perfidy

I'm baaack! (finally...)

So, the President has now admitted that the ironclad evidence that Iraq had purchased fissionable uranium from African nations was, in a word, vaporous. Reminds me of the time when the President made up that bit about Iraq buying up aluminum tubes that were only for use in reactors. One event implies nothing. From two like events you can posit the existence of a third.

The NYT has their story, and "Philippe de Croy" of the Volokhs writes,

Whether his credibility is becoming a problem domestically I do not know. There are plenty of people in this country who will continue to defend the Bush administration almost no matter what happens either because they find Bush personally appealing or because the importance of keeping the Democrats out is so great that they would rather excuse Bush and go on trusting him, more or less, content to call for the heads of whatever underlings were, ahem, “responsible” for any misinformation that was distributed. They feel that it beats the alternative. I understand why

I am sure some countries will continue to provide us with ample respect and cooperation in any case because they regard it as so strongly in their interest to do so. But at the margin the cost in credibility will have to be high. I should think that most countries -- their people and their leaders -- will look back at the war on Iraq and remember the incredulous indignation we heaped upon those who would not go along with us. Then they will look at what came out afterwards and conclude that we are clowns or worse. They will not focus on what we claimed that was true. They will focus on what we claimed that was false.

This situation was always one of my biggest underlying reservations about the libervasion of Iraq. Don't get me wrong-- I am delighted, repeat delighted that Saddam Hussein is no longer the man in power in Iraq. But I always felt the risks of libervasion were very high when it comes to the international stage. That's not to say that we must bow and scrape before the UN when we wish to change our trade relationship with Cameroon, but the poisonous war of words that raged earlier this year could turn out poorly for the US. Our incredulous indignation, which is exactly what it was, though seemingly justified in February, could bite us in the ass if in the future we must fend off a truly immediate, credible threat from abroad and the rest of the world 'chooses' to believe we are crying "wolf."

[moreover] The administration's credibility on domestic matters has never been that high from my point of view. I think he's heading for a perhaps hollow, bitter, Nixonian second term at home, and a Wilsonian one abroad.

Alex Knapp at Heretical Ideas elaborates on my Scalia-bashing, and applies it more broadly:

You know, it's odd how some conservatives like to have their cake and eat it, too when it comes to the state/society distinction. On the one hand, many conservatives argue that just because the state isn't providing for the poor and homeless doesn't mean that society won't step up to fill in the gap. And yet, many of those same conservatives will turn right around and say that if we don't keep drugs illegal, or we don't maintain the ban on gay marriage, then society will just fall apart. So apparently, people are perfectly capable and responsible enough to provide for each other without state intervention, but if we can legally get high at the coffeeshop or marry someone of the same sex, then we'll become junkies and leave our families for crazy gay Objectivists because hey, now we can! Anyone else see the incongruity there?

Yep.

Matt Welch, in a great article on immigration policy, says:

But ignored laws, suddenly enforced, will do more than weed out criminals and terrorists. It will drive people—including good, hard-working people—into the deepest of the black markets, never to interact with a government agency except maybe in the emergency room, or at the local jail.

Yes! This applies in every area of law: immigration, tax policy, municipal laws, the sodomy ruling today from the SCOTUS, the "drug war" ad infinitum ad nausem. And all of you who have, not should read The Crying of Lot 49 now. Even if you find it to be the worst kind of pretentious wankery, and you may, you should still read it.

Oh, and also, The Soft Bulletin by the Flaming Lips is one of the greatest albums ever made. Today at least, it is the greatest. You may find it to be the worst kind of pretentious wankery. I disagree.

This is possibly the most boring headline I have ever written. Who cares! It's interesting! Via slashdot comes this story which explains a Bayesian approach to email spam-filtering in easy to understand terms. Read it here!

Score one for privacy!! Today, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that essentially overturned all state sodomy laws still on the books. The decision was 6-3, and Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas dissented. Scalia took the unusual step of reading his dissent from the bench: 

"The court has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda. . . .The court has taken sides in the culture war," Scalia said, adding that he has "nothing against homosexuals." 

Oh Really, sir? And I bet some of your best friends are homosexuals, too. 

Scalia is this close to being a great justice, and would be but for his willingness to let his own moral codes take precedence over legal questions. 

[moreover] Although I applaud strict constructionism of the Constitution in general, I feel it has limits. Much like few Christians follow every single word of the Bible, Constitutional fundamentalism is an irrational and unsound, though logically safe, philosophy. 
 

So, this blog has been rolled over to the "new" blogger template, which wiped out the ability to post yesterday.

Now, I'm off on vacation so posting from me will be light to nonexistent. Over to you, WCM and Mr. Bucket!

Oh yes, and the comments are not working.

Johnny Two-Cents at Blogspot: Not Just Another Dog And Pony Show.

No, not those Weasels. Screeching Weasel! Ben Weasel, erstwhile singer of that celebrated, beloved smartasspunkrock band, now has a 'blog. It's a good one, found at http://weaselmanor.blogspot.com. Ben recently weighed in with a long essay about file sharing, and it's full of greatness, wit and wisdom. His thesis in a nutshell: "don't lie to yourself: it's stealing, a-hole!" Excerpted: 

"Musician" is the only job title in the world other than "monk," "nun," or "priest," where those who benefit the most from your work expect you to do that work for cost, or free. At least monks and priests get health benefits. But to the music fan, musicians should be martyrs for their art. Believe me, it's scary to realize that your financial future rests in the hands of a demented child who really, really loves you - as long as you behave according to a stringent set of creative and financial rules, that is. 

Music fans - again, the true fanatics, the bellowing minority - seem to have two personalities: plodding, overly affectionate lummox, and hyper, shrill arbiter of musical correctness. The music fan is constantly checking up on us to make sure that we know we're adored as well as to ensure that we're suffering properly and sufficiently. The reason we keep the fans at arm's length is because if we don't, we're liable to end up playing Curley's wife to their Lenny. . . . 

Legally and ethically speaking, of course, you have no right to steal from anyone. Justifying your theft with "Oh, they're all rich" or "Well, the major labels are crooks anyway" might make you feel better about yourself, but you're still a thief. Yet in a way, I don't blame you, at least not for wanting a little revenge. You've been ripped off. The majors gouged you - they were busted for it, for crying out loud - and it's not the first time they screwed you. They've been doing it since rock and roll began. They are the reason that quality and success are unrelated concepts in rock and roll. They are in the business of bullying, lying, cheating and stealing. 

But as wrong as they are - and let's not forget that they've screwed musicians right along with fans - as wrong as they are in practically everything they do, they are right about stealing music. I don't like to agree with the RIAA - they certainly don't represent any musician I know - but they are right. Stealing IS wrong, and Internet theft of music IS killing the industry. Maybe the industry deserves to die - I don't know. But is it worth putting so many people out of business (not to mention losing their creative voices) to get back at what amounts to a handful of very wealthy, very powerful people who, regardless of what you do, will remain very wealthy and very powerful? I don't think so - working towards an alternative would seem to make more sense. . . . You'll be left, for all practical purposes, with two groups of musicians. 

The first will consist of musicians who aren't any good and never were and were formerly engaged primarily in attempts to convince suckers in Estonia to download the dopey love songs and experimental art-rock they recorded on their four-tracks; these self-indulgent, pretentious rank amateurs will be your new alternative and they will rule the college radio charts. In the second group will be the musicians you'll be hearing on commercial radio and seeing on TV. They will be the Survivors Of The Fattest. . . . 

This revolution of theft is having an effect on the industry, no question. But it's not taking out the big guns. They aren't going anywhere. You're killing the little guy. You're ruining the very people that make music interesting, exciting, and vital. I hope you can manage to enjoy what will be left over, and when that day comes – and it's coming fast - at least don't insult our intelligence by blaming Metallica or the RIAA or Warner Bros. At least try to be honest enough to admit that it was your own willingness to rip off your heroes - whether out of greed, or misplaced moral outrage, or both - that drove us out of the business. Don't blame the big, bad corporations for killing rock and roll. Blame yourselves.

Last week, I linked to a story about a woman who was pulled over in Ohio for breastfeeding while driving. Nice little episode, right? Well, it's still rolling! Check this out! Turns out the father is suing to be sole defendant, arguing under Mosaic law the father is the sole head of the household and responsible for all members therein. They're members of a sect (here's the main page), of course. The family vows to take this all the way to the Supreme Court on the grounds of religious freedom, claiming they are being harassed by the great state of Ohio.

This is an interesting-- even complicated-- matter, but whatever. Under Ohio law, you can't breastfeed while driving, period. A $100 fine could have been paid by the woman, end of story, except that according to her husband, that would have been bearing false witness, rendering her hellbound. Now it's a federal case. Literally.

Read the article. Great stuff in there. I swear.

A special bonus for those who know me well-- can you spot familiar places in the article? I bet you can!!

I seem to recall the Bears did acquire Kordell Stewart from the Steelers recently, and intend to play him at quarterback. So, this naming thing is only the second dumbest move of the off-season.

I see via fark that the Chicago Bears are now going to call themselves, wherever possible, "Bears football presented by Bank One". 

No, I'm not kidding. Really, I'm not. 

You can call me old-fashioned, hypocritical, or conservative if you like, but the DAY the Cleveland Browns change their name to Browns football presented by Goodyear, I drive seven hundred miles to Ohio with a tire iron, a roll of duct tape, and a car with a three-body-big trunk to take care of some business. 

I have no problem with corporate sponsorship per se-- it's as big a part of modern sport as growth hormone, endorsement contracts, and drug convictions. But of all the stupid... cynical.... *sputter* ... They sold their name??