New Rule #3

New Rule: The New York Times has to stop spinning stuff! Check out this grossly distorted headline: Miers Failed to Win Support of Key Senators and Conservatives. Why can't the Times just accept the White House talking points like everyone else, and leave it at that?

"Harriet Miers's decision demonstrates her deep respect for this essential aspect of the Constitutional separation of powers..." Mr. Bush said he would announce a new nominee "in a timely manner."

End of story. The Senate hasn't voted yet, so how could you ever claim she lacked support?

• 'Let's move on," said Republican Sen. Trent Lott (news, bio, voting record) of Mississippi. "In a month, who will remember the name Harriet Miers?"'
• 'Sen. Sam Brownback (news, bio, voting record), R-Kan., a potential 2008 presidential nominee who is courting conservative activists, said he had been "feeling less comfortable all along"'
• 'Another Republican moderate, Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota, said this week that he needed "to get a better feel for her intellectual capacity and judicial philosophy, core competence issues." He added, "I certainly go into this with concerns."'
• 'Senator David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican who opposes abortion rights...said he continued to question whether Ms. Miers had developed "a consistent, well-grounded, conservative judicial philosophy" and wanted "writings that predate the nomination" to clarify her views.'
• 'Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, called Republican sentiment toward Ms. Miers's nomination "a question mark."'
• 'Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and a Judiciary Committee member, acknowledged that senators who had met with Ms. Miers were telling colleagues that they had been unimpressed. "She needs to step it up a notch," Mr. Graham said.'
• 'Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska... called Ms. Miers "an accomplished professional" but said of the Supreme Court: "We want an elite group of individuals. I'm not so sure I want my next-door neighbor, as much as I like him or her, to be on the Supreme Court because they're nice people."'
• 'Several groups like Concerned Women of America are calling for her withdrawal.
  ''We believe that far better qualified candidates were overlooked and that Miss Miers' record fails to answer our questions about her qualifications and constitutional philosophy,'' said Jan LaRue, the conservative group's chief counsel.'
• '"I would like to see the nomination withdrawn. If I were in the Senate today I would vote against it," Buchanan said. "My guess is, she will not be confirmed, and she will be withdrawn."'
• 'The Weekly Standard, a bible for dyed-in-the-wool conservatives, on Sunday called the choice of Miers "at best an error, at worst a disaster" which should be reconsidered.'
• '"I think it was appropriate. She was not -- I didn't think, a lot of people didn't think -- really qualified. I think we all have to have some sympathy for her because she was thrust into a position as a nominee she shouldn't have been put in, and as a result, got rather beaten up in the press and elsewhere," said Judge Robert Bork, failed 1987 Supreme Court nominee.'

Instead, The Times insists on peddling cheap rumors like "Coincidentally or not, Ms. Miers's withdrawal, ostensibly over the principle of separation of powers as it relates to White House papers, is the very scenario that some conservative commentators have suggested as a face-saving ploy for the nominee and the White House." If one were cynically deranged like Times reporters, one could even infer that Bush was so assured he would announce a new nominee "in a timely manner" because he had known Harriet Miers was going to resign, and perhaps fail from the beginning. And that makes me sick. Like the White House would ever use a Supreme Court nomination for political purposes... Just, look at how they gleefully report the remarks of that fake-Republican senator, Arlen Specter "...Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican and the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, remarking that Ms. Miers could benefit from a "crash course in constitutional law."

Look how they quote their own senator Charles Schumer "The selection process, said Mr. Schumer, should include discussions about potential nominees with the Senate. "One of the real reasons for this mistake was there was no real consultation," he said." Quit cherry-picking, Times. You might as well interview someone from the Times itself. Of course that's what he's going to say, but what about ultra-liberal Leahy and Majority Leader Reid, who said Miers was promising. You make me sick New York Times.

New Rule #2

New Rule: What the Middle-East conflict needs is a good comedian-statesman-diplomat-therapist, like a Henry Kissinger but with better empathy skills. And more comedic talent. All right, maybe he's a poor start.

Obviously the first thing on the agenda is to get the Israel issue solved. Or that what everyone always says, anyway. For one, although the U.N. is a hideously hypocritical, bordering on powerless entity, the conditions in the occupied territories have been declared a human rights violation about 537 times (check that - it's called U.N. Resolution # 537) at least some of those sanctions are appropriate. I think the wall is a necessary measure, but it has cut off and dismembered numerous Palestinian (and Israeli) communities, through no reason other than the farther east the wall extends, the more security Israel has, and the happier Israel's expansionist extremists will be. The IDF has done bad things, and this happens with any army. However, the objection is legitimate that army occupation of the territories period is the real issue here, not the behavior of the army in general. This is a complicated issue, because military occupation of the adjoining territories is proper in war. It's arguably a necessary security policy when those territories have no centralized power capable of controlling and eliminating rogue and extremist terrorist organizations that would otherwise take over the area. Nonetheless, the effects of fifty years of occupation are undeniable. Like all other arab peoples, Palestinians have their own national identity and aspirations, which actually reached maturity in the 1960s with the newly minted Arafat and the PLO of all things, before it assumed its current non-negotiation stance. The inability of these aspirations to reach fruition to even the slightest extent is no doubt a terrible humiliation for Palestinians. Poverty, which has as much to do with Israel as ongoing non-existent infrastructure, also has negative effects. And of course, no one likes living under military occupation.

Don't get me wrong, I believe the way the Israeli army conducts itself is still incomparably better than the way an Arab army would if the situation were reversed. But the situation in the territories is becoming a worse and worse human rights problem, and a legitimate grievance. I most of Israel's hardliners are even realizing this. A solution to the problem is complex, but I think most mainstream people are currently putting their bets on a push for democracy and control in the Palestinian Authority, and a simultaneous disengagement from the West Bank. Of course, I am not counting on any of the West Bank settlements being relocated before or after then. And the wall will probably stay up for a while. But it's different when the Palestinians have their own sovereign nation. Then, instead of dividing its constituents, Israel is exerting its sovereign right to build a wall on its territory wherever it wants to, just like I have the right (well, if I own a piece of land) to erect a wall between me and my neighbor's house, as long as the nice part of the wall faces outward. (actually the law, check it out if you don't believe me...)

The Palestinian issue is a huge bugaboo and, I would argue, prohibitive barrier to any steps toward reconciliation between the West and the Arab world. We all know it's exploited disproportionately by leaders in Arab countries. For instance, just yesterday, Iran's hardliner president stated that Israel's existence was an affront to Islam, put in place by the West to oppress Islamic states. This is a common meme in Muslim countries. Of course, the speech concluded saying that Israel must be wiped off the map, and any Islamic state that negotiates with it is committing treason. The name of the conference was "A world without Zionism." You have to give credit to extremist Islamists: they don't beat around the bush.

Two summers ago, the Egyptian "media" made real press by asserting that all terrorist attacks around the world were perpetrated by Zionists. I'm not kidding about this. Of course this is really just manipulating definition. But it's also an even more ludicrous extension of the idea, also popular in Egypt for a time (and in the U.S. as well), that Israel perpetrated the 9/11 attacks - or less extremely, knew about it days before the fact and failed to notify the U.S. Of course, every one of these allegations is untrue. The establishment of Israel, which was in effect granted by the British, was hardly more divisive than the arbitrary division of nation-state boundaries in an area of the world that has always been a territory of the prevailing world empire. This should go without saying but, Israel is not an affront to Islam, any more than Arab nations are an affront to Judaism. Both arguments can be made from each respective religion's holy book, and this is just silly. The allegation that Israel (and only Israel) carried out the 9/11 attacks is an insult to the intelligence of Arabs everywhere.

After this is accomplished, the Middle East and a few western countries ought to enter some serious therapy to work out these issues with the mysterious entity known as "The West." What is "The West" and what did it do? Is the West the victors of WWI and particpants in the Sykes-Picot agreement? Or is the British, who were assigned the Mandate of the area under that agreement and it is fair to say are fully responsible for granting the state of Israel existence? Is the West the United States, which tacitly supported all of these historical steps, and is currently by far Israel's biggest financial and political supporter? Maybe if we could figure out what "The West" is, and what it did, we could take steps to act constructively about it. Of course, the West is a real entity and it did do real things, but the point is people need to think in a little more complex way about these issues.

There's more to say, but I'll have to say it later.

New Rule #1

New Rule: No more books on Bill Clinton, unless they're by Bill Clinton. Seriously, I'm not even a Bill Clinton fan. I support this simply because of the stupidity of the people who continue to write "first-hand account," insider, or "expert" exposes, 5 and 6 years after the fact. One autobiography and a couple biographies are really enough, aren't they?

Here's a great list just suggested to me on amazon.com, by JamesNYC248, "an impartial Canadian." First of all, at least get your username and description consistent... That's one line and I'm already confused. But enough ranting.

Our impartial "bi-citizen" has compiled a fittingly impartial list; all 25 books are full-blown critiques of Clinton released within the last 3 years! Ok The most obnoxious one I have seen is the most recent, solemnly inspired by Clinton's recent 60 Minutes interview entitled, cleverly, "Because He Could." I think we all remember something about this:

"Because I could" is the explanation Bill Clinton finally gave for Monica Lewinsky. Because HE can, Dick Morris ridicules the man he advised for twenty years. I don't know if Clinton enjoyed himself, but Morris is certainly having fun. The writer's own voice enriches the experience, not because he's a master narrator, but because he sounds just like the smarty-pants you'd expect. We hear that Bill has a temper, and was only briefly poor. Morris tells how the president copied a typed speech by hand in order to get credit for it. (Everybody knew he didn't type.) The thought that Clinton might have copied out his entire 957-page memoir by hand in order to get credit for writing that gets Morris laughing so hard that he loses his place.

Let me try to translate that sentence by sentence. Ok: Clinton's super-important adviser got the brilliant idea to write yet another book besmirching the former president after seeing an interview on national television. Because he can makes lots of money doing it, DICK MORRIS ridicules the man he advised for probably NOT twenty full years. This book was a tedious and cold-blooded exercise in character assassination, but it sure was fun! Our writer is a self-promoting jackass who wants you to know he is really smart. He reveals things already admitted to directly by Clinton himself, in his own official autobiography, even (it's unbelievable to me that someone promoting this book hasn't at least read the first 200 pages of the autobiography they are ostensibly rebutting). One time, the president cheated on a test! And, Dick Morris, who is smart in all other areas of life, has never heard of dictation for books, so Clinton must have not written his own biography either. That's fraud! Or cheating! Or something!

Perhaps I should sharpen this rule to: you shouldn't write biographies if you're not a biographer. I'll say one more thing on the topic. On the back cover, there is a series of false dichotomies. The first one is:

"the poor little boy from Hope...or the privileged fortunate son of Little rock, Yale, and Oxford, England?"

Are we to believe that it's impossible to be both poor and through hard work and ability win scholarships to Georgetown and then Yale and Oxford? Regardless, I'm not going to waste the resources to read more than the front and back cover, so this book could reaaly be a fine piece of work. (not)

Here's another interesting book written by a "non-partisan" military commander. On the cover, someone thought it would be really clever to PHOTOSHOP what looks like a JOINT into Clinton's mouth. See he really is a tree-hugger, and that's why he endangered our military. And it explains the cigar thing too.

"This is certainly not the first anti-Clinton book, but it is different in that Patterson does not seem to have a political ax to grind. In fact, at times, he appears apologetic about having to write about his ex-commander in chief. Yet, in the end, this retired soldier felt his last act of service should be to share his experience with his country."

Hmm. Does the fact that Amazon explicitly pairs this book with "How Liberal Democrats Undercut Our Military," written by the same author, count as evidence to the contrary? Publishers Weekly summarizes:

In Patterson's account, Clinton emerges as a careless, disingenuous frat boy, mercilessly hen-pecked by the domineering Hillary, whose tirades leave him looking like a "beaten puppy." He presides over a chaotic administration focused on spin and fund-raising; he fondles an Air Force One stewardess and ogles Patterson's wife in the Oval Office; he loses the nuclear launch codes; and he cheats at golf-which Patterson views as "not just a peccadillo but symptomatic of the way he approached life." Patterson also asserts that Clinton "directly and severely harmed this nation's security." Clinton debilitated the military, Patterson claims, by downsizing it, trying to remove the ban on homosexuals and put women in combat roles, "gutting morale" with pay freezes and "rudderless" peace-keeping missions, and turning it into an "armed social services agency." Worst of all, Clinton was soft on terrorism and missed a chance to get bin Laden with cruise missiles. Patterson raises important issues, but he seems most often affronted by what he sees as Clinton's belief that he "was privileged to conduct himself at a much lower code of conduct than the men or women he would repeatedly order into harm's way."

No, no political ax to grind there.

One could similarly satirize this account by inserting the word "Bush" wherever Clinton appears, with 2 exceptions. Honestly, if someone gave me a copy of this account and told me it was about Bush, I wouldn't think twice. To be honest, objectively, I think it describes him better. Maybe, then, the new rule should be: don't criticize people for things you couldn't do yourself. Of course, this still leaves plenty of people to bring light to the sacred critical role of our democracy. In addition, facts are still facts, to be gathered and disseminated by all. It just means that random editors from Vanity fair, and the guy who got too creative with Photoshop, are not, automatically, included.

Another three months, another update. I haven't had time to follow the latest supreme court nomination process all that closely, but I have some thoughts to get down nonetheless.

I posted the last commentary on Harriet Miers about an hour after the news came out. Since then, I have been able to appreciate a few different perspectives on the nomination. I have to admit, what made me most curious to consider some of the pro arguments was the fact that Democratic Senate majority leader Harry Reid along with Senator Leahy and some other Democrats openly and admittedly espouse optimism about this nominee, and admit they were intimately involved in the deliberative process with the President that ended up selecting her. Here is their stated rationale: We thought it would be good to have someone who was not another appeals court judge on the bench, who could bring a more pragmatic and real-life perspective to the overly groomed and often cloistered group elites that currently inhabits it. I found this curious.

For one, and I say this completely non-judgementally, I had never thought of this concept before. Obviously, from the beginning, because of the very nature of our democracy, regular-man roots often embodied in a populist philosophy was considered an asset in elected officials, particularly those in prominent positions such as the elected posts of the executive branch. This is because a sense of familiarity and sympathy can be a huge factor in gaining votes. However, it never occured to me that this could be an asset in the judicial branch. One, judges aren't elected, so the previous analysis doesn't apply. Two, judges don't don't represent or lead the people. They are specialists in a sense, and their expertise is to interpret the law. Considering factors such as background only seems to increase the legislative function of the judiciary, a trend the Republicans in particular professes they wish to reverse. That's like saying "we want someone with everyday experience on the Board of Governers at the Fed." She might know nothing about macroeconomics, but at least she knows what it's like to pay prime rate for a mortgage.

The second thing I found interesting is that Miers doesn't particularly possess the characteristics they are referring to. The narrative is all messed up. She's been touted as a private sector nominee. Yet she was Bush's personal attorney (that's real everyday experience), was appointed to the lottery commission by Bush, and subsequently to the city council. And of course, she comes fresh out of five years working at the most typical of private sector jobs - the White House personal attorney! First, she was chief secretary, and now she is White House Counsel. The extent of her legitimate private sector experience is working with a metropolitan law firm, which probably puts her well below the experience level of any other nominee in history.

The obvious conclusion is: 2 counts bullshit equals hidden agenda. It's possible that Democrats have finally been able to engage a level of political subterfuge superior to anything the Republicans were able to recognize. A resignation is obviously bad for Bush; a withdrawal is even worse. It would take some fairly astute political anticipation to predict that Miers would simultaneously worry harcore social conservatives because of her lack of a clear record supporting the causes they want, and intellectual conservatives that tend to inhabit the thinktanks because of her obviously nonexistent qualification.There is another possibility. It is possible that some Democrats honestly thought Miers was the best possible pick, to which I would respond, what is their problem?

The mix of opinions on Miers is very strange. On the one hand, she's an easy objection to people who have either the legitimate concern or pretext to care about level of qualifications. Personally, I couldn't care less that she went to school in Texas, in contrast to the objections made by some. What concerns me is that throughout her considerably active career, she has never done anything even remotely remarkable or groundbreaking. All of the memos and documents being released from her public and private work show a diligent but completely pedestrian worker. More disturbing, her writen legal opinions and advice, dating back for more than 10 years, oftentimes do little more than summarize the original legal question, using a few legalistic words like "prudent" and "just" in the process. Intellectual conservatives in particular had hoped for an earth-shattering thinker and communictor, in the mold of Scalia, to further entrench the legitimacy and convincingness of the conservative legal and social agenda for generations to come. There's also the small issue that she doesn't have any expertise in constitutional law. Bush staffers argue that she has learned while in the White House. Well that's great. I'm sure she has gotten a really complete and balanced education on constitutional law exclusively while working in the Bush White House! That's like learning how to Not Torture People at Guantanamo.

This is what makes the Supreme Court the Supreme Court, and not some state court; their final domain is the Constitution, not just statute. Not to mention, everyone agrees it takes several years for even the most seasoned legal minds to adjust to the job once seated. Even Stephen Breyer has admitted it took him many years to fully grasp the workings of the job, and he's known on the court as "the professor."

Then you have the social conservatives who are disappointed that Bush didn't have the balls to make a flagrantly political appointment of an avowed conservative political activist judge. Arguably, this is what Bush could have done if his political coalition was stronger and not undermined by the war in Iraq, the willingness of the mainstream to recognize his inability to manage the war - not to mention the pending criminal investigations of his two second in commands. Since the two ELECTORAL pillars of the current Republican party are reform social conservatives and intellectual neoconservatives, we can see why mainstream Republicans (or anyone not from Mars, for that matter) are opposed to the nomination.

I personally am hoping that she is not withdrawn, so that the process can proceed to the confirmation hearing. From my perspective, no matter what happens this event might be entertaining. Though it's a reasonable assumption that Senators will accept a fair degree of line-drawing when it comes to personal views and/or views on specific issues, however not as permissively as during the Roberts hearing, they will surely be much more demanding when it comes to demonstrating her judicial philosophy and understanding. Contrasting with Roberts, who has a long record of service both publicly and privately, Miers is not even responding adequately to questions seeking to get a preliminary assessment of her legal perspectives. Charles Schumer noted after his meeting that she was unaware of some important legal precedents. Meanwhile, Patrick Leahy (her "special" advocate - not even sure what that means) and chairman Arlen Specter, who is probably the most judicious and moderate person in the senate), unequivocally stated that Miers' responses to the PRELIMINARY questionnaire were "from inadequate to insulting." So if she is able to articulate her legal philosophy during the senate confirmation hearing, that will be interesting because I don't have the faintest idea what it is. And if she doesn't articulate any legal philosophy during the hearing...well, that will be a spectacle at the very least, although very pathetic.

Honestly, I doubt it will get that far. Of course, this brings up the interesting question of what was the reason, be it rationale or more manipulative purpose, for the nomination to begin with. I'll put down my thoughts on that when I have some more time.

I was all for the Roberts nomination and confirmation. I think he could end up being the best chief Justice to serve in a long while. This last nomination is nothing short of absolutely hilarious though. I thought Dave Chappelle's Killing Them Softly was the funniest thing I've seen all week, but this tops that. All kidding aside, this is sad. I can't even talk about Miers' legal philosophy because she doesn't have one; she has never served as a judge! Everyone was always quick to point out in the Roberts nomination process that nothing he produced in his years as an advocate, be it lawyer, consultant, or aide, should be interpretted as evidence of his views. The exceptionality of client-advocate relations is a basic premise of the legal tradition, and its truth is undebatable. Yet not only do we have nothgin BUT a client-advocate record for this nominee, the record manages to raise lots of disturbing questions even with the client-advocate provision.

Ms. Miers was George W. Bush's personal attorney in Texas. Miers is currently president Bush's top legal aide as White House Counsel. She has served as a legal aide to his campaigns in the past. The extent of her public service has been serving one term on the Dallas City council. The best part is that as the White House counsel, Miers led the search for the nominee to replace O' Connor, consulting with senators from both sides to try to gather a list of names of possible candidates. Needless to say, I doubt that one of the senators floated the response "well how about you Ms. Miers?" So not only is this a complete stealth nominee, its kind of another example of Bush appointing someone who is an unabashed loyalist in the context of all the ongoing allegations of cronyism. Bill Maher's comedic gag "does Bush know more than 3 people?" has become a serious question.

It has been suggested that Miers is a trailblazer for women in the legal profession, and that this reflects on her level of qualification to serve on the Court. What you don't get from the catchy soundbite is this just means she was one in a first wave of female lawyers, and a part of the larger first wave of female professionals of the time, for that matter. That's commendable, but not relevant. Afterall, Clarence Thomas was a trailblazer of sorts as an African American in the judicial profession, and he still voted against upholding affirmative action.

This candidate is so obviously going to be blocked by the senate it's not worth wasting more time on it. The more pertinent question, and the one that would take a far more astute level of analysis, is what purpose does the nomination serve? I'm not qualified to comment, above giving my initial thoughts. It's possible that the quick blocking of this choice will serve as political leverage for the next, real Supreme Court nominee. We shall see.