Scene Elsewhere

by Cliopatria

Henry Farrell,"The Coffeehouse Mob," Crooked Timber, 16 August, pursues the parallel between blogs and London coffeehouses in the 18th century.

"Are we at war with ‘Islamic fascism'?" asks a National Review symposium. If"they" are"Islamic fascists," who are"we"? The Judeo-Christian Bund? Probably not, because we have important Muslim allies. Since it has nothing to do with either Islam or fascism in any meaningful sense of the word, the answer to National Review's question would be a simple"No", wouldn't it? But if you insist on calling it that, you can excuse endless misplaced adventures and that is the point, isn't it?

Here is the opinion of U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor that found the National Security Administration's warrantless wiretapping program unconstitutional. It"violates the separation of powers doctrine, the Administrative Procedures Act, the First and Fourth amendments to the United States Constitution, the FISA and Title III," Judge Taylor wrote."It was never the intent of the framers to give the president such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights... There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution. So all 'inherent powers' must derive from that Constitution." Thanks to Kevin Murphy at Ghost in the Machine for the pointer, but see also: Adam Liptak,"Experts Fault Reasoning in Surveillance Decision," New York Times, 19 August.

Just so you know that our priorities are where they should be: a reader at Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo points out that the New York Times front page story on Judge Taylor's decision had 2 contributing reporters. Its front page story on the JonBenet Ramsey case had 13 contributing reporters. I'm trying to recall the name of any of the 550 other American children who were murdered in 1996.

Finally, thanks to Rob MacDougall, a commercial that tells the truth about consumerism; and, in case you missed it at the HuffingtonPost and Altercation, a Winger reads the New York Times.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Jonathan Dresner - 8/20/2006

Not really groundbreaking, but cultural historians use everything; it's what makes it fun.

I'm really talking about treating it like an art form. There's nothing unusual about art-for-hire: most of what we consider great Renaissance art was done that way (it was also, like commercials, mostly collaborative, collective efforts). There's precedents for "miniatures" as a distinct and powerful art form: the haiku and limerick, for text (and, in SF, the short-short).

William Redfern - 8/20/2006

That is interesting.

Certainly Bush pushed into gray territory, so he can't claim his actions are clearly legal, rather than not-so-clearly-illegal. What is interesting to me, however, is the common view among those who agree with the judge, that the opinion was deficient on many grounds. One need only consult Laurence Tribe's e-mail over at Jack Balkin's website.

The opinion has the appearance of having been tossed together quickly, with such gems as 'undisputedly' and 'short shift' pointing the way. Yet for all that, it stands a good chance of surviving appeal.

Adam Kotsko - 8/19/2006

For me, the most interesting aspect about the Times news analysis piece was that it primarily cited bloggers -- indicating that we've now entered into a kind of twilight zones where blogs cannibalize the newspapers and newspapers cannibalize the blogs.

Michael R. Davidson - 8/19/2006

. . .consideration of 'the commercial as a serious form and source', while not exactly blase, is certainly not ground-breaking either. My own course on History and Film last fall analyzed commericals alongside feature films, film trailers, music videos, and sitcoms, including South Park, perhaps the most important in the past decade.

Cheers,
Mike Davidson

Jonathan Dresner - 8/19/2006

That was fun, indeed. Very, very well done.

I wonder when the film historians, art historians and historians generally will tumble to the commercial as a serious form and source?

William Redfern - 8/19/2006

The New York Times editorial board labelled the decision "careful" and "thoroughly grounded", while the Washington Post editorial had it that the decision was "neither careful nor scholarly". Today's Times has an article titled "Experts Fault Reasoning in Surveillance Decision".

Let's just say there seems to be a difference of opinion. But most interesting is the judge's reference to the "intent of the framers". Not much of our current law could stand up to that test. Indeed, there is precious little in the record about the intent of the framers in circumscribing the powers of the Commander-in-Chief during wartime.

This would seem a very gray area all around.