perfidy

InstaPundit pre-interprets Kerry's 1971 testimony on the war; he listens to it so we don't have to!

Of course, maybe it's a good idea to just read the damn thing yourself, and form your own opinions. Note that Hewitt and Reynolds don't pull out any quotes or disagree with what Kerry said; they're crying little weasels because they don't like how he said it.

If someone can tell me who has more of a right to speak his mind about a conflict and the politics that drove it than a recently returned, wounded soldier, please speak up. If the GOP wants to make an issue out of this, they can contrast this heartfelt testimony with Bush's activities at that time: Vigorously not even bothering to show up for a flight physical, which disqualified him from flying, made him ineligible for deployment, and conveniently allowed him to sit out service.

I don't expect to hear anything from Bush about Viet Nam. He'll let the party hacks do the talking.

Bruce Schneier is a very well-respect cryptographer and writer on security policy in general. He's got a short essay here on security trade-offs which is well worth reading. I've read his book on the subject as well.

The point is, we can give new powers to our federal agencies with ease...but what are we really getting in return? We need to look very closely at freedoms that are lost, and at the potential for abuse that we introduce into the system.

For each of these powers, we need to look at the checks and balances. If someone goes "bad", what kind of abuse can this new power generate? If history teaches us anything, it's that the answer cannot be that we simply must trust those in positions of authority. The whole structure of government in this country is designed to eliminate single points of failure.

The Telegraph says this is the woman who will derail the Kerry candicacy: 

Ladies, gentlemen, and transgendered individuals (pre-op and post-op), I give to you the downfall of Western Civilization, the American family, and life as we know it in these United States.

That's Phyllis Lyon, 79, and Del Martin, 83, a lesbian couple who have been together more than fifty years. Today, they were married in a civil ceremony in San Francisco. The fiends!

Buckethead's worry that gay-marriage advocates may be rushing the issue being well taken, you nevertheless have to say "awwwwww."

[wik] NDR has more on gay wedding in San Francisco, and his analysis is particularly insightful. The nut of the matter:

Cities have few competencies that are completely their own--even utilities tend to be either semi-private or intergovernmental corporations. Even as the US Constitution grants broad and vague powers to the states (all those not reserved for the federal government), it never mentions urban corporations and constitutions or the rights granted to sub-state territorial actors. American federalism is a limited concept that has little application beyond the relationship between the federal government and the states. Furthermore, American political culture is wary of granting autonomy to communal corporations like cities.

The actions of the San Francisco municipal government are admirable. However, their actions will be too easily appealed without referencing the problem of unequal rights. The hotel de ville or the Rathaus, both institutions which have stood as alternative sources of values and authority in Europe, might have the legitimacy to take on the problem of equal rights on their own. But the problem will not be solved by the American city hall.

As an aside to the recent debate in this space over gay marriage, I had occasion to read the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Something occurred to me. From time to time, Christian advocates attempt to portray the United States as a fundamentally Christian nation, and offer text from the United States Constitution and the Declaration of Independence as proof. For example, the Declaration reads

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. . . .

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Note the appeal to "divine Providence." Some people take this, and constructions such as "In the year of our Lord..." as conclusive proof that the USA is at its root a nation established under the auspices of Christian doctrine.

Okay, but I beg to differ.
The Constitution contains far less of the God-talk than the Declaration. This suggests that by the time they got around to the second try at national government, a conscious decision had been made to protect religious pluralism by minimizing the particular Christian-ness of the Constitution. If they'd have done otherwise, we'd probably know:the Constitution is admirably clear about big-picture means, ends, and groundrules, and the Bill of Rights takes care of the rest. Religious pluralism is the first guarantee in the First Amendment.

Besides, a precedent existed if the framers had wanted to use it. If they had really wanted to clearly establish the country on Christian doctrines and grounds, they could have taken a cue from the Massachusetts Constitution, passed in 1780. The original of that document states

Article II. It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship. [See Amendments, Arts. XLVI and XLVIII.]

Article III. [As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.

Instead, the US Constitution makes only one reference to God, "divine Providence," etc...

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names, [big buncha names]. . . .

Big difference. I'm not claiming that the Christian tradition in which the framers of the US Constitution were raised didn't inform their thinking, and I'm not claiming that the United States hasn't been predominantly peopled by Christians since the beginning. But it seems to me that if the United States were established on explicitly (and exclusively) Christian grounds, the US Constitution would read more like the Massachusetts one. It's just not in there.

Not that anyone asked me, or anything.

Looks like the Bush AWOL story can finally be put to bed as untrue. Fine with me: I'm more concerned with the present.

The Sun is reporting that Alex Polier, 24, is the center of the Kerry controversy. Still not much info, but the British Press is beginning to run with the story. The major American media (CNN, FOX, ABC, CBS, NYTimes) completely ignored the story last night, and as of this morning, still have nothing on their front pages. Which is a little odd. When the Lewinsky story broke, they were at least reporting on the fact that there was a story.

While following the Kerry bimbo eruption trail, I ran across this link to a Kausfiles from back in the double M. The Feiler Faster Thesis is simply that:

The news cycle is much faster these days, thanks to 24-hour cable, the Web, a metastasized pundit caste constantly searching for new angles, etc. As a result, politics is able to move much faster, too, as our democracy learns to process more information in a shorter period and to process it comfortably at this faster pace. Charges and countercharges fly faster, candidates' fortunes rise and fall faster, etc. [Italics in original.]

Kaus mentioned this today in the context of the public's seeming unawareness of such basic Kerry facts as the fact that he threw someone else's medals over the White House fence. This is likely going to be overshadowed by the new bombshell - though hints are now coming out that this particular weakness has been known, at least in theory and in some quarters, for a while now. We shall have to see how this all plays out.

This primary season has had more twists and turns than a sidewinder with MS. We had the magnificent entry of Gen. Clark, then the Dean implosion, now this Kerry thing - along with the usual run of campaign bizarreness. Clark might be endorsing Kerry - even though he apparently knew of the coming bimbo eruption - to angle for a VP slot if Kerry survives the battle. Dean has stayed in, possibly because of his knowledge of it. Edwards must be dancing a jig, because there was little hope that the media or Dean would cut into Kerry enough that he could take the driver's seat. Only Al Sharpton has nothing to gain from this.

If this story has legs, it seems unlikely that Kerry will be able to reposition himself before the next round of primaries, because this story won't be leaving the front pages. Momentum is a thing of the past, as Dean has already discovered.

Click the more link for some fun stuff back from the 2000 election.

It also follows, if you buy the FFT, that Wilentz is wrong: Bush has plenty of time to reposition himself for the general election. His strategists will deploy the cliché that from March to November is "an eternity in politics." (Look at how Bush Sr. went from Gulf War hero to general-election loser! Look at how Clinton came back from the brink of disgrace! Look at how Gore went from being a stiff to unstoppable!) But if the Feiler Faster Thesis is correct, from now to November isn't an eternity anymore. It's more like five eternities. Bush probably has time to move to the center, move back to the right, feint at protectionism, convert to Catholicism, divorce his wife, admit he dropped acid, denounce vivisection, embrace Lenora Fulani, enroll in Bob Jones University, then tearfully apologize for all of the above on Meet the Press and still move back to the vital center again before November. OK, I'm exaggerating. But you get the point. We have no more idea what the public image of Bush will be in November than we have of what Chicago will look like in the year 2100.

Armed Liberal nicely articulates a position very close to mine in the election horse-race.

I was almost in a brutally tough position on this one, but Kerry's impending coronation makes it somewhat easier. While Bush's domestic policies aren't criminal, exactly, they are amazingly stupid in almost every dimension in which I can think to measure them. But he is doing the war thing sort of right. Unless he's planning to pull out too soon in the face of domestic political pressure. Now my head really hurts.

And if the Democrats had a candidate who had a strong track record on foreign policy and had some kind of remotely consistent plan for what to do now that we're here (see some of my ideas, as examples of what I'd like to see), I'd have to weigh the cost of switching teams mid-game against the net advantages of domestic policies I liked better against the likely effect of the proposed foreign policies against the fact that I've always supported Democrats, and that a strong Democratic Presidential showing would have coattails in local races that I value a lot.

This is arguably the most serious election in my adult life. I believe that the Communists would have collapsed sooner or later even if Reagan hadn't spent them into the ground (although he certainly made a difference). I think that Clinton did some good stuff in refocusing our domestic social-welfare programs.

But there's a big-ass hole in lower Manhattan, and our people are being beheaded on home video. It's not going to get better by itself, and we need to have a coherent set of policies and the resources and will to carry them out. Kerry's actions and statements to date don't give me an ounce of confidence that he's the guy to do this.

Bush is challengeable on that front, and I'd like to see him challenged in order, if nothing else, to get him to better articulate and defend what he's doing.

I'm not going to stay up late seeing if Kerry can make that challenge.

I wish I had something apropos, insightful, and pithy to add but I don't. I can only say... yeah.

NDR points to an interview with Senator Joe Biden on the Democrats and foreign policy during the election cycle.

He's right; the Democrats used to be the party of vigorous foreign involvement and bold solutions. That momentum is entirely on the other side of the aisle now. When's the last time you heard a Democrat utter something as bold and controversial as "evil empire," "axis of evil" or, "Tear down this wall"? You may not agree with them, but the Republicans are the ones proposing solutions, whereas the Democrats are currently merely decrying Republican proposals. That's no way to run a party, that's no way to run a nation, and that's no way to win an election.

I've been having an interesting argument with Spoons over his quixotic effort to get conservatives to oppose Bush. (This has nothing to do with Gay Marriage day here at Perfidy, but I'm going to run with it anyway. Spoons is getting married, but to a girl. So he isn't qualified to speak on that issue.) He is of the position that it will not advance the conservative agenda to have Bush reelected and confirm in the collective mind of the GOP elite that pandering to the left (little opposition to gun control, prescription drug benefits, huge spending on liberal programs with no reform, etc.) is a successful election strategy. He says:

As conservatives, we can't do much about what kind of Democrats we'll get, because we're not going to vote for one. We can, however, do something about what kind of Republicans we get, by voting for good ones, and refusing to vote for bad ones. If we take the tack advocated by Kim (and, in fairness, the overwhelming majority of conservatives), and insist upon voting for any Republican, no regardless of whether he's conservative or not, then we give up any control over what kind of Republicans we get. Republican positions on domestic issues will then be decided by swing voters and soccer moms.

This is a valid point. And if I thought that there was any chance that voting against (or at least not for) Bush would result in the second coming of Reagan, I might sign up for his program. But as I said in the comments to his post,

I can see where you're coming from. And in all honesty, I would support your ideas more strongly except for the fact that no matter what kind of drubbing the GOP gets, it will always attempt to pander to the middle. Pandering only goes left in this country. Our only hope of getting the candidate you are dreaming of is for him to arrive as Reagan did - by fighting for a strong conservative policy based on a moral conception of politics. That candidate could rally support from the true-blue conservatives, the moderates and even people in the other party. But the GOP will never try, and never could, impose a strong conservative agenda on a mediocre candidate, president or congress. And they won't go looking either.

Politics is compromise, and the perfect is the enemy of the good. If we shoot every candidate who is half good, we will not be in a position to elect one that is good. The Republican party spent decades in the political wilderness until Reagan saved them. We can't count on having another Reagan everytime we need one. The Goldwater style political idealism that holds absolute positions on conservative issues is a ticket to irrelevancy and being locked out of high office. We need to win where we can, and as often as we can - even if the victories are partial, or not what we wanted.

The grassroots movement in the Republican party that resulted in the congressional victories back in 94 is an example of how the rank and file party members can pull the party to a more conservative viewpoint. This is the kind of thing that conservatives can do to influence the direction of the party. While we do not know yet whether Bush is serious, the outcry among conservatives over excessive spending seems to have had an effect on his policy. We can be sure that conservative outcry would have no effect whatsoever on a Kerry administration.

So while I share with Spoons the concerns with Bush's policies in many areas, I cannot abandon my support for the best deal we're going to get, conservativeness-wise. The proper course is to get the man who is closest to you in viewpoint into office, and then try to move him in the right direction.

In response to Buckethead's unforgiveable ignorance of the inner workings of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, I submit here the key point on which the Massachusetts SJC's decision depends:

Article CVI. Article I of Part the First of the Constitution is hereby annulled and the following is adopted:

All people are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed or national origin.

In truth, the MA Constitution is fascinating, not least because it's the oldest written Constitution in existence (1780), but also because of the wording. Check this out:

Article XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

Although different than the US Constitution's 2nd Amendment, I think this one is worded better: it's far more clear.

There's lots more in there if you have the time. Check this out!

Article XVIII. A frequent recurrence to the fundamental principles of the constitution, and a constant adherence to those of piety, justice, moderation, temperance, 12 industry, and frugality, are absolutely necessary to preserve the advantages of liberty, and to maintain a free government. The people ought, consequently, to have a particular attention to all those principles, in the choice of their officers and representatives: and they have a right to require of their lawgivers and magistrates, an exact and constant observance of them, in the formation and execution of the laws necessary for the good administration of the commonwealth.

I can't remember where I saw it, but not too long ago I read that the center of most people's objections to gay marriage can be summed up by the "ick factor." Most people in the reasonable middle of American life have come to the conclusion that gay people should not be hassled, and we'll make use of their talents in interior decorating and fashion, but that otherwise we'd really rather not be confronted by the icky reality of guys... kissing. And other things. While most people would never go out of their way to oppress the lavender minority, they still feel in their hearts what Sam Kinnison said:

How can a man look at another man's hairy ass, and feel love?

And this is where gay marriage comes in. This is the gay populace intruding the ickiness into respectable, normative straight institutions. And most people just don't like the idea. They're not likely to crusade on the issue unless it's crammed down their throats. (Which is what the amendment campaign would do. It would force people to choose sides. And by and large, we'd really be better off avoiding that.)

Left alone, consensus would probably drift towards greater acceptance of gays, and their inclusion in institutions like marriage. Americans don't, as a matter of course, like excluding anyone from anything - at least theoretically. And that bedrock presumption is what MLK played on in the sixties, shaming respectable white americans into believing, and acting on what was right.

I am personally affected by the ick factor when it comes to gay marriage. I don't feel that it's a good thing, and that the institution of marriage as currently defined supports many good things in our soceity. I fear that changing the definition will have some deleterious effects. Of course, this does not mean that I think that gays should be discriminated against in hiring, housing, or through outdated laws like Texas' sodomy statute. (Which also, IIRC, applied to heteros as well in some regards.) Those who argue that the sad state of hetero marriage is an argument in favor of gay marriage are getting it wrong. If it's in bad shape, it needs to be strengthened, not diluted.

My considered opinion is that I would like this issue to go away. We're not to the point (on either side) where we're ready to be discussing it reasonably, and now we are perilously close to permanently polarizing the debate, as happened to the much more serious issue of abortion when Roe v. Wade was handed down.

Since it's Gay Marriage Day here at the Ministry (parade at 3:00: bring your Speedo), I have decided to link to this editorial from the Boston Globe by Derrick Z. Jackson, who does the old fun trick of finding the craziest Bible passages out there ("Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ. . . . Render service with enthusiasm, as to the Lord." from Ephesians, stuff like that) and puts it next to the passages about man-on-man action. The point, of course, is to demonstrate that the Bible contains a lot of material that has been superseded by the rule of human law in most of Western society, certain tiny areas of Utah and Wyoming excepted.

Nice try. I'm not even a Christian, but I can crush it like one, and I know that the New Testament supesedes the Old. Ephesians, Ecclesiastes, and all those weirdo names are Old Testament, and no longer supposed to be relevant to Christian teachings (but just try telling that to the Nazarenes...ooo boy.) It's the New Testament where you find the most clear language on gay sex (though it's Paul, not Jesus), and this means for Christians that the Bible does really suggest that gay sex is a no-no. Trouble the New Testament also says a lot of nutty stuff about how good it feels to be nice to people, loving your neighbor, the value of tolerance and humility, etc., and I don't see that getting much play these days, so what the heck do I know? Maybe the Bible really is like a Chinese menu. "I'll take Matthew with a side of Mark, please."

Oops. That sounded pretty gay.

[wik] Buckethead, a more pious man than I, points out that Ephesians is in the New Testament, which means Jackson has made his point far more wisely than I assumed. My mistake. I shoulda paid attention in Perfidious Sunday School.

With that information in mind, it becomes a hard question: as a Christian, how do you accept a passage condemning man-on-man intercourse, and reject a passage legitimizing the total subordination of women, for example? I was never very good at this, and it's one reason why I can't call myself a Christian today.

Yesterday Buckethead wrote:

One of the signal failures of the Bush administration has not been its judgment in the conduct of the war on terror; but rather its perverse inability to make a case for its actions. While I have been doing so on a ( very ) small scale along with numerous other bloggers and journalists, the unconvinced need to hear it from the man at the top. Bush should be screaming this news from the rooftops.

He is dead on target. In fact, it could do a lot of harm to Bush's reelection chances, and I can't say it's undeserved.

Matthew Yglesias notes that even Bill O'Reilly has even publicly expressed regret for supporting the President's "Weapons of Mass Destruction" thesis: "I was wrong. I am not pleased about it at all and I think all Americans should be concerned about this." Seriously, George. When Bill Fricking O'Reilly is off the bandwagon, you've got a problem.

I've been mum on this topic because I live in Massachusetts and talk about it elsewhere so much. But here's the thing. As Jacob Levy observes, the FMA would make marriage one of the very few topics expressly taken off the table for states to legislate on, and aside from everything else that fact sits poorly with me. Most of the other "no-no's" for states are things like slavery. That is, the US Constitution bans states from passing legislation that would enslave people, and thereby restrict their human and civil rights.

The FMA is something different: in its most extreme wordings, it arbitrarily denies some people the rights granted to others. I'm not saying it's an easy question, and I understand that some people are dead-set against it. But many gay marriage opponents are conflating religious and moral issues with civil issues, and they need to be separated out here. Nobody will force the Church of What's Happening Now! to marry gay couples, just like nobody is forcing them to perform midnite ceremonies for a drunk-ass ho like Britney Spears.

As for my own opinions, I'm for gay marriage just like I'm for classic marriage-- and I take the matter pretty seriously, and expect that couples intending to marry do so as well. I'm even empowered to perform marriages, and have done so for couples who are appropriately serious about the affair. My state's legislature is meeting today to decide whether to put a state constitutional amendment on the ballot banning gay marriage. Two thoughts: at least it's happening in the right arena-- the state level; and a gay marriage ban will pass into the Massachusetts Constitution over my dead (or at least severely mauled and wounded) body.

[wik] The Onion comments. Excerpt: "What's the big deal? It's legal now. My sister's married to a gay guy and everyone knows it."

The White House released payroll records today, supposedly proving that the President was never AWOL or otherwise derelict of duty from the National Guard back in the days before disco.

Why payroll records? Anybody can be on "payroll," just ask the mafia. Payroll records prove jack squat, and surprise! White House Press Wrangler Scott McClellan agrees with me!

[U]nder questioning from reporters, McClellan said the records do not specifically show that Bush reported for Guard duty in Alabama, where he spent much of 1972 working on a Senate campaign. And he said the White House has been unable to locate anyone who remembers serving with Bush during that period.

However, McClellan said, "he was paid for the days he served in the Air National Guard. That's why I said that these records clearly document that the president fulfilled his duties."

In truth, the only proof to come out of today is that Scott McClellan is no Ari Fleischer.

Scott Elliott, who maintains the Election Projection (which is interesting in its own right, and well worth a look) has come up with 21 reasons that Bush will be reelected in November.

Several of these are fairly compelling, and at the very least it's a good starting point for trying to put your own spin on how things will turn out.

Like Red States and Blue States, the books we read are separated by a unbridgeable cultural divide. Valdis Krebs, a man with entirely too much time on his hands, has taken some data from Amazon, and created a network map of books on current politics. Books are linked if they were purchased simultaneously. 

[ Bigger image here]

hat tip: Marginal Revolution, via The Volokh Conspiracy

[wik] While this phenomenon no doubt holds for explicitly political/current affairs books, it becomes a lot less true once you move away from that arena. I'm not sure about Ross, but I know that the difference between Johno's and my taste in, say history, lies solely in the areas of history we are interested in rather than the political labeling of the title. Where our interests overlap - we start running into the same titles.

I could list out the specific policy tests I'm referencing and not go down the "incompetent" route. I guess I should do that; it's only fair that I do that. Conclusions need to be held.

But:

1. You are giving the politicians credit for winning a war. The military did that; the politicians don't do anything more than point the direction. This is a wash. We don't judge on the success of the war. We judge on the underlying reasoning.

2. You characterize the economy as "improving". Well, for who?

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots

Apparently not for anybody who isn't a major-league investor. The scariest thing about the chart is that is does NOT reflect the jobs that were lost DURING the recession...so we are way behind where we were.

Why is this recession not generating any jobs or increases in wages for average americans? That is the big question.

The GOP answer is: Just wait -- you'll see. It'll work.

I think we just handed a huge chunk of social security money to the investment class in this country so we could create jobs for regular people. They took the money, and there's nothing to show for it. What is the time frame on tax stimulus, anyway? We certainly can't go by the estimates given by the GOP on when we'd see jobs created. _Every_ one of those estimates has turned out to be pie in the sky. Every Bush budget, for that matter, has been pie in the sky.

Given the failure (or at a minimum, dramatic underperformance) of the supply-side tax approach, what is an appropriate response?

I read somewhere today that the very richest amongst us have more or less convinced themselves that tax cuts for the wealthy really are the best way to gernerate growth.

How should we test whether or not this is true?

I'll write a little more in the next day or two, describing specific points of evaluation. I find this process interesting; I wrote a while back on the "Concerned Citizens Primer". It's time for Buckethead to make his case, and me to make mine.

I must confess that I don't like 9/11 being used as a catch-all excuse for every mis-step.