the Lord, and the passion for freedom." - William F. Buckley

A version of this post appeared in the Tuesday August 11th 2009 Print Edition of the New York Legal Review.

Politicking Healthcare

2009-08-04T20:07:00.004-04:00

"Though this be madness, yet there is method in 't." - Hamlet

As the debate over health care leaves Capitol Hill and makes its way to Main Streets across the country, the citizens of the United States will have their eyes fixed on a Congress and a President that both aim to fix the country's broken system. However, as the current version of the health care bill sits calmly in Washington, wondering what changes will be made to it, the American people have come to view the bill as either a Trojan Horse of Socialized Medicine or a beacon of light in an industry dominated by dark insurance wraiths. There are elements of truth and falsity in each side's argument, and this is the point.

Though many on the Right are up-in-arms about the possibility of the House bill passing, President Obama himself has admitted that the bill will not pass the Senate without Republican support. Even with the newly acquired Franken seat, the Democrats must still overcome the Blue Dogs in the Senate - who will not be voting for a bill that includes a public option - and factor in the possibility that Senators Kennedy and Byrd may not be voting at all. Therefore, the scene is set for a party-line Republican vote against the bill, which after all the Town Hall's and campusing, may not pass. No doubt the Republicans will rush the talk shows and T.V. programs to proclaim victory, but it may be President Obama who (again) comes out the winner.

Though many of the Republicans in Washington are happy to see the health care bill go down in flames, Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley suggests that some of his colleagues in Congress have failed to monitor the polls. Senator Grassley cited one poll that said if health care reform fails, 30% of Americans would point the blame at the health industry, 22% towards Republicans, 11% towards Democrats, and only 4% towards Obama. If those numbers are true, the Republican strategy of "going for the kill," may indeed sabotage the bill, but only at the expense of an almost completely depleted Republican political capital. It is also impossible to assume that President Obama has not seen these poll numbers. Instead Obama, the cunning politician that he is, is doing exactly what he has done time and time again: play opossum and let his enemies come to him; the rope-a-dope.

As Republicans storm Town Hall meetings across the country and scream at their representatives in Congress, Barack Obama is probably sitting in the Oval Office, waiting to pounce. If the health care bill does fail, how easy would it be for President Obama to wheel out a patient who is a victim of the current system, wracked with debt and medical expenses, or rejected because of "preexisting conditions?" The flaws in the current system will be cited by vigorously by the Democrats, and the Republicans, playing the loyal opposition, would immediately be blamed by Obama. The American people, shown handpicked evidence, will be all too quick to believe the President and the Republicans are back at square one.

Though there is a way to debate health care, neither side seems interested in doing so. As the Republicans spread misinformation about the bill (it somehow funds euthanasia and abortions) the Democrats have only responded by blaming the health insurance industry, a tactic many in the party believe will work. The Democrats, birthers of the bill, have not even attempted to engage the Republican Party's falsities, they instead hope the people see the Republican defiance as an embrace of the current system and the corrupt insurance companies that run it. Also, no attention is being paid to the fact that the Republicans under Bush did almost nothing when he passed the largest increase to an entitlement program in the country's history with his Medicare bill. Now, because a Democrat is promoting a big government idea, the Republicans turn out in droves.

The Republicans and the far-Right are seizing this opportunity to use health care as a way to pit themselves against Obama. Senator Demint even called the health care debate Obama's "Waterloo," stating it will "break him." If only the country had a government that actually cared about its people instead of practicing real politik.

The idea of a public option can and should be debated, and the right should not fear it. If the public option is a bad idea, it can be defeated by sound reason and logic. If the public option is somehow a good idea, the right should look for a way to manage it and make sure it does not end up costing this country even more money. The right should also be wary of the very real number of Americans who do not have health care insurance and the corporatism that has taken over the insurance industry. There is a real solution to the health care problem in America, but unfortunately the notion of civics is lost on those in our government and it is business as usual in Washington: personality politics for one's own personal gain.

A version of this post appeared in the August 4th, 2009 Print Edition of the New York Legal Review.

What is Happening in Honduras?

2009-07-07T20:59:00.000-04:00

As this article is being written, the Honduran "Tale of Two Coups" is still being woven. The Honduras story surfaced briefly last week and then slipped under the radar, overshadowed by the conglomerate of Michael Jackson, Iran, and Sarah Palin coverage. But the story lingers on even though it is far from the minds of the American populace and its conclusion is as difficult to see as the situation is to understand.

Back in August of 2008 the people of Honduras partook in a Gallup poll which asked them whether or not Honduras was headed towards a "better democracy." 47% of respondents disagreed with that statement and 29% said that they believed Honduras was headed towards a military coup d'etat (the median for such a response in Latin America is around 15%). So the first thing that should be noted is that the Honduran event is not a spontaneous situation; the political turmoil has been brewing for quite some time. Most of this is largely accredited to the ousted President Manuel Zelaya. President Zelaya was not a particularly popular figure prior to his removal, with many Hodurans believing he was too close to Huge Chavez (who has a mere 20% approval rating in Honduras) and an overall disappointment as President. Last month Zelaya attempted to rebuff the Constitution, an act the Supreme Court said was (allegedly) illegal, and told Zelaya to put his plans on hold. Zelaya defied the Supreme Court and the Military ousted him.

What happened is a tale of two coups: one a traditional military coup and another a democratic coup. Zelaya was in all likelihood attempting to amend the Constitution in the hopes of remaining in office. This has frequently happened in South America: democratically elected leaders who wish to remain in power will attempt to extend their reign through democratic means, i.e. amend the Constitution. In Honduras, the Supreme Court decides what is constitutional and what is not and ruled Zelaya's amending attempts as unconstitutional. Zelaya continued to defy the court and was thus left at the mercy of the Army, who is ordered to protect the Constitution. This is where the accusations of a military coup come in. The Army implemented its own leader who will rule until the Presidential election in November. On its surface it seems like the military is clear of blame and Zelaya is a rightly deposed would-be dictator. So why are the people protesting and why is the international community condemning the military's actions?

Following Zelaya's deportation, the Army put a few of the Hondurans constitutional rights on "hold." These include: the right to protest, freedom of transit, freedom of association, freedom in one's home from unwarranted search, seizure, or arrest, and the right of due process. It should also be noted that Zelaya repeatedly said he had every intent of leaving office in 2010. It is quite possible that Zelaya was lying, but removing a President requires more than just assumptions about intent. Zelaya's strong ties to Chavez should also be considered irrelevant: Venezuela has almost nothing to do with Honduras and unless Chavez makes do on his ridiculous claims of invasion, he too should be considered irrelevant. And there is one more complication: taking Zelaya out of the country was illegal, according to the Constitution.

If it sounds like both sides are wrong, then this article has done its job. Neither the military nor Zelaya can claim the high road in this debacle; they'll both have to settle it amongst themselves. This is all the more reason for the U.S. to remain on the sidelines. Obama should encourage Honduras to allow Zelaya back into the country, push for the reinstatement of basic freedoms, and then back off. This is an internal battle that is more complicated than most realize. Perhaps this conundrum was inevitable due to a weak Constitution and is part of the process of writing a new one. After all, how good can a Constitution be if it leaves the power of removing the president with the military on a continent with a long history of military coups? It could be time for a new Honduran Constitution, but the people of Honduras should be left to write it themselves.

With the recent celebration of July 4th fresh in the minds of Americans, we should be thankful that this country has a Constitution that works so well. As Washington said to Adams after Adams became the second President of the United States: "I am safely out and you are safely in." Let's remember that it doesn't always work as easily in other countries.

A version of this post appeared in the Tuesday July 7th Print Edition of the New York Legal Review. Pieces of it were printed in the Cherokee Chronicle Times and Cody Daily Register.

Iran's Next Step

2009-06-23T18:22:00.004-04:00

As the horrific violence happening in Iran begins to settle in (but does not cease), and the rioting on the streets becomes "normal," (whatever that means) the watching world anxiously awaits the Islamic Republic's next step. Will it be Islamic? Will it be a Republic?

One thing is for certain: the current Regime, thanks to its acts of brutality and violence inflicted on its own people, has lost all legitimacy with the world and the Iranian people. The nuclear weapons program is essentially finished, the Regime's press releases and official statements have become comedy, and most importantly, the Ayatollah is no longer the spiritual leader he once was; his direct line to Allah has been severed.

So the Regime has two options: step down from power peacefully or rule with an iron fist. As the violence continues in Iran and becomes more horrific, the Regime will be forced to make a decision. The extreme violence used against the people has basically solidified the fact that the Regime attempted to fix the election; if these rioters are just a bunch of sore losers and Iran really is a democracy, why not let them protest? The same reasoning is applied to the filtering of Internet sites. If the election was legitimate, why not let the people discuss it in an open forum? While the crackdown on protesters seems to indicate the Regime will attempt to rule as a fascist government, they do so at their own peril.

If the Ayatollah and Ahmadinejad remain in power, stripped of all legitimacy, they essentially become dictators, and they have to know what the world does to dictators; their neighbor used to be one. With an illegal, dangerous, and now fascist regime sitting in power, Iran's enemies will have few arguments against attacking the country. Those enemies most notably include Israel, but after Saddam's fall and the subsequent power vacuum emanating from within Iran, the Sunni Arab nations are also looking to oust the Shia Regime from power, which the Sunnis see as heretical. Jeffrey Goldberg touches on the Sunni-Shia struggle in this month's Atlantic:

"The conflict between Sunni and Shia is the most consequential in the Middle East because it is so profound and elemental. But precisely because it is so intractable, it might hold the key to solving another seemingly eternal Middle East conflict, the one between Muslim and Jew. The definitive Middle East cliché is, of course, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Well, it turns out that today, more than at any other time in the ruinous 100-year encounter between Arabs and Jews on the strip of land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, the two parties in the dispute have a common enemy: the Shia Persian Islamic Republic of Iran. "

We saw Israel's preparation for an attack just before the violence broke out in Iran: Netanyahu announced he would be open to a two-state solution with Palestine, Israel's Sunni neighbor. Already, the plot is being formulated and the roles are being cast: a joint-ventured attack on Iran is looming. Unless, of course, the Regime decides to forfeit their power. But even if they do, Israel may see Iran as less of a threat, but the Sunnis still see the Shia power state as an affront to Muslim hierarchy. If Mousavi does become the President, and a new Ayatollah is put into place, Iran may have a chance of dealing with the Sunnis, and if anyone can do this, it is Mousavi. Though Mousavi has been criticized by many in the West, with even President Obama saying there is little difference between Ahmadinejad and the would-be President (which was probably not a serious accusation, but a cunning political move: the more distance Obama puts between himself and Mousavi, the more legitimate Mousavi is in the eyes of Iranians), Mousavi is actually one of the most liberal and pro-Western political figures in Iran. And he has become much more liberal in the past twenty years. Couple this with the fact that Mousavi has become more than just a political rebel, but a sign of hope for Iranian Democracy, he could be the one that links Iran with the rest of the Middle East.

One thing is for certain: the current Regime has been backed into a corner, with no foreseeable future. In fact, this makes them more dangerous and more likely to be overthrown quickly, be it from within or without. What sane Middle Eastern country would allow a apocalyptic, cult-like, Shia Regime with full knowledge of its impending collapse, to remain in power for very long, especially if the Regime has nuclear aspirations? Ahmadinejad and Khamenei are essentially finished. They will try to hold onto their power for as long as possible, killing more people in the streets and creating more Nedas every day. Their Internet will eventually open up because the economy cannot operate without it and the world will learn of the true brutality and horrific violence the Regime has inflicted. The Mullahs will eventually grow tired of the violence and the power struggle will begin, with the Ayatollah and Ahmadinejad being asked to step down. At that point, hopefully Mousavi is given his title as President and a new constitution can be written, as many Iranians have been demanding. If that new constitution makes Iran into a true democracy, shedding the "Islamic" and becoming a mere "Republic," the world will have the first Muslim liberal democracy in the Middle East. But that remains to be seen.

The only thing that can be guaranteed is that the Iranian people will continue to suffer as they pursue liberty. Hopefully they don't stop their pursuit and their suffering comes to an end.

A version of this post appeared in the Tuesday, June 23rd print edition of the New York Legal Review and was cited elsewhere.

"Meejangam, Meemeeram, rayam-o-pass meegeeram."

2009-06-15T22:36:00.007-04:00

As the Iranian people shuffled in to vote this past Friday they probably had some suspicions as to what the current regime would do with their vote. Past elections in Iran have not been without their controversy, but there is no way one could have predicted the incredible response of the Iranian people to the simple truth: the Iranian government fixed the results, stole the election, and made it so blatantly obvious a child could see it. From this chain of events, a revolution was birthed.

In the run-up to the election, two candidates eventually emerged as the favorites: incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and reformist candidate Mir Hossein Moussavi. On Friday, January 12th, nearly 45 million Iranians cast their votes. If we are to believe the Iranian regime, 67% of eligible voters cast their votes in favor of Ahmadinejad. However, we cannot believe the Iranian regime because the Presidential election was not an election at all. Christopher Hitchens shared his thoughts on the election on Slate.com:

"Iran and its citizens are considered by the Shiite theocracy to be the private property of the anointed mullahs. This totalitarian idea was originally based on a piece of religious quackery promulgated by the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and known as velayat-e faqui. Under the terms of this edict—which originally placed the clerics in charge of the lives and property of orphans, the indigent, and the insane—the entire population is now declared to be a childlike ward of the black-robed state. Thus any voting exercise is, by definition, over before it has begun, because the all-powerful Islamic Guardian Council determines well in advance who may or may not "run." Any newspaper referring to the subsequent proceedings as an election, sometimes complete with rallies, polls, counts, and all the rest of it, is the cause of helpless laughter among the ayatollahs. ("They fell for it? But it's too easy!") Shame on all those media outlets that have been complicit in this dirty lie all last week. And shame also on our pathetic secretary of state, who said that she hoped that "the genuine will and desire" of the people of Iran would be reflected in the outcome. Surely she knows that any such contingency was deliberately forestalled to begin with."

The Western media got a hold of the real results of the election, and they are almost comically contrary to what the fascist regime expects its people and the world to believe:

Unofficial news - reports leaked results from Interior Ministry:
Eligible voters: 49,322,412
Votes cast: 42,026,078
Spoilt votes: 38,716
Mir Hossein Mousavi: 19,075,623
Mehdi Karoubi: 13,387,104
Mahmoud Ahmadi-nejad (incumbent): 5,698,417

Mohsen Rezaei (conservative candidate): 3,754,218

This is how fascism functions. The government says whatever it wants to its sheep, because it expects its people to listen. However, as many Iranians have been screaming at the police who have been beating them, the people are not sheep. The Iranian government overshot its reach and the people have reacted. Over the past few days the protesting has become so relentless that this is no longer about the results of a stolen election, it is a declarative statement to the fascist regime: you cannot abuse us any longer.

"Meejangam, Meemeeram, rayam-o-pass meegeeram." "I will fight, I will die, I will get my vote back." This was just one of the chants being screamed in Farsi on the streets of Tehran this weekend. The people of Iran are drinking from the wellspring of liberty, and they are using the water to put out the fire of despotism. God bless them. But as the world watches one can only wonder what the future has in store for the people of Iran and the democratic movement they are trying to birth. It is easy to be skeptical about the reality of a fascist regime stepping down, but it was also easy to be skeptical about the chances of a small group of colonies rebelling against a tyrant hundreds of miles away and starting the world's first liberal democracy.

The current struggle of Iran no longer belongs only to that special country in the Middle East, but to the Western World as well, especially the United States. When someone fights for freedom, no matter where they are, be it Asia, the Middle East, or Eastern Europe, the U.S. stands with them, because we know that liberty is the natural state for mankind. No government has a right to rob a person of their autonomy, and that need not be written in any holy book or decree; it is fundamental to who we are as human beings.

When Thomas Jefferson chose to support the revolutionaries in France, many of his colleagues were puzzled. Jefferson had befriended many of those in the elite class and in the French government; why would Jefferson turn against them? He did so because he believed in the cause of the revolution, for the people to remove the boot of aristocracy from their face, lest it keep them subdued forever. When Jefferson told his friend John Adams, "Long live the revolution," Adams, puzzled, asked Jefferson, "Theirs or ours?" Jefferson responded, "They are one in the same." When the Iranian people fight fascism, they do it not only for their sake, but for ours as well. Fascism does not stay dormant; it seeks to spread out and make itself known. Their freedom is ours as well, and just as other countries stood with us in our fight, we should also stand with the Iranians in theirs.

The people of Iran are fighting this tyranny with their own blood and sweat. The United States should support this revolution, support the Iranian people, and pray for the overthrow of a tyrannical regime. We must pray for their safety, because the move from despotism to freedom is not done in a feather bed. For now, we can do nothing but pray, hope, encourage, and wait, but we can take solace in the fact that the disease of liberty is catching.

ازادى, استقلال, معافيت, اسانى, روانى

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson, 1796

A version of this post appeared in the June 16th, 2009 print edition of the New York Legal Review.

The Islam Speech

2009-06-09T08:42:00.002-04:00

In his inaugural speech, President Barack Obama made a promise to Muslim countries around the world. He told them that if they would unclench their fists, the United States would be there to greet them with an outstretched hand. Obama's speech at Cairo University last week seemed to be the outstretched hand the President had been promising, but that hand did not come without the full force of the powerful man behind it.

What makes Obama's speech in Cairo the most significant of his Presidency thus far, is the fact that he is the first President in our history who could give such a speech and have it make such a powerful impact (and we will get to the after effects of the speech later). Barack Hussein Obama is the first American President to have lived in a Muslim country and have a Muslim father. His unique personal history, along with the fact that he is not George W. Bush, grants him slightly more trust amongst Muslims. This is exemplified in the very beginning of his speech: in the opening 30 seconds of his speech President Obama uses the phrase, "As-Salāmu `Alaykum," which means "Peace be upon you" in Arabic. If George W. Bush or John McCain were to use this phrase its effect would be less felt; it is Barack Obama's face, his name, and his backround that make the very notion of him giving a speech to the Muslim world more potent and more important than that of his opponents or predecessors. This point may seem racist or prejudice on its surface, but it is really soft power at its finest. When Barack Obama says this:

Part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I am a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

Muslims can hear this from an American President and believe him. Obama can make statements like this and receive applause. On the other hand, Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, receives shoes as projectiles. Obama's history makes him better equipped to meet the Muslims where they are at, and it also gives the power behind his words more conviction and more meaning.

One of the most striking parts of the President's speech was his addressing of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Barack Obama highlighted America's special relationship with Israel:

America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

Obama did two things with this paragraph: he establishes that America and Israel will continue to have a special relationship and also disabuses the notion that many Arabs have about Israel: the Holocaust is not a legitimate excuse to reform a nation. In his speech, Obama said it is. But Obama took no sides; he also addressed the Palestinian problem:

So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.

By making these two points, Obama enabled himself to conclude with this statement:

America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.

Both Bush and Obama have called for peace and a two-state solution. Obama calling for peace is more believable than Bush's simply because of who he is. Again, Soft Power is the point here, and America's foreign policy was helped immensely by Obama's election.

Obama also took the time in his speech to encourage the Arab world to condemn acts of violence and to embrace peace and unity with the West. He also mentioned Iran, a country that is about to choose who will be its next President. The current President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, faces competition from Mir-Hossein Musavi, a reformist candidate hoping to make serious changes in government. He is in line with neither Ahmadinejad nor the Ayatollah's line of thought. It was not long after Obama's speech that videos emerged of Musavi supporters sparring with Ahmadinejad supporters in Tehran. In fact, there is a reported "green wave" in Iran's capital, as Musavi supporters have adopted the culturally significant color and have begun wearing it in the streets. This is how democracy beats dictators: from within.

Obama's speech may not be the reason Musavi is receiving so much support. But the 27% of the Iranian electorate that still does not who they are voting for may be encouraged by the fact that the leader of the Free World spoke Arabic to them, and wished them peace. Instead of hearing George W. Bush's call for democracy and turning their heads, the Iranians on the fence hear Barack Hussein Obama praising democracy, and now may decide to give it a chance. To many Muslims in the Middle East, America is still a colonialist empire that is seeking to expand its reach into the Middle East. To fewer Muslims, it is the Great Satan that is waging a Crusade against Muslim nations. But to many more Muslims, America is an icon of freedom, democracy, and unity. Though those thoughts may now be more reflective of a failed freedom, and damaged democracy, and a false unity, the Iranians show us that there is still hope in those great ideals espoused by the great City on a Hill, and Obama's speech is a humble beginning to forging a renewed trust between the West and the East so that those ideals may not be exclusive to only those in the West.

Many people voted for Barack Obama not for his economic policies, or his social policies, but because they wanted to see a change in how we engaged the Middle East. Obama was never going to govern like a Free-Market economist, but he was well-positioned to adopt a more sane foreign policy. To those people who voted for Obama for these reasons, his speech last week was confirmation that they voted correctly.

A version of this post appeared in the June 9th, 2009 print edition of the New York Legal Review.

The Huntsman Pick

2009-05-19T00:03:00.006-04:00

This weekend President Obama announced that Utah Governor Jon Huntsman would be his choice as United States' Ambassador to China. Huntsman's nomination drew commentary from the left and the right, with both sides praising the nomination, though for different reasons.

Many on the left saw this as a great political move for Obama: Huntsman, a popular Republican governor, is one of the many names tipped for a run at the White House in 2012. Though Huntsman will still be eligible to run, some pundits felt that President Obama was pulling a "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer" move, a la Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Others on the left saw this as a wise move simply because of Huntsman's resume. Having spent time as a Mormon Missionary in Taiwan (where he learned Mandarin Chinese), Huntsman is very familiar with Asian culture. To these pundits, the purpose of the pick is: China's role in the American economy requires an apt nominee and Huntsman fills the hole well, end of story.

By picking Huntsman, Obama could be proving both camps right; Huntsman is indeed a smart pick both politically and practically. But those suggesting he is leaning towards one side more than the other underestimate the political cunning of magnificent politician.

By picking Huntsman, as well as refusing to release torture photos, reinstating Military Tribunals, and appointing a Cheney-approved general to head up the war in Afghanistan, Obama spent the past week upsetting those on the left and pleasing those on the right. No doubt the conservative base will still have their guard up - as well as they should - but Obama gained himself a few valuable points with the GOP base, points he will use later.

The Huntsman pick accomplishes two things: it keeps Huntsman close to Obama and in turn makes the Governor less likely to run against him in 2012, and it places someone capable and qualified in an important post. It allows Obama to gain points with the right, while it also allows Obama to fulfill one of his campaign promises: bipartisan cooperation. With five non-Democrats in his cabinet and a now prominent Republican hotshot filling in as Ambassador to the world's most populous country, it is becoming increasingly difficult to accuse Obama of excluding Republicans from Executive leadership.

The points gained with the right from the Huntsman pick and the slew of activities from last week allow Obama to set the GOP up for next month, when he will supposedly release a new set of torture memos. The GOP will either never see it coming or will and have to act like they didn't, or else they wouldn't be able to praise the McChrystal pick or the Huntsman pick this month. And on top of this, how do you criticize a man for releasing memos when he refused to release photos barely a month beforehand? It is essentially placing $20 in your bank account, only to take the $20 out later as opposed to just deducting $20 cold turkey. By his actions this past week he is negating the effect the release of the torture memos will have and is also doing what he does best: letting his enemies come to him, and swatting them down effectively. The Rope-a-Dope.

Obama has a way of always making himself come out as a winner, a tactic George W. Bush never grasped, nor did President Clinton. His political cunning allows him to get a lot done, but the road ahead remains difficult: the grace period is no longer in effect and critiques of his policies are only going to get more loud and boisterous. But for now, Obama remains firmly in control of Washington and is showing signs that he could be in for the long haul.

Expanded Powers: The Bush Presidency and Torture

2009-05-07T22:12:00.008-04:00

“We must not make a scarecrow of the law, setting it up to fear the birds of prey.” – Measure for Measure

In the immediate days following the September 11^th attacks, the American government was in an understandable state of panic: the country had just been attacked in two separate cities, roughly 3,000 Americans were dead, and the American people were introduced to a new enemy, Al Qaeda. To make matters worse, six weeks after the initial attacks and just as tranquility was being restored to the nation’s cities, reports of a white powder substance appearing in Senator Tom Daschle’s mailbox surfaced. This followed news from Florida that a civilian died from contact with a curious white powder, which scientific analysis showed to be anthrax, a deadly poison. With the nation reeling from a terrorist attack and with the government itself being sent bacterial poison, tensions were high. Faced with a bio-terror situation and the suspicion that another major attack could happen soon, the President’s office began to take serious measures to make sure the country would be kept safe. Jane Mayer, in her book The Dark Side, writes,

Now Cheney saw the terrorist threat in such catastrophic terms that his end, saving America from possible extinction, justified virtually any means. As Wilkerson, [Colin] Powell’s former Chief of Staff…put it, “He had a single-minded objective in black and white, that American security was paramount to everything else. He thought that perfect security was achieveable. I can’t fault the man for wanting to keep America safe. But he was willing to corrupt the whole country to save it.”1

It was in this period of fear that the executive branch decided that it would use any and all means necessary to protect the country. Mayer continues:

Beginning almost immediately after September 11, 2001, Cheney saw to it that some of the sharpest and best-trained lawyers in the country, working in secret in the White House and the United States Department of Justice, came up with legal justifications for a vast expansion of the government’s power in waging the war on terror. As part of that process, for the first time in its history, the United States sanctioned government officials to physically and psychologically torment U.S. –held captives, making torture the official law of the land in all but name.²

In the years to come, President Bush and his Administration would be accused by those on the right and left of the political spectrum for not only allowing the torture of those captured by the country, but for using it as a military tactic. The accusations themselves remained just accusations, as little action was taken against the President while he occupied the country’s highest office, but with a newly elected Democratic President and many calling for a probe into the Administration's interrogation techniques, President Bush may find himself in the proverbial hot seat, which may or may not resemble the defendant’s chair in a Federal Court.

The government began the dialogue on torture just after 9/11. The New York Times details how torture went from discussion to policy in a 2007 piece:

The debate over how terrorist suspects should be held and questioned began shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when the Bush administration adopted secret detention and coercive interrogation, both practices the United States had previously denounced when used by other countries.³

Though the initial use of torture remained a mystery to most Americans and even well-versed political pundits, the policies the Bush Administration was seeking to implement were by no means subtle. The attempt to adopt such policies set off a flurry of activity within the justice department and began a number of heated internal battles. Even a number of conservative lawyers at the Justice Department spoke out against the Administration, but under the Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the Justice Department was pulled back into line with the White House.⁴ Attorney General Gonzales was instrumental in the adoption of enhanced interrogation techniques by the Administration. The United States government had never ventured into such murky legal territory before and the Bush Administration used Gonzales (amongst others) as a helpful guide. In 2002, as a White House Counsel, he authored a memo exploring whether or not Article III of the Geneva Conventions applied to Al Qaeda or Taliban members.⁵ His reasoning, though by his own admission did not come to any concrete conclusions, left many in the Congress befuddled as to why a White House Counsel would venture to ask such questions. Gonzales came under fire several times during his tenure in the Bush Administration, notably during a Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing when being questioned by Senator Arlen Specter. Gonzales controversially suggested that the right to Habeas Corpus (a writ which guarantees a person relief from unlawful detention) is not guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution:

GONZALES: I will go back and look at it. The fact that the Constitution — again, there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away. But it’s never been the case, and I’m not a Supreme —

SPECTER: Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute. The constitution says you can’t take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion?⁶

Gonzales was just one cog in a machine that, following the aftermath of 9/11, sought to set a legal atmosphere that the protection of the country, as made possible by the expansion of executive power, superseded the rights of prisoners of war. John Yoo, an official in the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel, believed in the expanded power of the executive branch, which led to a close relationship with Vice-President Cheney’s office. Yoo himself has defended the Administration’s views on the power of the executive: “We are used to a peacetime system in which Congress enacts the laws, the president enforces them, and the courts interpret them. In wartime, the gravity shifts to the executive branch.”⁷Yoo continued this line of thought in a 2006 article in the New York Times: “To his critics, Mr. Bush is a "King George" bent on an "imperial presidency". But the inescapable fact is that war shifts power to the branch most responsible for its waging: the executive.”⁸ Conservative writer Andrew Sullivan identifies this idea of “expanded power” for the Presidency as the birthplace from which torture as a policy is allowed to grow:

The most striking aspect of this new executive power – free from all legislative, judicial, or international checks – was the Bush Administration’s secret but undeniable endorsement of torture by American soldiers and C.I.A. personnel. The Bush Administration began the war with a specific decision not to abide by the Geneva Conventions if “military necessity” made them, in the view of the President, dangerous to national security. Given this new flexibility, the C.I.A. set up a network of secret prison sites for the interrogation of military detainees, and finessed torture techniques that clearly contravened U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions. The incidents of abuse were recorded everywhere, according to the government’s own reports: from Guantanamo Bay to Afghanistan, Baghdad, Basra, Ramadi, and Tikrit.⁹

With this expansion of executive power the use of torture became legal, according to the Executive branch, and soon became ubiquitous. Though this was kept secret from the general public and the torture debate was restricted to the talking heads and political pundits that live in and around Foggy Bottom, the debate entered the American living room after the horrors of detainee abuse were exposed for all to see.

In 2004 the public first began to learn of the abuse taking place at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Captured detainees from the Iraq War were abused by U.S. soldiers from the 372^nd Military Police Company of the United States Army. Though there were several reports that detailed the instances of abuse, it was the photographic evidence that set off a fiery public reaction. With many explicit pictures of detainees being humiliated by standing naked, being abused by soldiers, or attacked by dogs, the American public remained silent in horror. President Bush quickly assured the public that the policies in Abu Ghraib were not a fair representation of what normal U.S. Army operations were at the time, but some on the right sought to defend the policies used in the prison, most notably conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh, who compared the abuse to a “frat house initiation:”

This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation, and we're going to ruin people's lives over it, and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You [ever] heard of need to blow some steam off?¹⁰

It should be noted that at the time, Limbaugh probably could not grasp the brevity at hand nor the harshness of techniques being used, nor did he realize that one of the prisoners, Manadel al-Jamadi, was beaten to death by U.S. soldiers.¹¹ Some of the abuse the prisoners suffered included: urination on the detainees, jumping on a detainee’s leg, pouring phosphoric acid on detainees, sodomization of detainees with a baton, and tying ropes to a detainee’s penis and dragging them across the floor.¹² Other abuses included stress positions, hypothermia, being beaten against a wall (later known as “walling), and forced nudity (used as a psychological tactic; Arab men consider nudity in front of others culturally humiliating). The Administration would write off the use of these techniques as the actions of a few “bad apples” in the U.S. Army, but further investigation found that many of the techniques used at Abu Ghraib were authorized by the Bush Administration.

In an 18-month long study, Senators Carl Levin and John McCain of the Senate Armed Services Committee investigated the treatment and reported abuse of detainees in U.S. custody. In one of its opening paragraphs, the report directly calls out the Bush Administration: “The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of “a few bad apples” acting on their own. The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees. Those efforts damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strengthened the hand of our enemies, and compromised our moral authority.”¹³ Though the report was released towards the end of Bush’s second term in office, while John McCain was campaigning for the Presidency, it did little to get the ball rolling on having an open forum on the Administration’s torture techniques (perhaps because of the upcoming election). That ball would begin its roll early in Barack Obama’s presidency with the release of the OLC Torture memos, which is the first release of such memos since the end of Bush’s tenure. The memos explain the (albeit dubious) legal justification for the use of torture techniques, many of which were used in Abu Ghraib. The term “waterboarding” is used in the memos, a technique that slowly drowns a detainee in the hopes that said detainee will release information. The technique itself has been described as torture by several human rights organizations¹⁴ but some American politicians have refused to dub the technique torture. Though there has been much debate surrounding the topic, waterboarding itself is only one of several methods that were authorized by the Bush Administration. With President Obama’s release of the OLC torture memos, the debate has shifted off of whether or not waterboarding is torture, and onto what will finally be done about the torture enacted by the Bush Administration.

In an article in the New Yorker, Philip Gourevitch reflected on the Bush Administration's authorization of torture in light of the newly released OLC memos and Abu Ghraib:

The natural first reaction on seeing photographs of American soldiers torturing Iraqi prisoners in Saddam Hussein’s old dungeons was to ask: “Why are we doing such things to them?" With time, however, Americans have come increasingly to understand that it is equally appropriate to ask: "Why are we doing such things to ourselves?" Why dismantle the laws that have made our country worth fighting and dying for against states that torture? Vice-President Dick Cheney has said that we must torture because it is effective. That is, at best, a false argument: a crime is not absolved just because it works (after all, terrorism can be effective.) President Obama, in his press conference last week, cut through the noise to the essence of the issue. Torture, he said, “corrodes the character of the country.” America is now embroiled in a debate about how, or whether to hold the true masterminds – the former President, the former Vice-President, the former Defense Secretary, and their top lawyers – to account for their criminal policies. Here, we are on uncharted ground.¹⁵

With the release of the OLC memos, the debate over whether or not the United States government sanctioned torture is almost at a close. Many legal scholars and political pundits, on both the right and left, agree that the Bush Administration used torture to extract information. As Gourevitch wrote, Dick Cheney believes that the use of torture (though he does not use the word) was necessary to save American lives. But the findings of the McCain-Levin report contradict his claims:

Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists are taught to expect Americans to abuse them. They are recruited based on false propaganda that says the United States is out to destroy Islam. Treating detainees harshly only reinforces that distorted view, increases resistance to cooperation, and creates new enemies. In fact, the April 2006 National Intelligence Estimate “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States” cited “pervasive anti U.S. sentiment among most Muslims” as an underlying factor fueling the spread of the global jihadist movement. Former Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee in June 2008 that “there are serving U.S. flag-rank officers who maintain that the first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq – as judged by their effectiveness in recruiting insurgent fighters into combat – are, respectively the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.”¹⁶

Contrary to Cheney’s claims, the United States is made less safe by using torture. So after all of the justifications for torture have been ruled out, and it can finally be looked at for what it is: a violation of international and U.S. law, what else can be done? The only logical conclusion is that those who administered the use of torture should be held to the full extent of the law. In his famous play Measure for Measure, Shakespeare wrote, “We must not make a scarecrow of the law, setting it up to fear the birds of prey.”¹⁷ Many would argue that when one breaks the law, he should be held to the consequences of doing so. The President of the United States should not be exempt from such consequences. Under the Bush presidency America went from being a constitutional republic, under the law, to an imperium of one man, who only answered to the people when they chose to re-elect him. The actions taken by his Administration and their view of Presidential power allowed him to break any law or violate any treaty if he believes it is necessary for a war that has no end in site and whose definition is so ambiguous, "end" may be the wrong term to use. If the country wants to make sure that the laws of the land remain intact and do not lose their potency, the United States has no choice but to hold those who broke the law accountable for their actions.

A version of this post will appear in the May 12th, 2009 Edition of the New York Legal Review.

Ron Paul and the Fragmenting GOP

2009-05-07T07:55:00.001-04:00

Interestingly enough, when Ron Paul talks about the current GOP, he refers to it as "they," putting himself on the outside of the party. Dr. Paul was on the Rachel Maddow show discussing the future of the party, and he is just about as optimistic as I am:

Note that one of the issues he mentioned was marijuana decriminalization. I feel, much like Dr. Paul, that the GOP leadership will not only fail to bring more people into the Party's fold but will actually drive more people away. Maddow brings up the interesting proposition that maybe this is a time for a third party to jump in. Wouldn't that be nice?

It has to get worse before it gets better.

Why Torture Matters

2009-05-03T13:15:00.003-04:00

Whenever I find myself in a discussion on politics, people always tend to ask me what I think is "next" for the Republican Party. It's an intriguing and baffling question, because I cannot fathom the Party doing much of anything for the next decade unless it sheds some of its new found "principles" that most of the country finds unattractive or, in some cases, revolting. Whenever I reach this point in this discussion I almost always bring up the fervent support of torture coming from the GOP base. Whenever I do this, whether I am with journalists who study politics for a living or in a casual conversation with a group of friends, both remind me that torture is not a "core" issue; that it's not as important as Iraq, Healthcare, and Taxes. But I don't believe this to be true.

There is a great scene in the movie version of the play "A Man for All Seasons." In the play, Sir Thomas More takes a stand against Henry VIII's wish to divorce his wife so he could marry Anne Boleyn. More is portrayed as irreproachable and principled; unwilling to compromise his morals. But he believes those principles not only apply to himself, but they dictate how he treats his enemies as well:

In the clip, the meaty dialogue is as follows:

"So, now you would give the Devil the benefit of law."

"Yes, what would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?"

"Yes! I'd cut down every law in England to do that."

"Oh? And when the last law was down and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, man's laws not God's. And if you cut them down...do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake."

When we look into the face of Muslim extremism we are getting a direct look at the Devil. Radical Islam is an evil so vile our peaceful citizens prefer not to think about it. But no evil should escape the bounds of the law, for its betterment or its worsening. When Bernie Madoff was arrested many people were asking for his head and they probably deserved it. But if a person were to shoot Madoff in the street before he appeared in court, would that be justice? To answer this question, I don't need to go back to a famous play from the 1950s. I can just use Batman: Christian Bale's character, the also incorruptible Bruce Wayne, just watched his parents' murderer get shot in cold blood. Wayne is upset he didn't get to kill his parents' murderer himself, but he's also kind of satisfied that the murderer didn't get to walk away free. Katie Holmes's character tries to correct his thought process:

Bruce Wayne: My parents deserved justice.

Rachel Dawes: You're not talking about justice, you're talking about revenge.

BW: Sometimes they're the same.

RD: No, they're never the same. Justice is about harmony. Revenge is about making yourself feel better. It's why we have an impartial system.

Justice is a harmony we allow the Devil to partake in for our own safety's sake. If we open up the Pandora's box of torture to help us deal with the threat of terrorism, then we make it easier for us to open that box again and again to prevent all harmful actions: solving murders, rape, and other injustices that are all evil at their core, like terrorism. When we do this, we make the law into something that applies only when we say it does, and that should matter for every American. Torture is a gross and vile practice. It is inhuman and degrades those being tortured and those torturing. Reagan understood this, and Lincoln would too.

Lincoln had a great understanding of what was at stake when he chose to go to war with the South. If the South succeeded in breaking off from the rest of the union citing slavery as their reason, then the American experiment had failed: freedom does not work, all men are not equal, and tyranny wins because it is easiest. Lincoln knew what the American ideal was and made the most difficult decision any President has had to make. The American people should understand that when thinking about the topic of torture (and most polls show they do); that we are having this discussion not only for ourselves, but for the rest of the world. If we give our government the free reign to torture anyone they want, wherever they want, then we are sanctioning the torture of people who have not yet had a day in court and we are declaring this is "O.K." to the world. A government for the people and by the people cannot sanction torture, because once we do, we make the torture that Saudi Arabia, Cambodia, and Communist Russia enacted "O.K." as well. Our example is the first the world looks to, and we would do good to remember that.

Your Party is Dying

2009-04-27T17:32:00.005-04:00

Amidst the swine-flu deluge that hit this morning, the Washington Post and ABC News released a new poll that showed only 21 percent of those who responded identified themselves as Republicans. That's 14 percentage points fewer than those who identified themselves as Democrats and 17 percentage points fewer than those who identified themselves as independents. And yet, there has been no mention of this on Michelle Malkin's blog, nor Hugh Hewitt's or Glenn Reynold's. Why the silence?

Perhaps it's because the numbers themselves are deafening: during the last election 32 percent of voters identified themselves as Republicans, which amounts to a 11 percent loss or 14,438,306 eligible voters (if the poll numbers are to be believed). Is it too haughty to say that if the Republican party was a business, its CEO would be fired? I would certainly have a look at my advertising departments' books.

The insane rhetoric seen at the Tea Parties and the recent defense of war crimes by the far-right suggest that as the Republican Party dwindles down to the core of its base, it is moving further and further outside the mainstream. With the younger generation vastly in favor of "liberal" social values like gay marriage, drug legalization, and giving prisoners of war basic human rights - all things the current GOP is against - it is hard to envision a future that the Republican Party can be excited about.

Reagan often said that he did not leave the Democratic Party, but it was the Party that left him. As the Republican Party abandons things it once stood for: civil liberties, justice, and small government, one can only expect a great exodus of those who still hold those values to be true. So it is not that America has lost interest in those values the party once stood for, it is that the party no longer represents those values. And as moderates and conservatives leave the party and the base becomes all that is left, with Limbaugh and Levin to lead them, the most unattractive element of the GOP will rear its big ugly head. It is safe to say that it will not be pretty.

It has to get worse before it gets better.

Update: it looks like Arlen Specter got the hint.

Confronting Evil

2009-04-16T23:26:00.004-04:00

April 16th, 2009 will undoubtedly go down as one of the darker days in American history. It won't be remembered because of a terrorist attack, an economic collapse, or a gruesome murder, but simply because we found out the truth.

Today Barack Obama courageously ordered the release of secret memos used by the Bush administration to justify torture. If one had been following the torture paper-trail, it comes as no surprise that the Bush Administration O.K.ed the use of sleep deprivation, waterboarding, and other physical abuse to prisoners of war, but now it is laid out for all to see. When this sort of abuse is exposed and the nation that was founded on the liberal principles of justice, equal rights, and democracy is the one held responsible, many questions enter the brain. Can you imagine what a citizen in Eastern Europe or a country longing to rid itself of its oppressive dictator is thinking about America right now? Now what do they see when they look upon Lady Liberty? What "justice" were we promoting? The "city on a hill" has collapsed.

Though the blogosphere is awash with responses to the memos, Kevin Drum really hit the "disgust" nail right on the head:

Reading the OLC torture memos is enough to make you ill. The techniques in question are plainly and instinctively abhorrent by any common sense definition, and the authors of the memos obviously know it. But somehow they have to conclude otherwise, so they write page after mind-numbing page of sterile legal language designed to justify authorizing it anyway. It's not torture if the victim survives it intact. It's not against the law if it takes place outside the United States. Waterboarding is OK as long as it isn't performed more than twice in a 24-hour period. Sleep deprivation of shackled prisoners for seven days at a time is permissible as long as the victim's diaper is changed frequently. And on and on and on.

Do they know this is torture? Of course they do...What it says, in a nutshell, is that when other people do this stuff, we naturally call it torture. But when we do it, it's not. Sickening.

I sat in the office reading the torture memos until 10 p.m. and though I knew beforehand what I would be reading, I could not resist the temptation to weep. What happened to my country? How did I let this happen? Was there something I could have done? But with my overwhelming disgust comes a sense of hope. While Obama's statement on the memo release does not evoke the greatest hope that we'll see the prosecutions that are not only desired by many, but needed by all, it is comforting to know that the evidence is out in the open. Andrew Sullivan captured this brilliantly:

There is some feeling of relief that we now have the incontrovertible evidence in front of us. But there is also a feeling of great nausea as well. Look what they did to these suspects. And look what they did to America.

Hopefully they will pay for what they have done to our country. It is important that the evidence is out there. What we do with it is now what is most important. But this feeling cannot linger on indefinitely. Action must be taken, and hopefully like other war criminals of the past, the Bush administration sees the true justice it deserves. During the campaign, Barack Obama participated in a debate against John McCain at Sattleback Church hosted by Rick Warren. Pastor Warren asked President Obama, "Does evil exist? And if it does, do we ignore it? Do we negotiate with it? Do we contain it? Do we defeat it?" Barack Obama, choosing none of the above, said he wanted to "confront evil" when he saw it in the world. He confronted it today. Let us hope that it is defeated in the Congress and in the courts.

You can read the evidence of Bush's war crimes here.

Bobby Jindal vs. Barack Obama

2009-02-26T00:47:00.005-05:00

Scrambling around in the wilderness that is the minority, the Republicans are desperately looking for someone to lead them back to the promised land. For the time being, Bobby Jindal has been beckoned upon to play the role of Moses.

When given his task from God, the Biblical Moses is reluctant to gird up his loins. He tells God that he is not ready and mentions that he has "a stutter." While Bobby Jindal has not hesitated to acquiesce to what his Republican colleagues have asked of him, and he does not possess a stutter, he does have one major setback: his demeanor.

Or perhaps, it is simply his demeanor when compared to Barack Obama. This was clearly a case the winner vs. the loser, cool vs. nerdy, Will Smith vs. Steve Urkel. But it was not just style that Jindal had riding against him, it was also substance.

Jindal's speech was a tirade against government, but it was not just big government, but just plain ol' government. This became apparent when Jindal, in his ignorance, bemoaned Congress for passing the stimulus bill with "volcano monitoring" left in the bill. His quote:

While some of the projects in the [stimulus] bill make sense, their legislation is larded with wasteful spending. It includes ... $140 million for something called 'volcano monitoring.' Instead of monitoring volcanoes, what Congress should be monitoring is the eruption of spending in Washington, DC.

Nate Silver from fivethiryeight.com really lays into Jindal for his misstep. Here is an example of what volcano monitoring can do:

Additionally, more than 18,000 American servicemen and their dependents were evacuated from Clark Air Base prior to the June 15 eruption. In the eruption, thousands of weaker roofs, including some on Clark, collapsed under the weight of ash made wet by heavy rains, yet only about 250 lowland residents were killed. Of the 20,000 indigenous Aeta highlanders who lived on the slopes of Mount Pinatubo, all but about 120 were safely evacuated before the eruption completely devastated their villages.

In addition to the many lives saved, property worth hundreds of millions of dollars was protected from damage or destruction in the eruption. When aircraft and other equipment at the U.S. bases were flown to safe areas or covered, losses of at least $200 to 275 million were averted. Philippine and other commercial airlines prevented at least another $50 to 100 million in damage to aircraft by taking similar actions.

Silver notes that Jindal may have not written the speech himself, but some vetting by Governor Bobby might have done him some good. After all, how does the Governor of Louisiana get away with this quote:

Today in Washington, some are promising that government will rescue us from the economic storms raging all around us. Those of us who lived through Hurricane Katrina, we have our doubts.

Rachel Maddow had her own comedic response, but Clay Risen's is better:

He's right. Jason and I were down there right after the hurricane hit, and one thing everyone told us was, "Man, why won't the federal government just leave us alone? If I get offered one more cot or a hot meal, I'm voting for Bobby Jindal!"

(Oh but also on a sorta serious note, if the federal government really was a problem in the Gulf post-Katrina, might that just possibly be an indictment of the Republicans'--you know, Jindal's party--inept steering of the public wheel?)

To put it simply, the speech was poorly timed and poorly thought-out. As said before, the Republican party is still in the wilderness, looking for a Moses to lead them. What we learned tonight is that Bobby Jindal is not him.

Slight Modifications

2009-02-25T23:25:00.002-05:00

By now I'm sure you've noticed the change in the header at the top of the screen, as well as the Blog's name. I initially started this blog as a half comedic, half political enterprise, so the moniker "Serious Political Satire" seemed to fit. In fact, my very first post was comedic in nature and the nutty posts continued for quite some time. But as Bush's tenure in office drew to a close and more and more evidence of American torture began to surface, I felt less funny. My playfulness eventually turned into anger at the peak of the McCain campaign.

So now you know the story behind the Blog's original title, and now its new one. The quote by Thomas Jefferson is from a letter written to Charles Yancey on January 6th, 1816. Although Jefferson often commented on how much he hated the press, he always believed that a free press would lead to a freer people. But he strongly believed in the people's responsibility to remain informed. He finishes his letter with, "Where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe." He wrote the letter from his mountain getaway, Monticello. I originally wanted to use "Confined to Truth" as the Blog's title, which also comes from a Jefferson quote. But I like this quote because it emphasizes a person's responsibility to be privy to the workings of their government. Hopefully it makes sense, because I spent a lot of time deliberating over what quote I should use. Everything down to the quote's font (French script to pay homage to Montesquieu's influence on the Constitution) was put into consideration.

Even though that writing for a legal newsletter and working for a local paper leaves me little time for this blog, I still believe in its goals. The ultimate purpose of this blog is to offer an opinion that is passionate, intelligent, and places an emphasis on freedom. Hopefully its new look helps it accomplish those goals.

How to Feel Nauseated in 30 Seconds

2009-02-22T18:10:00.005-05:00

This weekend Bill Maher had Congresswoman Maxine Waters on his show. If you would like to see the true, ugly nature of some of those representing us in Congress, watch her in the video below. Her rant starts at 4:27:

Here's the money quote: "...And when someone comes along and tells you, 'I know how you can get that house. Don't worry, let me get you in, with little or no money down and don't worry about this adjustable rate mortgage I'm gonna give you, I know it's gonna reset at 6 months or a year or two, but I'll refinance it for you.'" Bill Maher responds with, "It is predatory, you're absolutely right." And the Congresswoman, in a facade of passion, sternly says, "People got sucked in," as if she has a speck of concern for the American people.

Now, pay attention. Here is Congresswoman Waters in 2004, defending her chums at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the King and Queen of predatory lending and a large factor in our current economic crisis. She speaks beginning at :45, but the whole video is enlightening:

Her quote, regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: "...through nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasn't broke. Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and particularly at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Reins. Everything in the 1992 Act has worked just fine. In fact, the GSE's have exceeded their housing goals. What we have to do today is to focus on the regulator. And this must be done in a manner, so as to not impede the affordable housing mission. A mission that has seen innovation flourish, from desktop underwriting to 100% loans."

Yes, that is Congresswoman Waters praising Frank Reins, one of the chief architects behind the great Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae swindle of the American people.

It's hard to believe that on this past Friday's evening, this woman was lambasting the American idea that "everyone should own a home." Yet it was only 5 years ago that she was on board with the "affordable housing mission," allowing almost everyone to own a home. Many people are wondering what caused our current economic debacle, but they need only look towards Washington.

Congresswoman or Congressman who are liars, crooks, and dolts should be voted out of office. Representative Waters is a liar and a thief. She lied on Bill Maher's show and she took the American people's autonomy as she supported Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. She takes the votes that got her into office for granted and she is a weak-chinned, moronic sycopant who should be thrown out from her post.

This is what we have left to deal with. This is what passed the stimulus bill. It is hard to remain optimistic about the bill's success when you have troglodytes like Waters running the country.

And Bill Maher is a coward for not calling her out.

Note: If you watch the whole of the second video featuring Waters, it claims, near the end of the video, that Frank Raines is Obama's economic advisor. That is not true.

Jumping the Gun

2009-02-20T17:24:00.003-05:00

With the stimulus bill passed and each party having taken their respective sides, the thoughtful post-analysis can occur, and it is hard to see how this whole ordeal could possibly work out well for the Republicans.

Obama's bill was originally a mess of pork, pet-projects, and overspending, but eventually, the bill was trimmed down into the slightly smaller mess that it is now. But it is still a mess. It is indeed hard to believe that government will be able to account for and direct all $800 billion of the bill's funds, and there is still superfluous material in the bill, but any Republican who looks at the battle with Obama over the bill and sees a victory does so with short-sighted lenses.

It is difficult to take the position in an argument that the passing of such a huge bill was a good thing. However, there are times when government spending can foster productivity. The Republicans would have us believe that any government intervention is bad for government, bad for the economy, and bad for the country. But Reagan understood what a "good" government was:

"Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it's not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it work--work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it."

And that is what a good stimulus bill should do. Is Obama's bill a "good" bill? Contrary to what the Republicans believe, the bill has not failed yet so its ultimate impact remains yet to be seen. Hopefully the $300 billion in tax cuts will do the American people some good. Maybe the bill will alleviate some of the burden that is currently being placed on our fragile economy, and maybe it will be able to do something about the swiftest increase in job losses since the Great Depression. But more importantly, perhaps the divide over the bill will wake the Republicans up from their current and very deep slumber.

The Republicans believe it was their duty to oppose Obama's stimulus bill, but they did it not out of duty to their country but to their own party. As they fell victim to their partisan inclinations the Republicans simultaneously lost their memories. As they criticized Obama's bill their amnesia prevented them from remembering they all supported Bush's bill to bail out the banks, which was just as much of a boondoggle as Obama's bill. They also seem to forget that they followed Bush's every step as he moved to turn a surplus into a trillion dollar deficit. Criticizing Obama's bill for its huge spending does not fly. If they wanted to oppose Obama, the Republicans should have waited until at least the fall. But because the Republicans stood against Obama so soon, they look less like the royal opposition and more like the annoying troublemakers who are upset they are no longer in power. And voters see right through their actions:

A new AP/GFK poll taken during the final days of the fight over the stimulus bill shows that Americans overwhelmingly disapprove of Republican efforts to block Obama’s plan:

Congress’ approval is only 31%-59%, but additional questions show a much more complicated picture. The number for Congressional Democrats is at 49%-45%, while Republicans are at 33%-59%. The Republicans appear to be cramping Congress’ style. […]
Only 30% say Obama hasn’t done enough to cooperate with Republicans in Congress — the GOP base vote, basically — while 62% say he’s doing the right amount and 6% say it’s been too much. Flipping it around, only 27% say Republicans have done enough to cooperate with Obama, with 64% saying not enough and 5% saying too much.

One could be tempted to say the Republicans did "too much, too soon," but it is really just another case of "too little, too late."

If the Republicans had stood against Bush on any one of his spending frenzies, they would have some vestige of legitimacy. But they did not, so they do not. The Republicans in Congress, though believing they earned themselves a victory, are still just as lost now as they were when Bush was in office.

And the future is not encouraging.

Michael Phelps and Fat People

2009-02-08T21:32:00.006-05:00

Let's try a thought experiment that does not require much thought: Place yourself in the somewhat large shoes (or swimming cap) of a 23 year-old male. Imagine yourself to be in good health, white, and in possession of a large amount of free time. Chances are, you've probably smoked weed, right? But when statistics can tell you the story, that "chance" becomes unnecessary, because the facts tell us that the average American 23 year-old male has smoked weed many times and in some cases, enjoys it daily. Sometimes the men who enjoy their pot are teachers, bankers, stock brokers, real estate agents, or even Olympic Gold-Winning swimmers.

But setting aside the harsh reality that some rebellious youngsters choose to smoke weed every now and again, one should examine why smoking weed is a bad thing. Here are the effects of marijuana, as laid out by The Wik:

The most common short-term physical and neurological effects include increased heart rate, lowered blood pressure, impairment of psychomotor coordination, concentration, and short-term memory. Long-term effects are less clear.

Sounds like a good time, but the impairment of psychomotor coordination could possibly be a harm to other people. So hopefully instead of choosing weed, people will choose the legal alternative, alcohol. Here are its effects (BAC = Blood Alcohol Content):

Euphoria (BAC = 0.03 to 0.12%).
- Subjects may experience an overall improvement in mood and possible euphoria.
- They may become more self-confident or daring; they may become more friendly or talkative, and/or social.
- Their attention span shortens. They may look flushed.
- Their judgment is impaired—they may express the first thought or action that comes to mind, rather than an appropriate comment for the given situation. See: in vino veritas
- They have trouble with fine movements, such as writing or signing their name.

Lethargy (BAC = 0.09 to 0.25%)
- Subjects may become sleepy.
- They have trouble understanding or remembering things, even recent events. They do not react to situations as quickly.
- Their body movements are uncoordinated; they begin to lose their balance easily, stumbling; walking is not stable.
- Their vision becomes blurry. They may have trouble sensing things (hearing, tasting, feeling, etc.).

Confusion (BAC = 0.18 to 0.30%)
- Profound confusion—uncertain where they are or what they are doing. Dizziness and staggering occur.
- Heightened emotional state—aggressive, withdrawn, or overly affectionate. Vision, speech, and awareness are impaired.
- Poor coordination and pain response. Nausea and vomiting sometimes occurs.

Stupor (BAC = 0.25 to 0.40%)
- Movement severely impaired; lapses in and out of consciousness.
- Subjects can slip into a coma; will become completely unaware of surroundings, time passage, and actions.
- Risk of death is very high due to alcohol poisoning and/or pulmonary aspiration of vomit while unconscious.
- Loss of bodily functions can begin, including bladder control, breathing, heart rate.

Coma (BAC = 0.35 to 0.50%)
- Unconsciousness sets in.
- Reflexes are depressed (i.e., pupils do not respond appropriately to changes in light).
- Breathing is slower and more shallow. Heart rate drops. Death usually occurs at levels in this range.

Death (BAC more than 0.50%)

Can cause central nervous system to fail, resulting in death (highest dose ever recorded, for person that have survived was 1.4%

Although it is legal, alcohol doesn't sound like a safe alternative after all, does it? The question that creeps into the mind is: if alcohol is so dangerous, then why is it legal, while marijuana is vilified and made illegal?

Let's start with alcohol, because the answer is easy. Alcohol is a legal drug because in any free country an adult should be able to put whatever they want into their own body, so long as they do not harm anyone else. Alcohol, though a dangerous drug, qualifies in this case. But when the same question is pointed at marijuana, the answer becomes more elusive. In truth, the answer is a complex coagulation of corporatism, racism, and fear which cannot all be addressed. But perhaps the most obvious reason for the prohibition of marijuana is the simple fact that most Americans would like it to remain off the streets. A Gallup poll in 2005 found that 60% of Americans think marijuana should be illegal. So although marijuana's effects, according to the facts, are similar to alcohol's and perhaps less dangerous, why are Americans so stubborn? Once again, we should look at our American hero, Michael Phelps.

It is always difficult to watch the media vilify a youngster for acting like one, but it is incredibly difficult to watch Mr. Phelps lose his sponsorship deal with Kellogg and be suspended by USA Swimming. But this is ultimately the answer to our question: marijuana is illegal because the American people think it should be, and the American people think it should be because anyone who smokes weed is an irresponsible, amoral, fat and lazy ingrate.

If only we took the same approach towards the obese, who do more damage to their body by simply eating as opposed to the pothead who smokes a joint every now and again. Perhaps one day we will grow up and stop demonizing marijuana users for being fat and lazy, and instead focus on those who actually are.

The War on Drugs is a huge issue, which is way too deep to tackle in one post, but Penn and Teller's video on it is a good start.

To New Beginnings

2009-01-21T09:28:00.002-05:00

For the past five days I have put in a ton of time and effort into a long post detailing why President Bush was so terrible. Don't get me wrong: I am happy Obama is President, just as most of America is. He has a lot of potential to do great things. However, this inauguration, for me, was more about saying goodbye to George W. Bush than welcoming President Obama. So I had composed all of my thoughts into an extremely long post and just as I was finishing I stopped.

I thought to myself, "Why? Why am I doing this?" And the truth is: that is the best part about this new president. I don't have to think about Bush anymore. I don't have to deal with that man anymore. Mr. Bush, you will not take up any more of my time. I don't ever have to write another post about George W. Bush. I can finally look forward and pray my nation can restore some of the honor it has lost over the past eight years. Some of that honor may be hard to restore. Bush's torture policy has left a huge stain on this country's flag. The poorest, dumbest, most ill-advised, and dangerous foreign policy decision in years, the Iraq War, will also be hard to forget. But President Obama can hopefully right those wrongs and change the direction we are heading. I have been impressed with his appointments and am hoping for the best. And after eight long years of Bush, who would have thought I'd believe in things like "hope?"

What this process has shown is that even though one President can take us into the very worst depths of moral ambiguity, another can direct us back towards our heavenly directive laid out for us by the founders. Hopefully, through this new President, we will learn that this great experiment in human freedom has not failed, but has only just begun.

God Bless America.

The Conflict in Gaza

2009-01-05T07:39:00.009-05:00

Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamat al-Islāmiyyah, better known as Hamas, means "Islamic Resistance Movement." Given recent events, all can see what the Muslims in Palestine are "resisting." Many have come to recognize Israel's "response" as "aggression," and this conflict displays the intricacies of the Palestinian-Israeli problem. It is always difficult to write an article giving your opinion on anything to do with Israel, especially if you're an American and particularly if you're a Christian. We've all been taught (as Americans and Christians) to support Israel. There is a difference, however, between supporting the Jewish State and the Jewish people just as there is a difference between supporting George W. Bush and the principles that lay behind the American idea.

As an isolated American it is difficult to replicate the feeling of perpetual war that is found in Israel. The cold feeling attached to the Terror War is nothing compared to the scolding hot reality of constant attack. When I went to Israel in 2005 I got a taste of that feeling, albeit a brief one. In the two weeks I was in the Holy Land, there was a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv as well as riots near the Gaza Strip. One has to understand this feeling in order to truly place themselves in the shoes of the Israelis: no matter which direction your opinion sways on this issue, acquiescing to Israel's constant fear of attack from any one of its neighbors who do not recognize its right to exist is a necessity before engaging in a dialogue on the subject.

With that said, Israel's response to violence against its own people committed by Hamas and other enemies is often justified. The response, however, is not what is in question here; it is the nature of the response. And when we consider the nature of Israel's response here, we also question how Israel responds to all attacks against its country. A brief look at the casualties on both sides could often lead one to a hasty conclusion: Israel is the aggressor. While the Palestinians are suffering more casualties than the Israelis (some reports say as much as 10 times more), this does not immediately paint the Israelis as "the bad guys," it simply means Israel is more efficient at conducting war than her opponents. Israel is an extremely powerful country, and Hamas is an economically poor polity presiding over a much smaller pseudo-country. So, even though Israel's response is justified, the real question is: how can a war be "just" when every time Israel responds it is leaps and bounds above what its opponents can muster?

Many of Israel's puzzling actions do not help the matter. The fact that Israel still refuses to let foreign reporters into Gaza even though an order from Israel's Supreme Court has ordered them to do so is also troubling. The conclusion one unfortunately comes to is that the Israeli government does not want outsiders to be able to put a human face on the anonymous victims in Gaza. The victims are most certainly the civilians who are being killed as a result of the conflict and not the Muslim extremists Hamas employs. It is always sad to see a civilian who possibly wants a peace between Palestine and Israel to lose their life, and one has to wonder how long it takes for a Palestinian civilian to become a Hamas loyalist.

The following video is supposedly from a recent Israeli bombing in Gaza, but I have my doubts. Regardless, it is a good visual aid to help us better understand the havoc that is happening in Gaza:

The point here is to show the human lives that are being lost as a result of this conflict. And while there has been evidence to show that Hamas does not care much for the lives of its own people (they readily fire rockets from civilian areas, prompting an Israeli response to those areas in the hopes that Israel is portrayed in a bad light), it is difficult to watch this and not feel some sympathy for the Palestinians.

The blind support for Israel in Washington (from both the right and left) is unfailing and that in and of itself draws many questions. Though many of us feel that Israel has a right to defend itself, that does not mean there should be no reflection on the nature of its actions. Israel's aggression, in this case, raises many questions that are often ignored or left unanswered. War is never a good thing nor should it be done hastily, but (again) we are not Israelis. As said before, it is always difficult to understand what Israel is doing unless you are an Israeli. That does not mean Israel is free from criticism and that also does not mean other countries should not try to reason with Israel, but it does make it difficult to have an introspective look at the situation.

It is tempting to side with many on the left and believe that if Israel were to lessen the severity and frequency of its responses to its neighbors that the brooding of extremists would be stifled. But Israel's concession of territory to Palestine and the continued aggression against Israel does little to support that notion. I am always in favor of fewer humans dying, and I would bet everything I had that both governments feel the same way, but the ceding of territory seems to have little to do with the violence each entity enacts upon one another.

The most frustrating element of this discussion is the feeling that it will always be a discussion. I look forward to the days when I will have to explain to my children what AIDS was or why we at one time had to pay an income tax, but I fear I will never tell them about the end of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

So what is the solution? There is no solution. Unfortunately we have known that for a long time. Israel may be forced, as the sole democracy in the Middle East, to put up with the constant attacks of its neighbors and may have to respond aggressively. It is possible that war will always be a constant in Gaza.

One thing is certain: there needs to be an open forum on what is happening in Israel, since there are so many differing opinions amongst the American people yet almost everyone in Washington backs Israel without question. Glenn Greenwald's lamenting over the non-discussion in Washington is justified. When Washington does not debate on our behalf, the discussion is left to extremists on talk radio and internet blogs. One side says Israel is in the wrong, the other side says Hamas is in the wrong. If you support one side you are "pro-terrorism" and if you support the other you are "pro-fascism." Is there any other topic in our polity in which the middle ground is so hard to occupy? I feel that the answer lies within the middle ground but neither side is willing to go there and both seem to be slowly taking steps in their opposite directions.

Best Albums of 2008

2008-12-22T09:05:00.001-05:00

I was told by one of my friends that my last two posts were "really heavy," so I thought I'd lighten things up a little. The best albums of 2008:

Vampire Weekend - Vampire Weekend

Mostly a fun album, but the band's originality and brave tendency to mix genres makes an album worth listening to over and over, and it's pretty easy to do as well. Taking afro-cuban rythyms and combining it with elements of indie and punk, Vampire Weekend never take themselves too seriously but always seem like they'd be able to if they wanted to.

M83 - Saturdays = Youth

When you first hear the idea behind Anthony Gonzalez's Saturdays = Youth, you kind of want to puke from its loftiness. "I want to make an album based on the John Hughes movies of the 1980s." Wow, that's artsy. But Gonzalez achieves his goal and you never get mad at him for doing so. With lots of new wave synth and lots of vocals (not standard on most m83 albums), Gonzalez successfully sucks us back into one of the weirdest decades ever and makes me want to watch 16 Candles all over again.

Portishead - Third

It's hard to believe a band that is so celebrated has released so little material, but when Portishead releases an album it is damn good. Third is no exception. While Portishead have never been a "happy" band, Third is definitely the darkest of all their records. Portishead's biggest challenge was making the transition from trip-hop turntables to 21st century synthesizers and they achieve this brilliantly. The turntables are still there, but this album seperates Portishead from their earlier work. What it does is add to a collection of material that is as diverse as it is indespensible.

Lil Wayne - Tha Carter 3

With most of mainstream hip-hop falling asleep at the wheel, Lil Wayne, hip-hop's most prolific rapper (seriously, turn on the radio right now. $10 he's rapping on at least one song you hear), manages to give the genre a new spin and a new soul. The first single off this album was "Lollipop," which is incredible given hip-hop's track record. Lil Wayne sings this song and said that he had to sing it, because it was just too sad. Leave it to Lil Wayne to force black people to re-create the blues: Kanye West sings all of the songs on his new album, and T.I. also uses the vocoder both Kanye and Wayne utilize in their albums, singing songs about love and loss. Though rap is known for its club-bangers (and this album has them), Lil Wayne is miles ahead of his peers when it comes to showing the intelligence hip-hop has. The album is diverse and a bit daunting at 20-23 tracks (depending on the version you get), yet it captures the way Lil Wayne is in real life: all over the place and brilliant everywhere he goes.

Fleet Foxes - Fleet Foxes

Far and away the best album of the year, and probably the best album since Wilco's Yankee Hotel Foxtrot. What is great about this album, as it is with Wilco's, is how distinctly American it sounds. While we all know Wilco is from Chicago, they sometimes sound like they could be from Kentucky or Seattle. Fleet Foxes is an album that captures this effect and triples its potency; the band could be from any number of places, from New York to Sante Fe. I remember seeing Fleet Foxes live at the Grand Ballroom a few months ago. One of my friends remarked after the concert, "What a great way to kick off Fall, with some great Fall music." She was right, but we immediately came to the conclusion that Fleet Foxes would make great winter, spring, or even summer music as well. Between the soaring sounds that Robin Pecknold lets escape from his mouth and the flawless harmonies he combines with his bandmates for, this coupled with the lyrics takes you into a deep plunge of Americana and it makes you feel patriotic, but not in that "I'm Proud to be an American," or "Independence Day" way, or in a Sean Hannity way. It helps you remember that we Americans, though in a crisis, still make some of the best music in the world and it imitates no one else; it is ours, it sounds like us, and it sounds good as well.

The rest of the Best Albums posts can be found here. Pitchfork Media's top 50 can be found here. Hope you enjoy the selections and have a Merry Christmas!