So, just this week, we had a hearing in Congress in which the FBI director admitted that someone -- probably on Team Obama -- had committed a serious felony by leaking FISA warrant information.
Democrats: 'You're trying to change the subject!'
Republicans: 'This is a serious crime!'
Today, the head of House Intelligence revealed FISA warrant information to the press.
Democrats: 'This is a serious crime!'
Republicans: 'You're trying to change the subject!'
Do any of you in Washington care about national security at all?
UPDATE: I wonder how much of this turns on 'need to know.' The President has whatever security clearance he needs, ex officio, but he doesn't necessarily need to know everything. Normally there's nothing he wouldn't 'need to know,' but a collection effort targeting him and his companions for possible action might qualify. Now the Congress might really 'need to know' that, because they have legitimate oversight purposes.
The press has neither the clearance nor the need to know. Does the citizenry need to know? Most wouldn't have the clearance, so it's an irrelevant question. Until it isn't, because the formal structures begin to fail and there's no hope but a recourse to the People.
Reflections
Did you ever wonder why artists painted such obsessively realistic still-lifes, including shiny objects? Apparently because it's simply an absorbing task to trick the eye into seeing distorted reflections by using only flat color. This is the newest Chrismon I've completed:
Originalism vs Textualism?
In a discussion below, there was a thread about how originalism is inferior to textualism. The second, as described, sounded to me like a subset of the first. Judge Gorsuch seems to think they're the same thing:
[The] second point I would make is it would be a mistake to suggest that originalism turns on the secret intentions of the drafters of the language of the law. The point of originalism, textualism, whatever label you want to put on it–what a good judge always strives to do and what we all do–is to understand what the words on the page mean, not [to] import words that come from us, but [to] apply what you, the people’s representatives, the lawmakers, have done. And so when it comes to equal protection of the laws, for example, it matters not a whit that some of the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment were racists–because they were–or sexists–because they were. The law they drafted promises equal protection of the law to all persons… I think that guarantee… is the most radical guarantee in all of the Constitution and maybe in all of human history.
"Tribal Epistemology"
In which Vox hits upon the truth, but thinks it applies to the other side.
I mean, by all means read it -- some of their allegations against our side are serious, and you should prove them wrong by considering them fairly. It is amazing, though, to see them come right to the very edge and not ask, "Hey -- do we do this too?" The closest approach to that is an assertion that the problem disproportionately affects Republicans, which is at least a wave in the direction of the idea that it might sometimes appear on the left as well.
I mean, by all means read it -- some of their allegations against our side are serious, and you should prove them wrong by considering them fairly. It is amazing, though, to see them come right to the very edge and not ask, "Hey -- do we do this too?" The closest approach to that is an assertion that the problem disproportionately affects Republicans, which is at least a wave in the direction of the idea that it might sometimes appear on the left as well.
In Praise of Hierarchy (and Bureaucracy!)
Several leading philosophers, including Kwame Anthony Appiah, have a piece calling for a reconsideration of how important these things are.
Appiah is on my radar for his work on honor, which I think is incomplete but nevertheless interesting. Honor is like hierarchy in that relatively few thinkers today want to spend much time praising it, perhaps for similar reasons.
Appiah is on my radar for his work on honor, which I think is incomplete but nevertheless interesting. Honor is like hierarchy in that relatively few thinkers today want to spend much time praising it, perhaps for similar reasons.
Susan Rice on Honesty and the White House
The Washington Post decided to publish an article by the least credible person in America on the importance of White House officials speaking the truth. They seem to be completely oblivious to the irony of having Susan Rice lecture us on this question.
Credibility is the currency in rhetoric, and Rice could not be less credible than she is. However, there's more to life than rhetoric. Philosophically, it is improper to dismiss her simply because she is a hypocrite who is manifestly guilty of the same offense -- or an even worse one, as her lies were carefully planned. That would be the logical fallacy of tu quoque, combined with the fallacy of ad hominem. She might have a point, even though she's a horrible person and a hypocrite.
And, indeed, she does have a point. Honor holds the world together. Truth is a force multiplier. Those things are true, whoever says them.
Credibility is the currency in rhetoric, and Rice could not be less credible than she is. However, there's more to life than rhetoric. Philosophically, it is improper to dismiss her simply because she is a hypocrite who is manifestly guilty of the same offense -- or an even worse one, as her lies were carefully planned. That would be the logical fallacy of tu quoque, combined with the fallacy of ad hominem. She might have a point, even though she's a horrible person and a hypocrite.
And, indeed, she does have a point. Honor holds the world together. Truth is a force multiplier. Those things are true, whoever says them.
More Cultural Appropriation
I think they may be appropriating us, actually, but whatever. Maybe that's all to the good.
If you don't know the artist, she went on to be somebody. Cultural appropriation was a big part of that.
If you don't know the artist, she went on to be somebody. Cultural appropriation was a big part of that.
What Originalism Puts at Risk
CNN published this, so I assume they must think it's plausible.
I figured it would say things like, "It could force the transfer of Social Security and Medicare to the states, as there is no obvious Constitutional warrant for the Federal government to run things like that." Or "Great Society Programs." Or "the EPA, already under threat from the Trump administration."
What it says instead is that originalism is about taking rights away from minority groups. That's either a complete misunderstanding of what the philosophy is about, or else it's a willful slander of the first order. The rights of minority groups are protected by explicit Constitutional language. Insisting on the original understanding of, say, the 14th Amendment is a way of preventing rights from getting watered down.
So too with originalism pointed toward the Bill of Rights. The way that rights get washed away is very often by sliding words into new meanings. Originalism is a stronghold against that move: it insists that, if you want to strip away the right, you have to actually go through the Article V process. Nothing else but that process will do, ensuring that decisions to alter basic rights must enjoy very broad public support.
My guess is that the misunderstanding -- if it is that -- is created by the reality that the original Founders didn't trust everyone equally, especially with what we have come to call "voting rights." However, that misses the point: the Founders didn't consider voting to be a right in the same way that free exercise of religion or free speech was a right. They thought that citizenship was a kind of office. Like any office, it should be filled only by people who have shown they are qualified for it. That's why they imposed things like property tests, which demonstrated 'skin in the game' as well as a kind of practical economic independence. The last was important because they doubted that those who were wholly dependent on someone else could really reason independently of that interest, which meant that giving votes to servants (say) would really mean giving extra votes to the landlord.
Originalism does not threaten to restore that idea of citizenship, because the concept of voting rights was created through explicit Constitutional actions such as the ratification of the 15th Amendment. An originalist couldn't rule in favor of a return to the earlier conception of citizenship even if he or she thought it was a better idea, just because of their commitment to originalism.
This should be better understood. Originalism is the only mode of interpretation that should be supported in a candidate for the Supreme Court. Otherwise, the court exists not to apply the laws chosen by the People in accordance with the Constitution, but to make new laws and alter the Constitution. That is no proper role for the Supreme Court, not even when they vote unanimously.
I figured it would say things like, "It could force the transfer of Social Security and Medicare to the states, as there is no obvious Constitutional warrant for the Federal government to run things like that." Or "Great Society Programs." Or "the EPA, already under threat from the Trump administration."
What it says instead is that originalism is about taking rights away from minority groups. That's either a complete misunderstanding of what the philosophy is about, or else it's a willful slander of the first order. The rights of minority groups are protected by explicit Constitutional language. Insisting on the original understanding of, say, the 14th Amendment is a way of preventing rights from getting watered down.
So too with originalism pointed toward the Bill of Rights. The way that rights get washed away is very often by sliding words into new meanings. Originalism is a stronghold against that move: it insists that, if you want to strip away the right, you have to actually go through the Article V process. Nothing else but that process will do, ensuring that decisions to alter basic rights must enjoy very broad public support.
My guess is that the misunderstanding -- if it is that -- is created by the reality that the original Founders didn't trust everyone equally, especially with what we have come to call "voting rights." However, that misses the point: the Founders didn't consider voting to be a right in the same way that free exercise of religion or free speech was a right. They thought that citizenship was a kind of office. Like any office, it should be filled only by people who have shown they are qualified for it. That's why they imposed things like property tests, which demonstrated 'skin in the game' as well as a kind of practical economic independence. The last was important because they doubted that those who were wholly dependent on someone else could really reason independently of that interest, which meant that giving votes to servants (say) would really mean giving extra votes to the landlord.
Originalism does not threaten to restore that idea of citizenship, because the concept of voting rights was created through explicit Constitutional actions such as the ratification of the 15th Amendment. An originalist couldn't rule in favor of a return to the earlier conception of citizenship even if he or she thought it was a better idea, just because of their commitment to originalism.
This should be better understood. Originalism is the only mode of interpretation that should be supported in a candidate for the Supreme Court. Otherwise, the court exists not to apply the laws chosen by the People in accordance with the Constitution, but to make new laws and alter the Constitution. That is no proper role for the Supreme Court, not even when they vote unanimously.
"The Coding of 'White Trash' in Academia"
A lady named Holly Genovese has some thoughts.
I bought The Professor Is In by Karen Kelsky, a terrifying book full of blunt (and much needed) advice about navigating the academic job market. While the author gives outspoken advice about the struggles of the job market, particularly for women, she also implicitly argues for the importance of hiding one’s class. She wrote about clothing and makeup and speaking patterns in women. Around the time I read this book, I realized that I, for a lack of a better term, code “white trash.” I have bad teeth, frequently say “ya’ll” and “how come,” and have a habit of running around South Philadelphia in a Dale Earnhardt Jr. t-shirt. It is one thing to have your hometown judged by your peers, but it is quite another to realize that qualities you possess, habits born of a lifetime that you don’t even realize you have, make you read as unqualified or unfit for your chosen profession.
But you can’t go home either, as they say. The more formal education I acquired, the larger the gap between my family and I became.
Enforcing Standards
Two different right-wing media personalities got suspended tonight, one for backing up the President's claims of a wiretap, and one for a philosophical difference that is widely shared by millions of Americans -- even some conservatives.
Both suspensions are defensible, even though they are in another sense completely opposed. One is backing his side in apparent absence of facts; the other is differing from her side, in a place where complete facts would be inadequate even in principle. Moral reason doesn't turn only on facts, after all: tell a computer all the facts about a case, but give it no moral rules, and it might not even understand that you were asking it a question. It certainly would not have any method for coming to a reasonable answer.
It is good for organizations to enforce standards, as it is good for people to uphold ideals. Which one of these seems best to you? Does either seem wrong? Can you say why?
Both suspensions are defensible, even though they are in another sense completely opposed. One is backing his side in apparent absence of facts; the other is differing from her side, in a place where complete facts would be inadequate even in principle. Moral reason doesn't turn only on facts, after all: tell a computer all the facts about a case, but give it no moral rules, and it might not even understand that you were asking it a question. It certainly would not have any method for coming to a reasonable answer.
It is good for organizations to enforce standards, as it is good for people to uphold ideals. Which one of these seems best to you? Does either seem wrong? Can you say why?
The Comey/Rogers Hearing
The headlines I'm seeing everywhere: "FBI confirms Trump campaign being investigated for Russia ties! Trump's wiretapping lies refuted!"
The actual news, as far as I can see, is that the FBI confirmed an investigation into something by someone having something to do with Russia, but refused to comment.
Then, the FBI and the NSA chiefs both confirmed that a number of serious felonies had definitely been committed.
So, in the Russia matter, it may yet prove that someone connected in some way to Team Trump did something wrong. However, it is definitely the case that at least one person in high position committed serious felonies -- and the list of people to investigate is not all that long. Most of them were ranking political appointees in the previous administration.
This is the point at which a smart, thoughtful opposition would ask itself, "Do we really want to have this fight, or might we quietly reach an accommodation that would let all this slide into the rear view mirror?"
I doubt that is what is going to happen here.
The actual news, as far as I can see, is that the FBI confirmed an investigation into something by someone having something to do with Russia, but refused to comment.
Then, the FBI and the NSA chiefs both confirmed that a number of serious felonies had definitely been committed.
NUNES: Would an unauthorized disclosure of FISA-derived information to the press violate 18 USC 798, a section of the Espionage Act that criminalizes the disclosure of information concerning the communication and intelligence activities of the United States?Gowdy's second line of questioning, which is too long to excerpt, went through a list of candidates for the honor of having committed that felony.
COMEY: Yes[.]
...
COMEY: All FISA applications review by the court collection by us pursuant to our FISA authority is classified.
GOWDY: The dissemination of which is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison?
COMEY: Sure, dissemination -- unauthorized dissemination.
GOWDY: Unauthorized dissemination of classified or otherwise legally protected material punishable by a felony up to 10 years in federal prison.
COMEY: Yes. Yes, as it should be.
So, in the Russia matter, it may yet prove that someone connected in some way to Team Trump did something wrong. However, it is definitely the case that at least one person in high position committed serious felonies -- and the list of people to investigate is not all that long. Most of them were ranking political appointees in the previous administration.
This is the point at which a smart, thoughtful opposition would ask itself, "Do we really want to have this fight, or might we quietly reach an accommodation that would let all this slide into the rear view mirror?"
I doubt that is what is going to happen here.
Sauflied
A sauflied is a drinking song, in the same way that the Nibelungenlied is the song of the Nibelungs.
DB: HVT Disappointed to be Raided by Rangers Instead of SEALs
Aminullah, who has countless books and films on the elite naval special operations forces, says being raided by a bunch of guys he had never heard of was a big let down....
"It's b******t. SEALs raided my brother's and cousin's houses just last month," he said. "They're probably gonna write books about that.... And seriously, my mother could graduate from Ranger School with a cloth over her eyes — which there is at all times — because she would be beaten otherwise."
RIP Chuck Berry
I'm sure in the long series of musical deaths of 2016, you probably saw this image:
This time, there's a genuine violent connection.
Chuck Berry was one of the greats, though, as Richards himself says at some length in the clip as a whole. We were lucky to know his work.
This time, there's a genuine violent connection.
Chuck Berry was one of the greats, though, as Richards himself says at some length in the clip as a whole. We were lucky to know his work.
A Lack of Faith
Yours is disturbing.
That's how you got Trump in the first place. Congress wouldn't step up and do anything to stop this stuff, so people on the right picked someone who seemed unconstrained by norms of civility or honor.
A failure of respect for the institution of the President will be followed, almost immediately, by a failure of respect for the office of judge. Those positions cannot function without respect, except through the raw exercise of power. And power, frankly, doesn't get you all that far. It's a very big country to try to rule by force.
The lengthy recitations of large numbers of perfectly objectionable presidential statements about Muslims coexist with a bunch of other textual indicia showing not merely that the judges doubt Trump’s secular purpose but that they doubt the good faith of his purpose at all—indeed, that they suspect that he is simply lying about his own motivations....Left-leaning judges now feel about the President the way that conservatives did after Lois Lerner, in other words: we no longer trusted a word of their explanations about their conduct, but believed our eyes about what their real intent and purpose was. One of the reason that the email scandal dogged Clinton so much was that the IRS has already burned the bridges of public trust on mysteriously-vanishing email records, inexplicable failures to back up servers as required by both law and contract, and an administration-led legal process that somehow just never found anyone accountable even when it couldn't avoid admitting that something had been done wrong.Imagine a world in which other actors have no expectation of civic virtue from the President and thus no concept of deference to him. Imagine a world in which the words of the President are not presumed to carry any weight. Imagine a world in which far more judicial review of presidential conduct is de novo, and in which the executive has to find highly coercive means of enforcing message discipline on its staff because it can’t depend on loyalty. That’s a very different presidency than the one we have come to expect.
It’s actually a presidency without the principle that we separate the man from the office. It’s a presidency in which we owe nothing to the office institutionally and make individual decisions about how to interact with it based on how much we trust, like, or hate its occupant.
That's how you got Trump in the first place. Congress wouldn't step up and do anything to stop this stuff, so people on the right picked someone who seemed unconstrained by norms of civility or honor.
A failure of respect for the institution of the President will be followed, almost immediately, by a failure of respect for the office of judge. Those positions cannot function without respect, except through the raw exercise of power. And power, frankly, doesn't get you all that far. It's a very big country to try to rule by force.
Friday night MMV
Stumbled across this; not a bad use of the song. I didn't see the movie, but I probably don't need to now.
A St. Patrick's Day Roundup
From the Hall's 2012 archive, here is a list of several good Irish tunes appropriate for the holiday.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)