Mendacious Happenings in the Mouse Hole

Life here in greater downtown Criglersville (pop. 27 humans, 49 dogs, 3 cats, 75 cows, and numerous unreported feral fauna), is distinctly different from other places I have holed up. Downright placid. Mountain stream right out the front door, "alps" in the background, green pastures up front, and ne'er an unkind word (at least, none heard, since the nearest neighbor is down the road a piece). The mailbox is a quarter mile away, the nearest road with a name or number 300 yards, and Wal-Mart a whole county distant.

Still, propane costs about the same as everywhere -- too much -- and electricity only a shade less. We don't have a local TV or radio station, and the internet comes to us at a slow trot. My neighbor, right over Gaar Mountain, was just elected to the County Board (after three tries) and he swears he's gonna do something about getting high-speed internet into every home in the county. Every chance I get, I tell him to forget the internet stuff, but him being a PC-freak, I guess he's the one wants it, so we're pretty much assured of getting it, whether we want it or not.

That's Criglersville economics in 200 words or less. A thriving community, hid away in the open.

Let me tell you about that election. My friend -- call him Bob (cause that's his name) -- had been soundly thrashed the two other times he ran, but this time, he managed to squeak to victory when the Chairman of the Board (himself!) was voted out. Seems that last May, while the county budget was being discussed (in closed session, wouldn't you know it), the lone black man on the board questioned the large raise that was being recommended for the County Administrator, something like 35%. That worthy lost his cool, stormed out of the meeting shouting aloud that no n____r (the "N" word) was going to beat him out of his raise. Okay. We've all lost it and said stupid things, but that wasn't what got the Chairman voted out. What did him in was the "cover-up." The news of this incident didn't get out to the public until late August, and only then because one of the clerks who heard the ill-advised comment (not a board member, not even the black guy that was insulted) reported it to some influential black ministers. One of them -- a small town version of Al Sharpton, with similar ambitions -- organized a big protest . . . and the rest is history. The Administrator finally resigned (on full pension) and the Chairman of the Board, who was blamed for the cover-up, was voted out. So . . . high-speed internet is on the way.

Mendacious Mouse, signing out from lovely downtown Criglersville.

[Incidentally, I lied about the internet stuff. But then what would you expect from a mendacious mouse.]

Historical Mendacity

The Destruction of Pompeii. An evil soothsayer was going about in the city claiming that God was upset by the heresies and sins of the people. This pissed God off, so he sent a volcano. Its explosion blew the sanctimonious preacher into the sky. No one knows now what the evil soothsayer was seeking at that altitude.

The Corruption of Alexander. The Macedonian cried out that he was deeply saddened that he had no more world's to conquer. God sympathized and sent the fair-haired boy to tame the devils in hell. He's still working at it.

The Visit of the Magi. Three wise guys out of the east heard there was a new roller coaster in Bethlehem. They were right.

Who Wrote the Plays of "Shakespeare"? It was either a man named Shakespeare or someone pretending to be a man named Shakespeare. On the other hand . . . .

Who Wrote "Das Kapital"? Karl Marx, with an assist from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

And the rest is history.

Mendacity?

The Mouse, in his human form, tends to be simpler. The Mouse is The Muse. He stands around outside of seriousness and pretends to know things. That's how he came to be called mendacious.

As I say though, the man is simpler. He eats, drinks, and stays warm. That's about it for hm.

But as simple as he is, he has a hard time -- like now -- knowing which is real, him or the Mouse. He gets clues. The man seldom feels lonely or distressed . . . or maybe that's the Mouse. One or the other of them reads simple sentences and hears deep meaning. He recalls the weathered boards of what seems like a wharf, or a pier, grey wood with huge nail heads, some ot them raised so far above the timbers, the Mouse -- or the man -- thought he would one day hammer the nails in tight so barefoot children would not stub their toes on them . . . but he never did. A catcher in the rye without commitment to his duty.

The Muse somtimes imagines or remembers things, always pleasant. The darker memories belong to the man. This confuses both of them. It seems that if the man is, as he says (or as the Mouse says for him), such a simple thing, and if he can complain of no lack of food or drink or warmth, why would he have such heavy thoughts?

I suppose an answer could be found in the confusion of who or what he is, the lightness of the Muse weighed down by the perplexities of need. The Mouse seldom takes his needs as other than givens. The man must produce their satisfaction. Maybe that's it.

And maybe he -- whoever he is -- could believe those words, if he knew which one of him had spoken.

Mouse Droppings

Having milked the economy for enough to survive on without being forced to dine on Corn Flakes more than twice a day (Jeez, who can afford Corn Flakes!), I feel free now to criticize fearlessly our great capitalist system (while avoiding split infinitives). The urge to gripe mightily was imspired by the reply one of The Nation's writers made to a couple of letter writers in the mag's most recent issue.

Seems a gal by the name of Daphne Eviatar (wonderful surname for a female Baldwin County crop duster, eh) had writ a piece criticizing those two great avatars of capitalist theory, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund for their rape of Bolivia and other "developing" countries. Her article had drawn fire from an ex-high-official of the rapist organiztions and another "well qualified" complainer. She fired back with a predictably effective defense, but the final paragraph of her salvo bombed the daylights out of "progressive" China with the same petard by which she had hoist the rapine minions of the West. "As for China, there's no doubt it will invest in Bolivia and across Latin America. But there's no reason to believe it will be any less agressive [she could have said "rapacious" with greater and more truthful effect] than Western corporations at trying to profit from Bolivia's natural resources."

When I read that paragraph I went into a trance that lasted most of the afternoon. I was awakened by the 6-point end the Canadian curling team threw against the Finns, only to discover that the realities of the economic world had not been changed by that miraculous score. Capitalists and "progressives" were just as greed-driven as before, and the critics employed by the freedom-loving press were still as prone to cast a pox-on-both-their-houses. The earth had revolved only another 67 1/2 degrees.

Nevertheless, I slept well through the ensuing night, and so far have managed to retain a loose grip on reality . . . one of the benefits of being independently ignorant of the invisible forces controlling the flow of wealth and happiness in this best of all possible worlds.

Woven Webs of Mendacity

An acquaintance, familiar with my circumstances, recently belched a verbal broadside against the mendacities of the "international conspiracy of pharmaceutical companies." I answered him pretty much as follows:

I disagree with you about the strangle-hold the pharmaceutical industry has on our lives. I know it's real but don't think it's quite so Satanic as you do. Some of the meds they invent do prolong our lives. I take four prescribed pills a day, and all four seem to be working, so far without evil side-effects. (That sound you just heard was me knocking on wood.) These four pills cost me about $2.75/day and Blue Cross/Blue Shield four times that much. I pay BC/BS $265/month and the taxpayers match that. So, my overall cost for those pills is somewhat more than the amount immediately visible. (I never see the insurance premiums.) But as it stands, BC/BS will never get even with me and milady. The recent treatments she has received for lymphoma would have cost us about $55,000, most of that for the prescription drug the docs dosed her with. As it was, we spent about $2200. I haven't asked her lately -- didn't think I needed to -- if she thought the treatment was worth the price. It also seems to be working.

The problem, you see, is not with the pharmas. It's with the system we all seem to cherish, capitalism. I was thinking this morning as I was swallowing the generic BP med, quinaprill (which costs less than half the brand name counterpart), that the shenannigans the pharmas go through to try to re-patent their best sellers, is exactly the sort of thing you would expect any sane capitalist to be doing -- use every twist of the law to maximize profit.

Same goes for the moaning and groaning we're hearing about Wal-Mart. Again, those guys are good. They know exactly how to operate a retail business, and they do so within the limits of the laws of the land.

Same goes for those companies exporting jobs overseas. Anyone who passed freshman economics (and half of those who failed) would understand that everything happening in that arena is absolutely predictable by basic capitalist theory. Labor, just like bananas, is a commodity, and when political barriers are removed, its price will seek a level, and given the vast supplies of talented labor in the far east, the price is bound to be lower.

I'm told, also, that this business with the UAE running our ports is not about security at all. It's about fair trade. If the U. S. puts up a barrier for security reasons, the free traders claim, the precedent set by the barrier will inhibit the corporations' ability to exploit foreign markets and labor pools just as effectively as tarriff laws. (Think China market.)

So, don't whine about the price of goods. If you want to complain, aim your barbs at the right level . . . the system itself. As I recall, you claim to have voted for the bought-and-paid-for George W. Bush. Reap what you've sown. Did you notice that Bush threatens to veto any attempt by the Congress to stop the UAE ports contract? The only way to undestand that threat is to recognize that in the mind of your so-called "security-conscious" president, security is not the highest priority. That place is reserved for corporate interests.

A Not So Mendacious Comment

I wandered over to the Fairhope Lady's blog and read her praise for the movie, "The Constant Gardner." I liked the movie, too, but (as they say) the book was better.

There was, however, in the movie, a brief scene which, so far as I can recall, was not in the book, and the worse for its absence. While his wife and her confederate were mumbling on the porch, Quayle, the constant and expert gardner, was in the yard instructing his "yard boy" on the mixing and use of poisons to control unwanted growths in the garden. The parallel between the drug companies' poisoning of hapless Africans so that the valued races could flourish, was just too neatly arranged for me to accept that the writers did not mean the scene to have exactly that intent.

On the other hand, the film deleted Quayle's adventures in Canada and Elba, no doubt for budgetary reasons. That sacrifice detracted a bit from author Le Carre's grand design, to demonstrate that the pharmaceutical industry's conspiracy is of worldwide proportions, and their eyes and ears everywhere.

Nevertheless, as the lady says, it's a good film, worth the price. Rachael Weisz steals the show and rightfully deserves the Oscar nomination she obtained for her performance.

Mendacious Translations

I’ve often wondered why the translators who produced the King James Bible chose, in the 13th chapter of First Corinthians, to translate the Greek word agape as “charity.” Agape clearly does not mean “alms-giving,” but rather refers to love in a deeper and wider sense, what the Greeks would have felt for their city-state, its people, and its Gods. Perhaps the translators were afraid the English word “love” would lead us to believe the Apostle was speaking of eros, another word the Greeks had for a similar emotion. That’s one of the problems with the English language: in order to get the proper meaning of some of its words you have to know and understand the context in which the words are used.

My main man, Spinoza, seems to have accepted that problem, even though he couldn’t speak English. He defined love as “. . . nothing else but pleasure accompanied by the idea of an external cause.” Without knowing the identity or nature of the external cause, we cannot claim to understand our love. We may experience pleasure – sometimes intense – in our recollections of childhood sweethearts, and may make the mistake of believing that the source of our joy is the memory itself. But memories are not of other memories, but are of real people who, for one reason or another, we connect with our present joy. We’re prone to think of these memories – these experiences of remembered joy – as mere nostalgia. And so they are, but we should not necessarily take that word as anything other than a vehicle for casting our joy in a particular frame of time. The quality of our experience is not diminished by time, except insofar as we are led by reality to regard the source of our joy as remote and unapproachable. Nostalgia, therefore, unfolds partially as an emotion of sorrow. The context within which our joyful memories occur, happens also to include a measure of impossibility. Hence, we’re joyful and sorrowful at the same time.

The context within which the Apostle was writing contained nothing of that sort of confusion. He was speaking of his love for God, and left no doubt that he regarded his God as an eternal, here-and-now presence. He was completely absorbed in the love of God, absolutely unable (and unwilling) to escape the compulsions of his love.

If it weren’t that Paul and Spinoza lived centuries apart, I might believe they had exchanged notes, but as it is, I’ll just stay with the idea that they both fell in love with their own conception of God, and just happened to both be very intense in their devotion. I don’t think either of them would object to that characterization.

Outside the Mendacious Box

I had a conversation this morning with my step-son the gourmet chef. As usually happens when we get together, the talk got around to "deep and meaningful issues." After a few warmup tosses he proceeded to tell me how it is that we can never know anything to be the absolute truth. He amassed five minutes worth of twice-told tales to make the matter certain. (Forget the paradox.)

I pretty much agreed with him (and the philosopher, Ludwig Wittgenstein, who sealed tight the door that will never open on the ultimate truth). But Ludwig was at least honest enough to admit: "If my philosophy is true, it is certainly false." You may recognize the form of his confession as a variation on the famous paradox . . .

1. Statement 2 is true.

2. Statement 1 is false.

The way out of the paradox is a long story, so I'll have to save it for another day. (Think, or visualize, almost any M. C. Escher drawing.) But the way around Wittgenstein that I laid on the gourmet chef this morning made so much sense I thought it worth taking the effort to blog.

I asked him: "All other considerations aside, do you think your life is important to you?" He thought for a long moment, probably thinking I was setting some sort of Wittgensteinian trap. (I wasn't.) He finally answered truthfully.

"Yes, to me my life is important."

Any sane person would have said the same thing. Then I asked him to broaden his view a trifle. "Do you think that we, you and I, thinking of ourselves as one group, would consider the life of our group important?"

That question took a bit of clarifying. "I mean, if you and I, laying all other matters aside, were to think of ourselves as a group, would we think that the life of our group would be important?"

He answerd quickly. "Yes."

I didn't have to add much more. The hard work had already been done. He saw immediately that if I continued expanding the size of the group, it would eventually include all human beings, and if that group were sane, it would answer as my step-son had, "Yes, the life of the human species is important to it."

From that "species-specific truth" the ultimacy of the truth becomes less important than its practicalities. It may or may not be true that what is good for the human species is the ultimate good, but it is true that humans should conduct their lives as if they had answered "Yes" to the important question. Once we work our way through the implications of that confined definition of "the truth," Wittgenstein's paradox takes on the meaning Ludwig must have held in his mind (but failed to record on paper): "If my philosophy is true, it is true only for human beings."

But then, what but a human philosophy is possible for human beings . . . ?

We can call this one, "Humanism in a nutshell."

But we crack the shell, and the smartass Mouse inside asks us to add the earth itself to our group . . . .

This truth doesn't make the life of the human group a whole lot easier, but it does help us to lay aside certain "deep and meaningful issues."

Murderous Mendacity

We justify war on the basis of what we perceive as “injustice beyond the ordinary.” Sometimes we’re right. Given its result, we can justify the American Civil War, though the abolition of slavery was not that war’s original intent. And even though we were not fully aware of Nazi Germany’s atrocities when we decided to enter the Second Great War, if we had known of them we should have been compelled to take up arms. Others of our wars were not so justifiable as those, and if we had known the truth of the reasons behind them, we should not have become involved.

Perhaps, though, we ask the impossible if we demand that all the people should be informed of all the facts before deciding significant issues. We are after all a republic in which elected representatives make decisions of the war-or-peace sort for us. Most of us have neither the time nor the intellect to devote to an assessment of the relevant issues. But even if time were afforded us, and even if all of us were reasonably educated concerning foreign affairs, our ability to determine the truth of the matter would still be impaired by the fact that we are often compelled by unconscious forces to believe the lie and doubt the truth. Difficulties far greater than those facing Pavlov’s dog face those whose “bells” are not mere bells but are plausible theories indelibly imprinted upon their minds. We love our freedom, and would be willing to die for it, but let the word “freedom” be attached to broad expanses of our neuronal territory, let it be emotionally interleaved with all our conceptions – not merely the most fundamental – and we will find ourselves dying for causes that have little or nothing to do with actual freedom, ours or anyone else’s.

When, for example, the word is repeated to us like a meditator’s mantra to justify the ambitions of deluded politicians, it is only by an almost superhuman effort that we ask whether an Iraqi would, to obtain his freedom, be willing to be killed by a foreigner who may be driven as much by a need for the approbation of his constituents (or contributors) as by a genuine care for the Iraqi, his wife, their sisters, brothers, and children – those the foreigner must slaughter in order to obtain the Iraqi’s freedom for him. And even if we were to ask ourselves that question, perhaps the word “freedom” will have been so positively charged by our own history, that we would answer for the Iraqi – who had no say in the matter – that he would surely welcome death if only his heirs could be assured a portion of that blessed freedom. It would perhaps never occur to us to wonder if the word “freedom” means to the Iraqi what it means to us.

Absence of Mendacity

[Spinoza in a nutshell]

In this universe -- the one in which we are -- chaos is unimaginable. We can say the word, but because the body that speaks the word is itself an expression of the orderliness of God, chaos cannot be conceived as anything other than an imagination. The mind of God is that which explains the difference between chaos and cosmos. It is the logos.

The "creator" (that is, God) is not a part of nature. Nature, as we know it and can know it, is a part of him. Natural processes do not happen by "direction." That would imply some sort of design. Nature unfolds by necessity. The appearances of "randomness" and "chaos" grow from our prejudices. We see that we, as finite beings, arrange matters with some end in mind. Those ends -- to the extent we arrange them reasonably well -- work to perpetuate us in being. But God, being infinite, need have no fear for his existence. Nothing that happens in nature can possibly threaten God's existence. Hence, God is inerrant.

Humans have a tough time accepting God's inerrancy. So much of what we experience in nature appears to be harmful to us (tsunamis, mudslides, smallpox, etc), we have invented a vengeful God and original sin and retribution and blood sacrifice and many other expressions of mumbo jumbo to explain away God's inerrancy. If we could simply grasp the fact that the universe was not created for our benefit, that it simply is what it is, the mumbo jumbo would all go away, and we could be about our lives without all the distractions . . . and (as Twain would say) "at much lighter expense."

The Collateral Damage of Mendacious Minds

Only minds deluded by righteous fiction can find validity in the war-induced words, "collateral damage." When I read those words, and when I feel myself tempted to see them as utterances of sane people, I think of San Diego and my grandchildren, and imagine that some "great man," seeking to kill a "major terrorist," has killed Alan and Dianne and their mother Dagny, my beautiful daughter. "Collateral damage" becomes up close and personal then, and -- well yes -- I lose my cool with the thought and blame innocent Christians for the acts of their fellow travellers. But truth be told, we are all responsible for the bastardizations of language and ideas that let such words as "collateral damage" creep into our conversation with reality.

Our minds operate holistically, hidden truths and falsehoods working subconsciously together to produce our view of the world. And out of that "fragmented, confused, and incomplete" view, we do what we do to ourselves and others . . . .

We call it "collateral damage." How else could we live with the horror?

Mendacious Weather

Two years ago I editorialized on the subject of global warming. I argued that by centering the debate on human causes we were missing the point almost completely. With the atmosphere heating up, and the effects almost certain to be catastrophic, it seemed to me that to sit around pointing fingers trying to assign blame ran the risk of arguing the threat away. The claim may or may not have been true that CO2 emissions from autos and factories were contributing to the problem, but the fact should never have been in doubt that the atmosphere was indeed warming up. If the case were finally made -- by clever manipulation of numbers or by legitimate deduction -- that human causes were insignificant, the victorious politicians might have made the mistake of believing they had solved the problem.

Hmmm. Maybe they've already made that mistake. Just this morning I read that the glaciers of Greenland are melting twice as fast as was originally believed. This will dump trillions of gallons of fresh, cold water into the Atlantic conveyor that carries the warm waters of the Gulf Stream to northern Europe. The fresh water, less dense than the saltier ocean water, will be forced to the surface, the conveyor will submerge, and the people in the countries currently warmed by the Gulf Stream will freeze their asses off. (Did you know that Rome, Italy is farther north than Rome, New York?)

There must be a name for the logical error exemplified by the way we have "debated" the global warming issue. If we want to be fancy, we can call it the "error of the deflected cause," but by any name, it's the sort of error that produces consequences of the severest sort. Bundle up Queenie, cold weather is on the way.

Beyond Mendacity

The Sermon of the Mouse

Erudition comes in pieces, in the form of facts, theories, and formulas. Education comes whole out the total experience of living. We are not what we have been formally taught, rather what we have learned from the whole of the world.

And it is not simply a matter of "nature or nurture." Those two are the same. Our societies nurture us, but they do so by the means their nature affords them. If some of us are born ill-equipped to function so-called "normally" in the world, what difference would that make if the world into which we are born were a nurturing place.

The great moralists teach us, but they do not make us. The great religions may save us from "certain kinds of fear," but they cannot save us from the comforting forces of hypocrisy.

But then . . .

How is it that we encounter the occasional saint? How is it that men like Ghandi come to be born into a world like the world that eventually killed him? How is it that so much goodness emerges in a world constantly at war?

Perhaps the answer lies in private places of the soul. Perhaps as the poet Rilke suggested, not exactly in these words, there is in all wild things the shadow of goodness. That's hard to believe, but how else explain the miracles.

The cynic in me says the shadow Rilke sensed was only his personal pain seeking relief in a wish.

But so what, my nobler angels cry, the wish is the father of the dream, and the dream the mother of a new beginning.

We dream, therefore we are.

When Mendacity Fails

Sometime in 2001 a New Jersey school teacher wrote the letter republished below. He tells me that he received no answer. I suspect -- and my NJ friend can confirm this if he wishes -- that the reason the dark future he predicted for the public school system has not come to pass as a result of "No Child Left Behind," is because the program has been essentially disregarded by local and state school boards.

The letter is a bit long but I'm going to print it all. It's seldom that we outsiders get to hear something genuine from a person who knows what he's talking about.

The Letter

Dear Governor McGreevey,

I am writing to you regarding the ESEA or “No Child Left Behind Act” of 2001. My hope is that this letter, rather than reviewing technical aspects and problems with this legislation, will convey to you the personal sense of frustration and dismay that I and an overwhelming majority of my colleagues are feeling. Through this bill the credentials and professional character of veteran and rookie teachers in the public school systems of America are being called into question. Through this bill the public’s faith in the public education system in America and its faith in the teachers who have dedicated their lives to serving the children in this system will be shaken to the breaking point. Although, I have heard that the ESEA was enacted to ensure that “no child is left behind” in the academic arena, from what I’ve seen all it will accomplish is the discreditation and eventual dismantling of America’s public system of education. It is certain that there are problems within the system, just as there are problems in the very fabric of American culture, but the root of these problems is not the system itself; the root of these problems stems from the society that this system serves. The ESEA in its current form will do nothing to alleviate the problems that American public schools are facing; it will only cause unnecessary confusion and government-manufactured dissatisfaction, leading to an even weaker system of public education.

It was towards the end of last school year when we started hearing rumblings about a set of new criteria aimed at identifying “highly qualified teachers.” Inquiries into what this criterion would be and what the new standards meant for teachers and their students were met with vague and confusing answers. It seemed at that time that no one really knew what was going to happen. The school year ended with many teachers feeling uneasy about their careers and their futures in education. Upon our return in September answers were forthcoming; we were given forms and paper work to fill out. The New Jersey House Rules require a teacher to accumulate 10 points in order to be “highly qualified” under this new standard. Despite the fact that the law says we have until 2006 to become “highly qualified,” we’ve been given until November [2001] to gather any information that will validate the claim that we are qualified to do the jobs that we went to school for; the jobs that universities, colleges, and testing agencies have said we are qualified to perform, the vocations that our employers have observed us in and seen fit year after year to deem us highly qualified. If we can not validate our “qualification” by November letters will be sent to our students and their parents informing them that we are “not highly qualified” in our field. Beyond the obvious professional embarrassment that these letters will produce, students will be allowed to transfer out of classes or leave schools in search of a “highly qualified teacher.”

On the surface it would seem that every teacher should be able to prove his or her qualifications without much effort. The problem in many cases, however, is in the way we were trained and certified for our positions. An example of what I am referring to is the teacher who received a K to Eight certification and is teaching English at a middle school. That teacher may have been very successful over the course of his tenure as a middle school teacher, but because he did not specialize in the content area he is currently teaching he may not be deemed “highly qualified.” Another example is the Special Education teacher who in New Jersey was certified as a Teacher of the Handicapped, K to 12. This teacher may have successfully taught every basic subject that is offered over a period of several years. However, if she is currently teaching Science she may lack the course work in that content area to prove that she is “highly qualified” to teach Science. The new guidelines severely limit a school’s ability to place the teacher in the area where he or she is most needed regardless of the fact that the teacher is quite capable and proficient in the subject at the level he or she is needed. The bottom line is that as we trained to become teachers we did what we were told to do. We took the courses we were told to take, we earned the GPA we were required to earn, we participated in the field work we needed to participate in, we took the tests we were asked to take, and we obtained the certifications we were required to obtain; in short we played by the rules established by the governing bodies overseeing public education in our states, but suddenly the rules have changed.

It is a given that teachers need to be highly qualified and proficient in the areas that they teach; and it is a given that education is one of the most important jobs undertaken in our society. It is not a given, however, that these new mandates will improve the level of public education in our country. Improving public education goes beyond the task of requiring teachers to fill out paper work or complete courses. Improving public education requires the hard work of establishing programs that are viable and vital to preparing our students to become productive citizens. Improving public education requires the hard work of raising money and finding funding sources to implement programs that will give our students hope. Improving public education requires that we come to grips with the reality that different students have different strengths and weaknesses, that we need to enhance and celebrate more than one set of skills. Most importantly, improving public education requires the fortitude to return authority to schools so that they can maintain order, deal with students who pose a consistent discipline problem, and ensure that all of our schools are safe for both adults and the children.

As loyal citizens, my colleagues and I acknowledge the right of the legislative branch of the United States Government to pass and enact laws. We will comply with this law and continue to work to provide our students with the highest quality education possible. But the fundamental unfairness of the law leaves a sour taste in the mouth. According to the law we have until 2006 to become “highly qualified,” but that same law is requiring that we identify those of us who don’t meet the new standard as “not highly qualified” in November of this year. Imagine the level of confusion that will be generated when a student’s parent gets a letter stating that his or her teacher is “not highly qualified.” According to the law, students may transfer out of schools that do not meet the new standard. According to the law these students can transfer to private institutions, but [Note this well] the law does not require these institutions or their teachers to prove their qualifications the way that a public educator is being asked to prove his or her qualifications. Please understand that I honor the hard work and dedication of my fellow teachers in private institutions, but the assumption that all private institutions are better than all public schools is presumptuous and not grounded in the reality of the different rules each of us are operating under. These rules, by the way, were not created by “the powerful teacher’s unions,” but by lawmakers and administrative law judges.

Furthermore, these rules do not provide a level playing field when comparing public to private schools. How many public schools have an admissions test? How many public schools can dismiss a student for not reaching an academic standard, or for not adhering to a disciplinary code? The answer, of course is none. Yet, some in our government seek to dismantle our public schools and enact voucher systems through the back door created by the ESEA. Sadly, the back door voucher system will become a revolving door for students who do not meet the standard set by the private institutions; because unless the private institutions change their standard, as we have been required to do, they will not be able to accommodate our most challenged and most challenging students.

Governor McGreevey, it is my understanding that the Departments of Education in individual states can stay the publication of “highly qualified” letters until 2006. In light of all of these revelations my request is that you move to ensure that if this law is to be enacted in its present form that it be enacted as fairly as possible. I ask that you move to see that any institution receiving public money be required to prove that they employ “highly qualified” teachers in the same way that public schools are required to do so. I urge you to direct the New Jersey Department of Education to stay publication of letters identifying teachers as “not highly qualified” from going to our students and their families until 2006, which is the length of time we have been given to become “highly qualified.” Failure to stay these letters will result in the useless expenditure of thousands of dollars in correspondence costs, and untold confusion among students and parents. Implementation of this law in its present form will do nothing to improve the quality of public education in our state. My fear is that if something is not done to assure my request 2006 may be too late for public education in the United States of America.

Sincerely,

A Teacher of the Handicapped

Hilltop Mendacity

On the 25th of August last year I sent the letter copied below to Senator John Warner, one of the two who represent me in the major chamber on the hilltop. A month later I sent essentially the same letter to Congressman Eric Cantor. (I had waked up to the fact that impeachment proceedings must begin in the House.) I received no reply from the Senator, but just yesterday received one from Cantor. He thanked me for "my support," and proceeded to list off the "achievements" of the Bush administration. I suppose if the matter weren't so serious, I would have laughed aloud, but . . .

The Letter

I feel reasonably certain that you and I have reached the same conclusions about the Bush administration's wrong-headed policies, but since our understandings may differ in a few details, I will summarize mine.

1) Influenced by the so-called "neo-cons," George W. Bush has adopted a unilateralist policy designed to impose America's will upon the world. ("America's will" in this ambition may or may not be the same as the will of the American people.)

2) Driven by a mistaken understanding of freemarket capitalism, George W. Bush has implemented -- with the help of a politically motivated Congress -- a fascist economic policy, more accurately, a corporatist policy similar to the policies implemented by Mussolini in the 30s.

3) Seeking political advantage, George W. Bush has managed to conflate the aims of the Christian religion with those of corporatist America, corrupting both the religion and the nation's business leaders.

4) To further his policies, George W. Bush has manipulated the consciences of the American people, by lavish appeals to their fears, by distortions of fact, and by control and manipulation of the public media.

These policies and techniques have been implemented with reckless disregard for the sensitivities of the American people and the rest of the world. The expressions of discontent here at home have been somewhat muted (thankfully) by the successes of the administration's propaganda machine. But the appeals to patriotism and religion that work well here are useless overseas, with the effect that anti-American sentiment is at its highest level since the founding of our nation. In the eyes of the world, the hope once represented by the American ideal of a nation governed by the will of the people has been transformed into a hideous ogre.

And not without good cause. There was a time when we could honestly deny the perception of America as an empire-seeker. Today those perceptions are grounded in reality. The published ambition of the neo-cons is real. The blood of the Iraqi people is real. The rubble in the streets of Baghdad is real. To the major part of the world, George W. Bush's America is a monster.

George W. Bush's policies have magnetized the world's discontented hoards. And rather than find expression in the relatively harmless threats posed by al Queda and similar terrorist groups, the angered nations are coalescing around an emerging alliance of the eastern powers. China and India are joining forces. Russia and China are coming to terms. The so-called "third world" is now falling in line with the new "allies," not by a domino effect toward a false ideology, but by a genuine fear of the United States of America.

If the threat posed by the coalition of the eastern world materializes -- and it seems that it will -- the policies of George W. Bush's administration will have sealed the end of America, not only as a super power but as a prosperous nation. The "decline of the west" will end in the death of the American dream.

In my opinion, only dramatic action by conscientious Americans can alter the course, and I think of you as one of them. The present administration must be impeached, and not only impeached, but brought to justice. We must demonstrate to the world that the policies of the present administration were an aberration, that George W. Bush and his neo-con advisors never represented America's ideals, and that a new course has been set, not for a "new American century," but for a new world grounded in the ideals upon which this nation was founded.

I realize that I am asking a lot of a Republican to impeach his party's leader, but when you think about it, no other way is open. In fact, if the movement comes from within the party, it will seem at least to some of the world's leaders that we are sincere in our undertaking . . . as indeed we must be.

I wish you God speed and good fortune.

Sincerely,


Frank Dixon

The Secret (and Mendacious) Life of Numbers

In a horse race, the moment of uncertainty lasts for what, in comparison to the time-length of a photon, is a very, very long time. It starts when the gate opens and does not end until the OFFICIAL sign flashes. The race forms a boundary between the past performances and the OFFICIAL result, but the time-space of the race is much too broad to be regarded as a discrete divider. It has a beginning, a middle, and an end, each of which is similarly divided.

Until the moving hand of causality enters the running of the race, the gambler can only guess the physical condition of the horses. Before the gate opens, the strategic planning of the trainers and jockeys remains a mystery (for everyone but them), and until that moment, the order in which the horses will break from the gate has been only estimated from the riding styles of the jockeys and the past performances of the horses. What racing writers euphemistically call "racing luck" did not, before that moment, occupy much more than a dark corner of the handicapper's most inward fear.

After the gate opens, mere estimates and deep-seated fears give way to concrete happenings. The race defines reality. In doing so, it neither obeys nor breaks rules. It does not respond to, but actually is, the physical and psychological forces at work in its here-and-now space and time. It wouldn't matter if the system used to predict the winner worked for 100 per cent of the races. Not the system but the conditions outside the opened gate determine the winner.

Life's a bitch.

Mendacious Intellectuals

[The following is an excerpt from a recent book writ by the mouse. MM criticizes the conclusions reached by Francis Fukuyama in his erstwhile best seller, "The End of History and the Last Man." The critique has since taken on greater importance. Fukuyama's belief that so-called "liberal democracy" constitutes the literal end of history, misses the point . . . as the excerpt from MM's critique perhaps makes clear. It's not "democracy" that is the ideal, but civilized behavior. Madison and other framers recognized that atrocities could just as easily be committed by democratic majorities as by dictatorial tyrants. But the idea that democracy is the end of history, and that what democracies do with their bombs is of no concern, does seem to play well in Paducah.]

Dr. Fukuyama suggests, in the opus cited, that history has come to an end. To understand what he means by this, one must first see that by “history” Fukuyama does not mean the record of “events, even large and grave events.” He means “a single, coherent, evolutionary process” as reflected in “the experience of all people in all times.” If that quoted description of what he means still leaves you wondering what he means, let me put it this way: he means the word “history” in a narrower sense than most people usually think of it; he means that history’s unfolding has revealed (to him) an inexorable upward evolution, with governments grounded in liberal, democratic principles gradually replacing governments grounded in slavery, feudalism, and dictatorial rule. He’s referring to a Great Spirit, an Hegelian invention that’s presumed to be moving history onward and upward, and because Fukuyama regards liberal democracy as a flawless model (at least in its fundamentals), he claims the Great Spirit has finally succeeded, and that liberal democracy will endure forever. Hence, The End of History....

In taking the position that liberal democracy has finally arrived, and that it cannot be improved upon, Fukuyama may have begged the question. If presidents, governors, and prime ministers, acting on behalf of liberal, democratic governments, order and direct the commission of atrocities similar to those committed by feudal lords, slave owners, and dictators, Dr. Fukuyama would be compelled to argue that the fault lies not in the form of government but in the men themselves. And if it were pointed out to him that no form of government, by itself, will change men into angels, the fault again must lie, not with the government, but with the men. Finally, Fukuyama does not seem to have suspected that a government run by angels (or philosopher-kings) would produce marginally better results by less democratic methods. He was, thus, deprived of the opportunity to admit that healing the neuroses of liberal democracy’s leaders would create circumstances in which a government grounded in something other than liberal, democratic principles might operate more effectively. He has arbitrarily chosen to measure “progress” by simply referring to ideological changes. But if real history has had something to do with a diminution (or acceleration) of man’s inhumanity to man (for example) then measuring the frequency and severity of atrocious acts would be appropriate, and the form of government irrelevant.

. . .

But if the struggles of Hegelian “first men” were actually pissing contests between libido-driven madmen, what then would we say about the triumph of the so-called slave class? What if the real thread running through history has not been a struggle for recognition, but a striving of man’s existential freedom to discover and to live by the dictates of right living? If that has been the case, then in history’s approach toward an end point we would expect to see among the “last men” a gradually unfolding awareness of the illness of history’s “great men” and a diminishment of ignorance. We would expect to see the irrational search for recognition being replaced by an intensifying attempt to identify what is good for man and what is not.

[So far, the Mouse has seen no such trend . . . unless it be found in diatribes such as his own.]

Mendacious "Conspirators"

The recent news has led me to think a lot of sophomoric (and conspiratorial) thoughts about economics, especially about the basics, the four factors of production (as they are called), land, labor, capital, and entrepreneur. It’s said that every economy, be it socialist, capitalist, syndicalist, corporatist, or none of the above, must involve these factors. In some of those systems the factors don’t look like the ones we in capitalist countries have come to know and love. Socialist or communist central planners assign land its purpose and cause labor to work wherever the need seems most pressing. Every year the planners roll out a so-called five year plan and pass it off for the ambitions of an entrepreneur. They gather capital like manna from heaven (the way I do those “adjustments” I enter into my checkbook every month). The gains occasionally paid to the people by collectivist regimes depend on forces that closely resemble the dictatorial whims of those ancient Gods who habitually favored the physically powerful, while enslaving the rest. To history’s credit, arrangements of the overtly collectivist sort have fallen out of favor, being replaced by the competing conspiracies of the free market.

But don’t get me wrong. Those socialists and communists meant no harm. If their subjects wound up as serfs, that was no concern of the central planners. Their subjects were the ones with the problem, not them. The planners were just trying to make a living, and God knows, you can’t blame ‘em for trying..

Capitalist economies are only slightly different (or so major league conspiracy theorists would have us believe). The central planners in those setups don’t call themselves “central planners.” They go by the name “bureaucrat” or “Corporate Executive Officer.” I’m sure you thought the CEOs and the bureaucrats were enemies. Think again (the theorists advise). The bureaucrats work to make the world safe for CEOs, so the CEOs can plan how to maximize the profits of the centrally planned organizations they control.

This “conspiracy” confuses the way most folks think about the way the factors relate to one another in capitalist economies. The factors are supposed to operate independently of each other as self-contained areas of competition, but they realized years ago that if they were always at each others’ throats, none of them would profit. At least that’s how three of them thought, the land owners, the capitalists, and the established entrepreneurs. The laborers were originally excluded from “the enlightenment.” They’ve joined in now, but only as small time operators, still hung up on achieving socialist “equality.” The unions representing labor have never been much more than pains in the ass. They started out as pure craft cartels, creating little socialist enclaves that sought – and got – favorable treatment for their club members, at the expense of everyone else. The long term effects of the craft union movement are still with us. They’re the reason today that plumbers earn more than school teachers. But the craft unions themselves, after passing through a period in which they displayed overt socialist sympathies, finally transitioned into legitimately organized crime gangs. That worked fairly well until they refused to pay protection to the bureaucrats. They exist today as political front organizations that function to keep the proles in line. They take orders from the conspirators at the top of the great pyramid of Central Bankers, Knights Templar, TV Evangelicals, movie moguls, and baseball team owners who run the free world.

But again, don’t blame any of those people, not the unions, not the conspirators, not anybody. They’re just looking out for number one, same as we all do. They’re just better at it than the rest of us.

Mendacity as an Art Form

I had occasion to respond recently to a lady friend of mine (Catherine, we’ll call her) who had quoted at length to me a well-worded statement written, years ago, by Herbert Spenser. The philosopher had broached eloquently about the virtues of the search for knowledge, contending that, even though there would be ups and downs, eventually knowledge would come to the fore, saving the human race from a fate worse than death.

As chance would have it, I had been privileged the night before writing to Catherine to watch a movie on the television that related (in a way) to both Spenser’s and Plato’s contributions to the art form we know as government. With the lesson taught me by the movie in mind, I replied to Catherine as follows....

As you know, Herbert Spenser is the guy who coined the phrase, “survival of the fittest,” and who ultimately extended that idea into Social Darwinism. We gave that movement a fairly sound thrashing a month or so ago. But as Mary Shelley’s husband once wrote, it’s an ill wind that blows nobody good, so even with the pen of the currently neglected Mr. Spenser, some good must surely have been written. The encomium to Reason you quoted is one of them. (Better though that we should call it a “eulogy,” praise for the dead.)

I watched a film last night, “The Shape of Things.” It portrayed the dramatic happenings that ensued when an offbeat young lady, charming in her ways, took a nerdy young man as a lover. Almost immediately the young man began to change for what most of us would call the better. He became more confident, more assertive, even better looking. A few complications cropped up along the way, most of which were of the usual coming of age variety. He managed during these diversions to have a mild, one-afternoon affair with his best friend’s sweetheart. It seems she had always “liked” him best, but until his recent changes, had not been able to shake off the effects of his more repulsive qualities. His new girl friend, the offbeat young lady – who not altogether coincidentally was an art student working on her doctorate – was extremely sensitive to the nuances of other people’s behavior, and from a single glance between the young man and his best friend’s sweetheart, recognized that something had happened they would not wish to speak of. The perceptive artist, of course, spoke of it, and by clever manipulation, was able to lead her young lover to disavow his best friend and his best friend’s sweetheart.

Then came the young artist lady’s promised show, in which she was to present the work she had completed during the past semester. The work? Why of course, the young man she had selected. He was her clay, her water color, the material from which she had molded the work of art that he had become. The emotional impact created by the unveiling of her work cannot be conveyed in words, but the message the playwright communicated with this drama could not be missed (and it was a drama, not a youthful romance thing as it first appeared to be). Neil LaBute – the writer/director – was saying that we the people are the medium being molded by the artists who determine what shall enter our minds. We are the work of advertisers, news media, politicians, all those who have clear ideas of what they wish to sell, or the world to become, and the means to make it happen.

What has this to do with Herbert Spenser? Well, which is fitter, the sculptor or his clay?

The film I watched (and was shaped by) also relates to Spenser in a more subtle way. The philosopher, Benedict Spinoza, wrote that reason can only deal with reason, that an emotion can be overcome only by a more powerful emotion. Spenser, in the passage you quoted, points out that knowledge will eventually rule the world. LaBute suggests that it already does. It is the knowledge possessed by those who mold our lives, who play with us as puppeteers play with their marionettes. They know that our strings are made of emotional fiber and that no amount of reasonable discourse among us can break those strings. Those who know to play upon our emotions need never fear that we will reason our way to freedom. They have given us the objects we are to love, and taught us to love them.

I never understood the fear some people have of consumerism until I watched “The Shape of Things.” We consume ideas just as readily as we consume Cocoa Puffs.

["Happy birthday, MM." Thanks C. How nice of you to remember.]

A Mendacious Beginning

I’m told that Plato, in his role as an instructor of youth, occasionally had his pupils engage in mock debates. He would dream up a controversial subject and assign his pupils the task of defending first one side of the argument then the other. The philosopher was not at all pleased that one of his pupils, the irrepressible Alcibiades, would win every time, no matter which side he was called upon to defend. Plato’s dismay was amplified by the fact that Alcibiades was not winning because he used the most convincing argument, but rather because of his personal attractiveness. The boy had charm. Plato thought to himself that somewhere there must be a form of logic or a body of truth so impregnable that not even Alcibiades could win if that line were used against him.

Plato tried to define such a device but all he came up with was his so-called theory of forms. Even though he regarded the theory as the truth, he recognized right off that it was not the sort of truth that would make believers of those who heard it. Alcibiades would still win because his charisma was more easily seen, and thus more persuasive than the theory of forms.

So, when Plato sat down to write The Republic he gave in to the “Alcibiades effect.” In his perfect government he concentrated the knowledge of the forms (and other truths) in a small body of philosopher-kings. Using their knowledge of the truth, the philosopher-kings would privately frame the direction they intended the state to take. But knowing that the common people would never be able to grasp the reasoning behind the right course of action, Plato decided that the kings would not reveal their reasoning to the people, perhaps not even a general outline of the plans for the people’s future. Instead, the philosopher-kings would rule by charm and rhetoric, much as Alcibiades had done in winning the debates. Plato’s openness about the deceitfulness of the kings is perhaps the reason The Republic has never been visibly implemented by any nation, city, or state.

[Disclaimer: This story is certainly apocryphal, since it is virtually impossible that Alcibiades could have been Plato's pupil.]

Mendacious Meeting

. . . to Decide Iraq Policy

Bush’s clear-headed advisor number one says: Okay. We’ve got a new UN resolution putting inspectors back in Iraq. For as long as the inspectors are there looking over Saddam Hussein’s shoulder, he is not likely to be able to make further progress either in developing his weapons or in deploying those he already possesses.

Equally clear-headed advisor number two adds: So, we have a respite period in which the threat from Iraq is minimal. We should seek to lengthen that period by encouraging the UN to increase the number of inspectors and to prolong their stay.

Wise Secretary of Defense suggests: In the meanwhile, we should greatly increase our deployment in Afghanistan. If and when Osama is captured – the chances of doing so having been increased by the increased deployment – we can then return our attention to the WMD threat in Iraq.

Brilliant Secretary of State contributes: (Nodding in hopeful affirmation.) Perhaps by that time the inspection effort will have produced unmistakable evidence for the assumed WMD, changing to support some of the reticence we’re getting in Europe. Better yet, if the WMD aren’t actually there as the inspectors seem to be saying, we’ll save billions and a lot of lives.

Bush: Great thinking guys. Go for it!

Given what we now know, that the intelligence was, indeed, faulty, the above policy, had it been instituted, would have been heralded as one of the most farsighted and wise policies ever adopted by an American president. The risks associated with that decision would have been minimal compared with the risks associated with invading yet another Islamic nation (and setting a precedent for preemptive war that may in the future be used against us). In fact, the risks would have been so small, and the logic and wisdom of the suggested policy so evident, that it surely must have been the case that the invasion of Iraq was NEVER based on the assumption of a WMD threat. That threat was, as Wolfowitz said, simply the only one that would fly with the American people.

Mendacious Leader

The Madison Question of the Week in last week's local paper (The Madison County Eagle) which had to do with Mr. Bush's use of warrantless wiretaps, produced interesting answers. Two people found the practice acceptable, at least in wartime. Another didn't think the practice broke any laws, while another said she wasn't even aware it was happening. The fifth and last answer 'lowed as how it was wrong because it sets a precedent for breaking laws.

It may seem strange that answers so remarkably different could all contain a measure of truth. The mom who didn't know it was happening clearly answered with the prima facie truth. Similarly, the person who wasn't aware of the laws Bush broke was also telling the truth; to her, the question would thus seem meaningless. The fifth answer -- the "slippery slope" of lawlessness -- while also true, might be interpreted as receptive to this particular infraction were it not for its precedent-setting nature, though the respondent did say that, even in this case, certain words in the wiretaps might be misconstrued, thereby incriminating innocent people.

Before addressing the answers that related to the president's war powers, and just to set the record straight, Mr. Bush's practice appears to have violated the 4th amendment of the Constitution which states, in part, “. . . no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized.” In every case where courts have been asked to determine the applicability of the 4th amendment to wiretaps, they have held that private conversations using electronic media of any sort, fall within the scope of the 4th amendment. That is, warrantless wiretaps are illegal. The 14th amendment extends the prohibitions of the Constitution to state governments, and establishes that no person's civil rights shall be denied without due process of law. Mr. Bush's practice raises the question of whether the due process provisions of the Constitution were followed.

It has been wisely pointed out that "the Constitution is not a suicide pact," that when circumstances arise where the life of the nation is at stake, the letter, and even the spirit of the law, may be abrogated, sometimes without due process. During and after the Vietnam War, the Congress recognized that modern warfare takes place at a much faster pace than the Founding Fathers could have imagined, and that, consequently, the intelligence gathering ("spying") aspects of warfare might sometimes require action in timeframes too swift for the conventional warrant process. Congress thus passed, in 1978, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) which permits wiretaps and similar intelligence gathering activities to be undertaken without a formal warrant.

But FISA did not entirely vacate the Constitution's due process requirement. It established a special court and empowered it to authorize wiretaps without the constitutionally required formalities. The same law, also required that any FISA-authorized surveillance that may involve a United States citizen "shall not be disclosed, disseminated, or used for any purpose for longer than 72 hours unless a court order under section 1805 of this title is obtained. . . ." Due process had thus been modified to satisfy the needs of modern warfare.

The problem in Mr. Bush's case is that he did not even use the FISA loophole. He authorized the wiretaps without going before the FISA court. One may well ask, "Why would a law abiding president do such a thing?" Mr. Bush's first response to the accusations was that the time did not permit due process, but the FISA was established precisely to permit speedy action, and it practically always has. (Only 4 out of some 1,500 appeals to the FISA court have been denied.) Later, Mr. Bush declared that when the Congress authorized use of force against Iraq, it also authorized illegal wiretaps. But the FISA specifically reinforces the existing law which states that in the event of declared war, the president can use illegal surveillance for only 15 days following the declaration. It has also been reported that the president tried to get wording inserted into the use of force authorization empowering him to use illegal wiretaps, but that the Congress refused to permit the wording. This indicates that Mr. Bush, (1) knew the law did not permit the actions he has subsequently taken, and (2) that his claim that the Congress had authorized the illegal practice, was patently false. The Congress had specifically denied that power.

The real reasons for Mr. Bush's actions have, thus, not been made clear. So, let me tell you why I think he did what he did, and why the details of the surveillances in question will never see the light of day. (The following is based on commonsensible guesswork.)

For at least three decades the National Security Agency (NSA) has possessed the capability to monitor and analyze all telephone communications between all the people in the world. It is a relatively simple process, at least at first cut. Step one: intercept and record all conversations. Step two: scan the recorded conversations, seeking key words, or key phrases that may indicate intelligence value. Step three: deeply analyze conversations identified in step two to determine their real value. Steps two and three can be undertaken in near real time or after the fact, depending on other criteria. If for instance, the NSA has previously established that calls made from or to certain telephone numbers have high intelligence potential, calls to or from those numbers can be routed for immediate step three analysis. But note well, the process in its entirety, if and when used to monitor the conversations of U. S. citizens, is illegal. The courts have uniformly held that so-called "fishing expeditions" do not and cannot meet the due process provisions of the Constitution. Even if specific foreign telephone numbers were identified, calls could be placed from those numbers to any citizen, and there is no way the NSA or anyone else can identify, in advance, the names of the citizens to whom the calls will be made. It seems that NSA has a nice "little" electronic spying system, great for spying on foreign nations, but absolutely prohibited as a device for spying on American citizens.

This may well explain why Mr. Bush did not exercise the FISA court's due process. The FISA, first, clearly states that it applies only to "foreign powers," their agents, and similar baddies, and specifically states that it in no way authorizes surveillance of United States citizens without a legitimate warrant. It just as specifically states that any surveillance that may turn out to involve a United States citizen must either be disposed of OR duly warranted within 72 hours. The NSA procedure, as described above, and by Mr. Bush in his several statements on the subject, clearly involves United States citizens, at least on one end of the conversation. The NSA procedure thus violates the 4th and 14th amendments.

Apparently, in owning up to having authorized these illegal procedures, Mr. Bush has, as Richard Nixon's attorney, John Dean, recently said, become "the first president to have publicly confessed to an impeachable offense." (The FISA prescribes a $10,000 fine and up to five years imprisonment for each violation. The NSA employees Mr. Bush ordered to carryout the illgal program would thus be subject to severe penalties.) Lawyer Dean may have been wrong about the severity of Mr. Bush’s crime, but if lying about a sexual misadventure was an impeachable offense, it does seem to follow that violation of the specific provisions of the highest law of the land might also qualify. But, we shall see.