Sunday
Lies, damn lies, and topics of unclear truthfulness
A brief note, since I linked to the original appearance of the story about the college student who got interviewed by the Department of Homeland Security after he requested Mao's Little Red Book. It's not true. I noted my skepticism initially, but perhaps not strongly enough. The spread of this story will probably have three effects.
1) Some "boy who cried wolf"-style doubt towards future stories of individual level civil liberties infractions.
2) Some people won't ever hear that this story is false, and will just go on believing and repeating it.
3) Slightly more people will read Mao's Little Red Book.
I have no idea if the student behind this intended any or all of these, of if he was just trying to get out of a homework assignment or something.
In a bit of pleasing serendipity, I just finished watching Shattered Glass, all plaudits of which turn out to be quite deserved. Some thematic links could perhaps be drawn between it and this phony DHS/student story.
I'll likely post some thoughts on Munich tomorrow, though I can sum up my feelings by saying that the parts in which Spielberg trusts the audience (most of it, surprisingly) are of very high quality, and the rest is less good.
|
1) Some "boy who cried wolf"-style doubt towards future stories of individual level civil liberties infractions.
2) Some people won't ever hear that this story is false, and will just go on believing and repeating it.
3) Slightly more people will read Mao's Little Red Book.
I have no idea if the student behind this intended any or all of these, of if he was just trying to get out of a homework assignment or something.
In a bit of pleasing serendipity, I just finished watching Shattered Glass, all plaudits of which turn out to be quite deserved. Some thematic links could perhaps be drawn between it and this phony DHS/student story.
I'll likely post some thoughts on Munich tomorrow, though I can sum up my feelings by saying that the parts in which Spielberg trusts the audience (most of it, surprisingly) are of very high quality, and the rest is less good.
Wednesday
Tower of London
Can we please have a scandal in which no one, or at least no one with enough readers/viewers for it to catch on, feels the need to append the suffix -gate to some other word naming or describing the scandal? I fear that we may have to wait for a scandal centering around the behavior of the founder of Microsoft who isn't Paul Allen to end my long national nightmare of -gatedness. Though perhaps not, there has already been a Bus GateGate. Also, google indicates that I'm not the only person hoping for the -gating of American scandals to come to an end.
On a different note, why in the world would the Yankees sign an unfrozen caveman to play in the outfield?
|
On a different note, why in the world would the Yankees sign an unfrozen caveman to play in the outfield?
Tuesday
Contrary
Since everyone I linked to yesterday on the topic of the President's unwarranted searches was at least generally negative (i.e., positive about them being illegal), and I like to present myself as balanced even when I think what's going on is truly outrageous, here are Cass Sunstein's posts arguing that the searches are probably legal. I don't find them persuasive, but that's not an argument for why you, the reader, shouldn't be persuaded by them.
|
VI
So the FISA/NSA intercepts story is really fascinating and exactly the kind of thing which I shouldn't be reading about during the last couple days of my exams. But I can't resist, so I just read everything Dan Solove, Marty Lederman, Orin Kerr, and Juliette Kayyem have written on the topic, and Senator Rockefeller's 2003 letter to the President about it (most of those posts link to each other as well, it's a nice example of the incestuousness of the elite blogs and all that (kidding)). Not satisfied with that, I continued on to read a not particularly good op-ed on the topic, by Bill Kristol and Gary Schmitt, which will appear in tomorrow's Washington Post.
I don't want to critique their full argument right now, but rather note one odd phrase which led me to two possible conclusions:
1) This op-ed was written very hastily and they didn't really think about all of what they were writing (this is the charitable interpretation).
2) They don't have a very good grasp on what the Constitution of the United States is.
The full sentence which bothers me is, "It is not easy because the Founders intended the executive to have -- believed the executive needed to have -- some powers in the national security area that were extralegal but constitutional." What's wrong with that sentence? The constitution isn't some amorphous entity floating around outside the law, it is instead the supreme law of the land. As far as I know, powers are not simultaneously "extralegal" and "constitutional." Instead, if the constitution, as the supreme law, grants a power to the President without subjecting that power to legislative limitation, any law purporting to limit that power is unconstitutional.
Now, as it happens, it's quite insane to think that the constitution gives the President of the United States a power, illimitable by the legislature, to listen in on every conversation between any person legally in the United States and any person outside of it. But if that's what Kristol and Schmitt are trying to say (and it is), they aren't saying the President has an "extralegal" power, they're saying that the law of the Constitution forbids Congress from passing other laws which take away that supposed power.
Update: I just noticed that Josh Marshall also read their op-ed. He doesn't like it much either, but he does quote himself using the term "extra-constitutional" in the past. This was temporarily worrisome, but fortunately, there is no conflict at all with what I said about "extralegal but constitutional." Instead, he's talking about the possibility of a President having a moral obligation which he doesn't feel he can set aside but which he recognizes is illegal because the Constitution forbids. He says that in this situation it might be the case that the President should violate the Constitution and then throw themselves on the mercy of the public.
|
I don't want to critique their full argument right now, but rather note one odd phrase which led me to two possible conclusions:
1) This op-ed was written very hastily and they didn't really think about all of what they were writing (this is the charitable interpretation).
2) They don't have a very good grasp on what the Constitution of the United States is.
The full sentence which bothers me is, "It is not easy because the Founders intended the executive to have -- believed the executive needed to have -- some powers in the national security area that were extralegal but constitutional." What's wrong with that sentence? The constitution isn't some amorphous entity floating around outside the law, it is instead the supreme law of the land. As far as I know, powers are not simultaneously "extralegal" and "constitutional." Instead, if the constitution, as the supreme law, grants a power to the President without subjecting that power to legislative limitation, any law purporting to limit that power is unconstitutional.
Now, as it happens, it's quite insane to think that the constitution gives the President of the United States a power, illimitable by the legislature, to listen in on every conversation between any person legally in the United States and any person outside of it. But if that's what Kristol and Schmitt are trying to say (and it is), they aren't saying the President has an "extralegal" power, they're saying that the law of the Constitution forbids Congress from passing other laws which take away that supposed power.
Update: I just noticed that Josh Marshall also read their op-ed. He doesn't like it much either, but he does quote himself using the term "extra-constitutional" in the past. This was temporarily worrisome, but fortunately, there is no conflict at all with what I said about "extralegal but constitutional." Instead, he's talking about the possibility of a President having a moral obligation which he doesn't feel he can set aside but which he recognizes is illegal because the Constitution forbids. He says that in this situation it might be the case that the President should violate the Constitution and then throw themselves on the mercy of the public.
Sunday
Less spending ≠ less deficit
Better bloggers than I have noticed the success the G.O.P has had describing spending cuts as deficit cuts without noting that spending cuts offset with larger tax cuts are actually a deficit increase. But since I haven't noticed any of them point to this recent example from the A.P., I will. The headline in the NYTimes online version of the article is: G.O.P. Pushes $41.6 Billion Deficit-Cut Plan Since I can't get a permalink, and it's an Associated Press story, here's another version with a slightly different headline but the same text otherwise. Anyway, the article is only about spending cuts and the word taxes doesn't appear once, so this is a pretty irresponsible way of passing on the Republican spin on their spending cuts and deficit expansion.
|
End-of-semester blues
Firstly, "American Footprints" is an interestingly vague name and far superior to that site's old one which I, and many others, were bothered by. While pretty much all of their posts are good, this one about a student being contacted by the Department of Homeland Security over his library reading records is especially noteworthy. With the story having only recently been published, it may turn out to be false, and will almost certainly involve factors which haven't yet come to light.
Second, I'm still annoyed at having lost (as far as I can tell) almost all of the small number of comments this blog has received in its short history. I don't know how many months haloscan keeps them for, but it doesn't look like the answer is all that long.
Third is a Tyler Cowen post about what currency can be used for qua pieces of paper which everyone in a country sees and handles, rather than qua a medium which of exchange for other goods. "Rather than," might be the wrong phrase, since the second use enables the first. Read the whole list, but I especially like: 8. Maps or something else practical. Multiplication tables? Translations of key words, especially if the country is multilingual?
Finally, a post by Michael O'Hare at what used to Mark Kleiman's site only, summarizing his feelings about the "War on Christmas" in an acerbic but lengthy manner.
The titular blues in this post are because it's not yet the end of the semester and I have quite a bit to do before it ends on Thursday.
|
Second, I'm still annoyed at having lost (as far as I can tell) almost all of the small number of comments this blog has received in its short history. I don't know how many months haloscan keeps them for, but it doesn't look like the answer is all that long.
Third is a Tyler Cowen post about what currency can be used for qua pieces of paper which everyone in a country sees and handles, rather than qua a medium which of exchange for other goods. "Rather than," might be the wrong phrase, since the second use enables the first. Read the whole list, but I especially like: 8. Maps or something else practical. Multiplication tables? Translations of key words, especially if the country is multilingual?
Finally, a post by Michael O'Hare at what used to Mark Kleiman's site only, summarizing his feelings about the "War on Christmas" in an acerbic but lengthy manner.
The titular blues in this post are because it's not yet the end of the semester and I have quite a bit to do before it ends on Thursday.
Friday
Eulogy
"I said, 'I like the little things.' The way a glass feels in your hand, a good glass -- thick, with a heavy base. I love the sound an ice cube makes when you drop it from just the right height." We hear that sound exactly. "Too high, and it will chip when you drop it. Chip the ice and it will melt too fast in the Scotch."...
"So anyway, I have a present for you." He hands it to Leo, saying, "Merry Christmas, Leo." Leo peels the bow off; we see that it's a small square picture frame holding the crumpled cocktail napkin upon which Leo wrote "Bartlet for America."...Leo looks at it for a moment, then raises his eyes to Jed, who says, "That was awfully nice of you." Leo smiles. Jed turns and goes into the Oval Office. Leo can't hold it back much longer; he sits down, letting out a little sob, and cries quietly, in a very dignified way.R.I.P. John Spencer
Wednesday
I wonder if their moon is made of bleu cheese
There comes a time in the life of every blogger where they read The Corner and come away wondering what the atmosphere is made of on the alterna-earth where its posters reside, reasoning that it must be a very different planet from the one they're on. For me, that time is now.
The day started off normally enough, with me reading a Sam Rosenfeld post at Tapped. This post contained a link to a Jonah Goldberg piece on the Corner, and it was when I followed this link and then scrolled around a little that the madness truly began. In short order, I found:
-Mark Levin, while blithely ignoring the oh so sophisticated distinction between terrorist and suspect, directly implying that he would happily join a group called "People for the Unethical Treatment of Terrorists (PUTT)," or on the alternative (more charitable?) interpretation, "People who think there are no Ethical Standards which Apply to the Treatment of Terrorists (PESATT)."
- K-Lo making a joke about the ACLU boycotting showings of a Charlie Brown Christmas, which is really funny, because it takes the ACLU's well-known position of—I have no idea what, and combines it with their boycott of—does the ACLU ever boycott anything?—to reach the funny result that they should logically boycott a commercial media station.
- K-Lo decrying that the ACLU is forcing towns to stop plowing church parking lots. When a reader e-mails to note that the article which K-Lo was quoting is about how a private citizen having nothing to do with the ACLU stopped their town from plowing church parking lots (which I would personally think would be an issue the demos of that town could go either way on), she responds that the ACLU likes that kind of stuff generally. Oh, and while printing the e-mail correcting her she makes fun of the ACLU for the hypothetical possibility that they might at some future point be mad about her smear.
For more on the Corner and their torture "debate," since this Scott Lemieux post and accompanying links.
|
The day started off normally enough, with me reading a Sam Rosenfeld post at Tapped. This post contained a link to a Jonah Goldberg piece on the Corner, and it was when I followed this link and then scrolled around a little that the madness truly began. In short order, I found:
-Mark Levin, while blithely ignoring the oh so sophisticated distinction between terrorist and suspect, directly implying that he would happily join a group called "People for the Unethical Treatment of Terrorists (PUTT)," or on the alternative (more charitable?) interpretation, "People who think there are no Ethical Standards which Apply to the Treatment of Terrorists (PESATT)."
- K-Lo making a joke about the ACLU boycotting showings of a Charlie Brown Christmas, which is really funny, because it takes the ACLU's well-known position of—I have no idea what, and combines it with their boycott of—does the ACLU ever boycott anything?—to reach the funny result that they should logically boycott a commercial media station.
- K-Lo decrying that the ACLU is forcing towns to stop plowing church parking lots. When a reader e-mails to note that the article which K-Lo was quoting is about how a private citizen having nothing to do with the ACLU stopped their town from plowing church parking lots (which I would personally think would be an issue the demos of that town could go either way on), she responds that the ACLU likes that kind of stuff generally. Oh, and while printing the e-mail correcting her she makes fun of the ACLU for the hypothetical possibility that they might at some future point be mad about her smear.
For more on the Corner and their torture "debate," since this Scott Lemieux post and accompanying links.
Friday
Words of the Day
|Wednesday
Hand Over Velvet Fist
For the second day in a row, I'm posting about a woman in local politics. Yesterday it was state politics and Jeannne Pirro, today it's the city and Patricia E. Harris, Mike Bloomberg's newly appointed deputy mayor. If this localism trend continues, by Friday I'll be posting about the lady in my building whose apartment is full of cats and fancies herself the Queen of Prussia (NB: To the best of my knowledge no such woman exists, but since I don't really talk to the people in my building other than my room mates I cannot rule out the existence of such a person.)
While the entire article on Harris is both interesting and quite readable, one bit that was just dropped in as part of a series of examples of her perseverance and devotion to the Mayor struck me as ethically bizarre.
First off, if they had "benefited from Bloomberg's philanthropy" via any kind of grant application process, that can't possibly create the obligation which is suggested. If the artists just went to Bloomberg out of the blue, and asked him for money, no strings attached, that can't create the obligation (if his charity only gives people money in exchange for their future support, that simply isn't charity). And finally, if they had showed up and asked for the money, while explicitly or implicitly implying their support, that's also a problem, because you can't promise your political support in exchange for money.
The only innocuous explanation I can think of is that the calls to ask "what they were thinking" were totally unrelated to the grants of money. Perhaps the artists had previously been loyal Republicans and Harris was doing due diligence by simply asking them, "What, if there is some specific thing or things, has led you to support our opponent rather than us?" But it's not really standard practice to write a two sentence paragraph in which the two sentences have nothing to do with each other, nor would it support the article's claim about her devotion which it's being used to illustrate. Thoughts?
|
While the entire article on Harris is both interesting and quite readable, one bit that was just dropped in as part of a series of examples of her perseverance and devotion to the Mayor struck me as ethically bizarre.
When she believes that the mayor has been crossed, the glove can come off. Last year, when Ms. Harris became aware that some people in the arts world who had benefited from Mr. Bloomberg's philanthropy had given political donations to one of his early campaign rivals, City Council Speaker Gifford Miller, she called them and demanded to know what they were thinking.While Bloomberg (and Harris, since the article mentions her being in charge of his philanthropy since his pre-mayoral days and continuing into the future) can in general give his money to whomever they want for whatever reason they want, his personal philanthropy should be separate from his political career and thinking that giving people money creates an obligation for them to support you politically (or omit support for your opponent) sounds dangerously close to bribery. This paragraph admittedly gives very few facts about the underlying incidents, but I don't see anyway of the facts it does being true and there not being something wrong here.
First off, if they had "benefited from Bloomberg's philanthropy" via any kind of grant application process, that can't possibly create the obligation which is suggested. If the artists just went to Bloomberg out of the blue, and asked him for money, no strings attached, that can't create the obligation (if his charity only gives people money in exchange for their future support, that simply isn't charity). And finally, if they had showed up and asked for the money, while explicitly or implicitly implying their support, that's also a problem, because you can't promise your political support in exchange for money.
The only innocuous explanation I can think of is that the calls to ask "what they were thinking" were totally unrelated to the grants of money. Perhaps the artists had previously been loyal Republicans and Harris was doing due diligence by simply asking them, "What, if there is some specific thing or things, has led you to support our opponent rather than us?" But it's not really standard practice to write a two sentence paragraph in which the two sentences have nothing to do with each other, nor would it support the article's claim about her devotion which it's being used to illustrate. Thoughts?
Tuesday
The man who mistook his wife for something or other
Does it make Jeanine Pirro more or less appealing to the median New York voter that her husband is an asshole who is trying to undermine her campaign? This post will assume that a New York Post article has its facts right about Albert Pirro's actions (use bugmenot if you aren't registered for the Post). I seem to recall such an assumption proving unwise in the past, though I don't have a specific instance in mind. Also, my insight into the mind of the median voter is wholly hypothetical. That said, let's consider some possible reactions to reading that her husband has gone to top New York Republicans and asked that they suggest she drop out of the Senate race in favor of a State A.G. run.
1) Sympathy for her having to deal with such a betrayal.
2) Increased respect for her integrity, since his action lends credence to the idea that her husband's illegal actions while she was Westchester D.A. may have really been unknown to her.
3) Questioning of her judgment as to why she has continued her marriage with someone convicted of a crime and who is apparently willing to act against her politically, or, to put a slightly better light on it, doesn't respect her enough to realize that if he can't persuade her that her campaign is a mistake he shouldn't oppose her.
4) Appreciation of her devotion to her marriage for staying with it despite everything mentioned in point three.
5) Deciding not to become emotionally or intellectually invested in a campaign which many prominent members of her own party see as doomed.
|
1) Sympathy for her having to deal with such a betrayal.
2) Increased respect for her integrity, since his action lends credence to the idea that her husband's illegal actions while she was Westchester D.A. may have really been unknown to her.
3) Questioning of her judgment as to why she has continued her marriage with someone convicted of a crime and who is apparently willing to act against her politically, or, to put a slightly better light on it, doesn't respect her enough to realize that if he can't persuade her that her campaign is a mistake he shouldn't oppose her.
4) Appreciation of her devotion to her marriage for staying with it despite everything mentioned in point three.
5) Deciding not to become emotionally or intellectually invested in a campaign which many prominent members of her own party see as doomed.
Sunday
Priorities
After reading about these hearings, I wonder when Congress will respond to the clamor for hearings investigating why the seasons for HBO series are so short, and why they take so much time between seasons. I've caught up on all the old Deadwoods, and Curb Your Enthusiasm ended tonight. This is an outrage of underproduction in quality televised programming, and Congress should certainly look into why this market failure is occurring. The Sub-Committee on Telecommunications and the Internet of the Committee on Energy and Commerce should have jurisdiction.
The same article linked above helpfully informed me that, "undefeated Southeastern Conference champion Auburn was undefeated in 2004."
|
The same article linked above helpfully informed me that, "undefeated Southeastern Conference champion Auburn was undefeated in 2004."
Friday
Over-caffeinated
|Thursday
Recant
So, I'm stealing Matt Welch's five-word review gimmick Syriana: Wishes it was Parallax View. If you want more substance than that, I suggest Mike D'Angelo's review, which I unsurprisingly agree with, as I tend to when he deigns to see movies which play in more than one or two theatres in the country. Also, I guess that I'm not too into that whole brevity thing: I read the subtext of the D'Angelo review as saying that the movie would be better if it had basically the same script with a completely different director, this is obviously correct. And I certainly recommend seeing the film, despite anything above which might indicate to the contrary.
|
