perfidy

Because the constant focus on tests cripples education. Teachers teach to the test, not to the students, the material, or the community, and useless pursuits like art and music get cut from the curriculum in the scramble to raise test scores and win funding.

The No Child Left Behind Act was a mistake. The public education system is broken, and it is only making matters worse.

I really don't see why the left is having such a hissy fit over this. The President correctly and truthfully stated that the British thought Saddam tried to buy Uranium from Africa. Apparently, the British based that conclusion on French intelligence - and surely they weren't trying to aid the cause of the American President. And the British government (backed by a parliamentary investigative committee) still maintains that its report is true.

And in any event, our decision to go to war was not based on those sixteen words. At most, they were a factor in our decision. And if it could be proved now that Saddam didn't try to buy the Uranium (and CIA reports going back several years indicated that he was trying to get it from three other African nations as well) that doesn't change the fact that we were acting on the intelligence available at the time, which included far more than just this one bit.

This tired refrain of "what did he know and when did he know it" is, well, tiresome. A democratic CIA director has accepted whatever blame there is to be had. Some of the more hysterical dem presidential candidates are talking impeachment, and using Clinton as a touchstone. Personally, I wouldn't have gone there, but it is a ridiculous comparison.

The defensiveness of some administration flunkies is to be deplored, honesty being the best policy, and forthrightness being a close second. But still, making such huge deal of this suggests to me at least that this is the largest caliber ammunition that they have. And to mix metaphors, it is a thin reed to lean on.

Buckethead, I read that bleat too-- good stuff. However, I think it's possible make too much out of the assertion that it's 9/12/2001 for a long time to come. Last time I looked at the calendar, it was July 18.

I recognize the point Lileks is making, and I even agree with him somewhat. Things are different now, and they always will be. The river only flows in one direction. I saw the news-recycled bits of Tony Blair's speech, and it stirred me. What a great speaker! But there comes a point when the bloody shirt has been waved once too often, and for me that point is coming soon. I have serious questions about our government's honesty, motives, and state of mind, and the ongoing needs of the libervasion of Iraq are not an excuse from clearing the air.

From a President who promised no more Clintonian hair-splitting (and no nation-building), we have gotten both. I'm in favor of advancing the cause of democracy in Iraq, but I'm also in favor of finding out what the actual story is. Although many claim them to be, these actions are not mutually exclusive. The fact that we are now actively involved in fighting terrorists does not imply a vacation from accountability and simple straightforwardness. We seem to be entering a phase of the bickering where the following happens:

Curious Critic (possibly traitor): So did you know the uranium line was shaky when you used it in the State of the Union? 

Administration flack: We lowered taxes! 

CC(pt): Well, when did you know the uranium line was unreliable? 

Af: Perscription drugs! Education! 

CC(pt): Who okayed that line in the SOTU? 

Af: Well, that depends on what your definition of "in" is. 

CC(pt): I don't mean to sound like an a-hole here, but things aren't super-great right now what with the job market and all, and my kid was supposed to be home from Iraq three months ago. Also, my paycheck doesn't really look any smaller than it was. What gives? 

Af: We're at WAR here, people!

Tony Blair's speech was beautiful, a marvel of modern oratory and composition. But talk is talk, and I'm waiting to see what actually happens (and, for that matter, what actually happened.) I'm not a knee-jerk Bush hater, but over the last six or eight months I've started to get that feeling where you look around the poker table, and you can't tell who the sucker is. 

[moreover] 1:30 PM: Everything else aside, Lileks is right on about Tony Blair. What a class act. Unreconstructed socialist or not, he's a good person to have in charge right now. 

[moreover] 1:45 PM: One thing our President is very good at is doublespeak. "Clean Air Act," my foot.

From Creative Loafing in Atlanta comes this heart-warmer. Sure, it's not the end of the world, but it is a depressing little story.

"The FBI is here," Mom tells me over the phone. Immediately I can see my mom with her back to a couple of Matrix-like figures in black suits and opaque sunglasses, her hand covering the mouthpiece like Grace Kelly in Dial M for Murder. This must be a joke, I think. But it's not, because Mom isn't that funny. . . . Trippi's partner speaks up: "Any reading material? Papers?" I don't think so. Then Trippi decides to level with me: "I'll tell you what, Marc. Someone in the shop that day saw you reading something, and thought it looked suspicious enough to call us about. So that's why we're here, just checking it out. Like I said, there's no problem. We'd just like to get to the bottom of this. Now if we can't, then you may have a problem. And you don't want that."

Yeesh. Now, I understand that the FBI need to follow up diligently on leads-- and in fact they probably could be about 150% better at that basic task-- but c'mon!

Over at Reason, writing about Christopher Hitchens, Michael Young hits the nail squarely on the head.

"It is to Hitchens' credit that he broke with the left before engaging in the verbal gymnastics of his former comrades. His story, however, is a microcosm of a greater problem faced by Western radical intellectuals: An inability to define what radicalism truly means today and to confuse it all too often with anti-Americanism."

Exactly. Read the whole thing. Not incidentally, the obverse is also true: Many Conservatives fail to include spirited, healty skepticism in their definition of patriotism, confusing it all too often with anti-Americanism.
 

Why 'Juan Gato' Rules Us All: His line of the day-- "the Bush administration's 'it wasn't lies, it was just...bullshit' dance."

Is it just me, or is there something overwhelmingly, erm, Clintonian about the President and his apologists' gyrations? An example: as Ross at Spiral Dive notes, the President said recently, "We gave [Hussein] a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

Oh, really? Funny, I was paying attention at the time and I thought, excuse me, I thought that the UN weapons inspectors weren't finding anything in Iraq, that that was the problem. Bad on me for trusting my eyes and ears. And I seem to remember something to the effect of inspections not being good enough, that letting them continue would be useless. But now I see the error of my ways. There were no inspections. Hussein wouldn't let them happen. I apologize, Mr. President. I got my history wrong.

Christ, if this was Clinton, the Republicans would be bathing in his entrails right now. The Democrats are even deader than I thought.

A question for opponents of marriage/civil unions for homosexuals. If, as I often hear, the only true reason for marriage is to procreate, then what of all the couples in the world who choose to remain childless? Let's posit a heterosexual, standard-issue young married couple who do not intend to have childen though they may adopt at some far future date. Moreover, let's posit that their marriage ceremony contained not one reference to a higher spiritual power. As these people did not get married under the auspices of a religion, and as children are neither expected nor wanted except through possible future adoption, the marriage is indistinguishable from what's being called a "civil union" such as is legal for homosexual couples in Vermont.

So I ask you. Based on that information, how is this marriage, between a man and a woman, different in any way from a civil union between homosexual partners?

So why was it again that the President said that Iraq needed a spanking? No Weapons of Mass Destruction (yet!, we are assured). No compelling, systemic links with Al Qaeda. No building of nuclear rockets. No yummy yellow cake. No smoking gun of any kind to warrant such an action.

I have been waiting for months, albeit skeptically, for the President's assertions about Iraq's role in international terrorism to be vindicated. I'm now long past giving up on the whole affair as a lofty-minded attempt to reshape the world never mind the reasons. Kevin Drum at CalPundit referred to Iraq as "low-hanging fruit," and that assessment seems more fair every day.

Buckethead, I'm interested in your thoughts on this matter. I know how I see the events currently unfolding, but I'd like your take. Do you feel that the last few months of findings stand up to the President's stated reasons for libervading Iraq? Aside from the happy collateral fact that Saddam Hussein no longer rules (never offered as a central reason for libervasion), does the current evidence justify the President's case made in January and early February?

Randy Barnett of the Volokh Conspiracy has an excellent, penetrating, and informative piece up at the National Review about the SCOTUS decision in Lawrence v. Texas. Here's the opening paragraph and two of the conclusion.

The more one ponders the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas, the more revolutionary it seems. Not because it recognizes the rights of gays and lesbians to sexual activity free of the stigmatization of the criminal law — though this is of utmost importance. No, the case is revolutionary because Justice Kennedy (and at least four justices who signed on to his opinion without separate concurrences) have finally broken free of the post-New Deal constitutional tension between a "presumption of constitutionality" on the one hand and "fundamental rights" on the other. Contrary to what has been reported repeatedly in the press, the Court in Lawrence did not protect a "right of privacy." Rather, it protected "liberty" — and without showing that the particular liberty in question is somehow "fundamental." Appreciation of the significance of this major development in constitutional law requires some historical background. . . .

In the end, Lawrence is a very simple ruling. Justice Kennedy examined the conduct at issue to see if it was properly an aspect of liberty (as opposed to license), and then asked the government to justify its restriction, which it failed adequately to do. The decision would have been far more transparent if Justice Kennedy had acknowledged what was really happening (though perhaps this would have lost some votes by other justices). Without this acknowledgement, the revolutionary aspect of his opinion is concealed, and it is rendered vulnerable to the ridicule of the dissent. Far better would have been to more closely track the superb amicus brief of the Cato Institute which he twice cites approvingly.

If the Court is serious, the effect on other cases of this shift from "privacy" to "liberty," and away from the New Deal-induced tension between "the presumption of constitutionality" and "fundamental rights," could be profound. For example, the medical-marijuana cases now wending their way through the Ninth Circuit would be greatly affected if those seeking to use or distribute medical marijuana pursuant to California law did not have to show that their liberty to do so was somehow "fundamental" — and if the government was forced to justify its restriction on that liberty. While wrongful behavior (license) could be prohibited, rightful behavior (liberty) could be regulated provided that the regulation was shown to be necessary and proper.

The debate over privacy has long been misguided. The question germane to our Constitutional rights is not "does [state action x] violate our right to privacy?" Although the ninth amendment could be construed to contain such a provision, it's not clear that it does and I'm sure real actual legal scholars, of which I am not one, would be able to tell you why.

The germane question in any case-- be it bedroom behavior of any kind, medical marijuana, or the right not to be videotaped in your home-- is rather, "does [state action x] violate our right to liberty?" Barnett does an excellent job splitting the difference between liberty and license, for which reason alone you should read the article. But the more important point he makes, from where I sit, is that the Constitution includes clear instructions on how to cope with questions of thou shalt/not when it comes to consensual, individual action, and those who would fight for liberties they find important would do well to stand on that firm ground.

Via the New Republic's weblog, witness the unstoppable majesty of Ari Fleischer, speaking at a news conference yesterday:

I think the American people continue to express their support for ridding the world of Saddam Hussein based on just cause, knowing that Saddam Hussein had biological and chemical weapons that were unaccounted for that we're still confident we'll find. I think the burden is on those people who think he didn't have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are. [emphasis added]

We are but grasshoppers.

Calpundit points to a story that suggests Bush knew the Nigerian Uranium story was bogus from the start yet chose to use it as evidence anyway. Like Calpundit, "I'm not sure how seriously to take this," but if, if this is so, it's awfully damning.

It's one thing to overplay your hand on thin evidence, or ignore the caution of the experts, which is what I think the President probably did. It would be another thing for the President's people to have made up evidence against Iraq as it suits them. I'll be watching this-- I want to know which thing really happened. Bad news either way, but much, much worse if this new development turns out to be credible.

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.

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. 
 

A federal appeals court has ruled that the USDoJ acted correctly in detaining hundreds of people in the wake of September, 2001. Story here. 

I'm going to break with long-standing J2C tradition and not work myself into a frenzy over this decision. I still think it's a bad thing, just no more nefarious than any other of the hare-brained schemes we've seen recently. On one hand, the people detained (for the purposes of this decision) were illegal aliens, who were in the country, um, illegally. That needs checking out. But that fact must be balanced by two considerations: the DoJ's abysmal record of late regarding full disclosure, honesty, and moderation; and the fact that this is the USA and we don't treat people this way (that golden rule thingy). Here's the part that has always troubled me. 

A recent audit by the inspector general at the Justice Department found "significant problems" with the detentions, including allegations of physical abuse. Civil liberties groups have noted that only one of those detained, Zacarias Moussaoui, has been charged with any terrorism-related crime. Ashcroft told lawmakers earlier this month that some of the foreigners "had strong links to the terrorists," but that in some cases evidence was insufficient or too sensitive to bring criminal charges against them in public courts.

Everyone has a right to a lawyer, and everyone has a right to face the charges brought against them. No charges? No detention! Secret courts? While I understand and appreciate the need for discretion in dealing with potential international terrorists, no circumstances should mitigate due process out of existence. And what are these "strong ties" JA speaks of? If they are so strong, why have charges not been brought? 

Just asking. 

[moreover] Part of the reason I posted this was to elicit commentary. Mission accomplished!! In the 18 hours since I first read the story, I have come 179 degrees. Indefinite detentions are for tinpot dictators. We're supposed to be a forthright, just, honest nation and people. We're Rocky Balboa.

Calpundit has an interesting post up, about just what are the Republicans up to?

A while back I had an email exchange with another blogger who said that the problem with Democrats is that they're under the misguided impression that their social policies are actually popular. So they keep banging away on guns and abortion and gays and they don't realize that the country just isn't with them.
As it happens, I don't agree with most of that, but let's leave it alone for now and apply the same thought to the Republicans.Every party in power eventually overreaches, and I think the Republicans are on the verge of doing this right now because they keep fooling themselves into thinking their economic policies are popular. But they aren't. Sure, no one wants to pay taxes, but eventually we'll have to make a choice between cutting taxes and cutting Social Security and Medicare and other programs, and Republicans are going to learn what they know in their hearts already: these programs are a lot more popular than tax cuts. When that day comes, the Republicans will be out on their ears.

I know conservatives hate to face up to this, and libertarians hate it even more, but the social safety net is really, really popular. You screw with it at your peril, and sometime soon it's going to become clear that Republicans have no support for a policy that's designed to cut back on them. The only question is, is "sometime soon" 2004 or 2008?

What he said. Times are hard. Don't try to BS me on this one: times are hard. Tax policy is only sexy until people need to go the emergency room, or go on disability, or lose their job. Then the social safety net suddenly becomes really, really important. (This fact is what blocks me from becoming a true fiscal conservative. The outer reaches of that philosophy are a bit more social-darwinist than I can stomach.) Depending on how the next few months go, this fact may become the deciding issue of the '04 election. That is, unless Buckethead's Chicago-school economics are right. We shall see. We shall see.

If we are going to have laws against drugs, fine, I can cope with that. I haven't done anything except alcohol in years and years. My problem, like Johno's, is with other laws being used in the drug wars. If someone is carrying, bust them for possession - its already illegal. If someone is selling, bust them for that. Prohibition, for all its faults, stuck mostly to stopping people from drinking. There was not the vast expansion of police powers that we have seen in thirty years of the war on drugs. 

The RAVE act infringes on our right to assemble peaceably. The RICO statutes have been used (quite often) to infringe on our fourth amendment rights. Civil forfeiture is based on the ridiculous premise that property used in the commission of a crime, or even suspected of such, is somehow "guilty". Never mind that only people can be guilty, and that the constitution says that we cannot be deprived of our property without due process of law. 

I have not yet read enough to know for certain that the Patriot II act is bad or not - I've heard people come down on both sides. But there is no question that RAVE act and RICO statute provisions are regularly abused, most noticeably by federal law enforcement agencies. And these abuses are regularly given the high sign by our courts. 

Why are federal agencies busting raves attended by a couple hundred (at most) teenagers and college students? And bong manufacturers? And doctors? And people like Zippy? Because they're easy, and any bureaucracy wants to expand its power. These are matters for state and local police, not federal agents equipped and trained like military units. The FBI is the Federal Bureau of Investigation, not the FB of Let's pick on some teenagers or shoot some people and then burn the building down to conceal the evidence of our fuckup.

The reckless tax cuts of Kennedy and Reagan certainly shifted enormous burdens to us, the next generation. No, wait, what they did was allow the economy to grow faster, so that we could afford to pay for all the reckless services instituted by Johnson, Carter and others. What would be a burden for our children would be to create more programs that blow through taxpayer money like something that blows through money really, really fast. Because with rare exceptions, those programs never go away, even if it turns out that they weren't that great an idea in the first place. Like farm subsidies. Lowering taxes is the only way to prevent the government from hoovering up the whole economy. I think a better legacy for our children (because everything must be for the childen) would be to leave them a world where they could have a job and keep more than half the money they earn from it.

Ps, I think Krugman's slogan is a great idea. We should use it.