2007 archive

Tomorrow night, Tangier, 18th and Locust, Philadelphia, 6:00 p. m.

I won’t be there. I’ll be at the job site all day tomorrow, and there is no way I can make it from the job site to Center City in time and with enough energy to stay awake.

So hoist a few in my place.

With a tip to Dan Froomkin.

The Current Federal Administration’s efforts to turn “justice” into politics as manifested in the selection of interns:

Here is the gravamen of the charge against Elston offered by the letter writers: “Most of those struck from the (prospective intern–ed.) list had interned for a Hill Democrat, clerked for a Democratic judge, worked for a ‘liberal’ cause, or otherwise appeared to have ‘liberal’ leanings. Summa cum laude graduates of both Yale and Harvard were rejected for interviews….” And here is their rationale for complaining: “While it might be said that whoever wins an election can do the hiring, this new hiring procedure is contrary to Department of Justice tradition. The Department represents the entire country and has always had attorneys from a variety of schools and political leanings. There should be no litmus test for a top law student to get an interview at the Department of Justice.”

So, what is the problem here?

The problem is that, if Justice is indeed to be blind–that is, respecting of the Law and not respecting of persons, those who administer Justice must be selected prinarily on the basis of honesty and competence, not on the basis of political allegiance. Certainly, political allegiance may be part of the criteria, but it must be a secondary, not the primary part.

Otherwise you get employees who, when asked to talk of their actions, find themselves invoking the Fifth Amendment.

The practice of politics is important and necessary.

But it is a means. When practiced by persons of honor, it is the path and method and struggle for good governance.

When practiced by those without honor, it becomes the exercise of power for the sake of power, dominance for the sake of dominance.

It’s time to say, “Enough!”

Lest ye forget.

Nothing yet but a bunch of tired platitudes.

Here.

If a nail is bent, do you blame the hammer or the one wielding the hammer?

Abu Gonzales is only a hammer, as his incoherent testimony before the Senate Judicicary Committee showed. He suffered from a clear case of CRS.

That, of course, does not mean that Abu is qualified to run one of the most important cabinet-level departments of the United States government. His letting himself be used is clear proof that he is not.

To find out who thinks that United States Attorneys should be judged on their political, rather than their legal merits, we need to know who was wielding the hammer. Then we will know who thinks politics trumps justice.

Dan Froomkin lays it out.

Absolutely nothing Gonzales said yesterday cast doubt on the theory that some if not all of the prosecutors were fired because they had somehow inspired the wrath of presidential adviser Karl Rove and his staff of brass-knuckled political operatives.

But Gonzales didn’t add fuel to the fire, either. It was a classic stalling maneuver. Gonzales was entirely unable to explain to anyone’s satisfaction why those U.S. attorneys were fired — although he comically insisted that he was sure he had made the decision himself, and that it was the right one.

It’s no surprise, therefore, that President Bush expressed delight over Gonzales’s testimony — even as some White House aides privately told CNN that he hadn’t helped himself at all.

“President Bush was pleased with the Attorney General’s testimony today,” the White House announced last night. And this morning on CNN, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino was in full spin mode, trying to make the argument that the hearing “proved, once again, that there is no credible allegation of anything improper happening or any wrongdoing.”

Today’s news coverage is appropriately blistering, but in its focus on the public clown show, and on what was said — rather than on what was not said — it is not as incisive as today’s commentary. So I’ll start with that.

I think I had this guy work on my place once:

A fire which ravaged a £5m Georgian mansion was likely caused by an unfortunate meeting between a plumbing apprentice bearing a blow torch and polystyrene roof installation, The Daily Mail reports.

A break from our regularly scheduled invective and inanity:

Residents of the Brandywine Hundred/Bellefonte area of New Castle County, Delaware, may find this interesting.

• Free Emergency Preparedness Training, including first aid training, CPR certification, and meals, May 4th, 5p to 9p, and 5th, 9a to 5p.
• Class limited to 30; registration required.
• Details here (PDF).

Digby.

You know, a manifold. That’s something on top of an engine that channels toxic gasses. From TBogg:

You will know us by the trail of the dead.

Dick Polman on Gonzo. Follow the link and cringe for what’s being done to the Rule of Law:

Which brings us back to one classic moment in Gonzales’ testimony. Midway through his morning ordeal, he declared to the senators: “When you attack the department for being partisan, you’re really attacking the career professionals.” By saying that, was he being willfully cynical – or cluelessly incompetent? Because as Metcalfe (and others) have already demonstrated, it’s the career professionals who have been most victimized during Gonzales’ tenure, precisely because they have struggled to remain non-partisan.

Gonzales’ bid to hide behind the “career professionals” echoes Bush’s ongoing attempts to defend his war by hiding behind the troops. The two cronies are indistinguishable. Their talking points are the same; their governing styles are the same.

Still waiting for that comment about Senator Thompson.

John Cole. I’m liking him more and more. A conservative with principles.

Again the unique Bush gift goes beyond making a plainly stupid argument to some ethereal plane of counterproductive mendaciousness. A sworn enemy of the United States could not manufacture a Manchurian president-bot that would serve their interests better than our current leadership.

Media Matters.

Via Atrios.

Someone has to.

Here.

No, they aren’t all political. Just the best ones.

Speaking at Al Sharpton’s National Action Network event in New York, (Senator Joe) Biden said President Bush, Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove are responsible for what he called “the politics of polarization.”

Biden said Republicans have created an environment that brings bad things to the United States.

“I would argue, since 1994 with the Gingrich revolution, just take a look at Iraq, Venezuela, Katrina, what’s gone down at Virginia Tech, Darfur, Imus. Take a look. This didn’t happen accidentally, all these things,” he said.

This is only the most outlandish of many outlandish things that have been said and writen about Monday.

Mr. Biden, and many others, would have done well to listen to Virginia’s Governor Kaine:

. . . Kaine said that he’s got ‘nothing but loathing’ for people who want make the event political.

I’ve already discussed the foolishness of thinking that gun control–or absence of gun control–might have had any bearing on this. The shooter was determined to kill. If not guns, it might have been Molotov cocktails or a car crashing through a crowd.

The Virginia Tech shootings are in no way comparable to a domestic dispute that might have ended in a fist-fight, had a gun not been in a desk drawer somewhere. Or an argument on the street that might have ended in a knifing (with, mind you, no stray bullets hitting bystanders), had someone not had a Glock in his pocket.

Then there are some who would say (but, unlike certain reporters, I will cite at least one who says) that the University should have issued a warning immediately after the first shooting. On what grounds? Does your town or city of county go into lockdown mode whenever there’s a shooting and the perp appears to have fled?

And there are others who would say that the University is somehow responsible for, heaven’s sake, not predicting the future. As I said earlier, it appears that the University and its faculty, staff, and students did everything they reasonably could have done.

The plain fact is that there is such a thing as original sin. I’m not referring to any particular theological group’s doctrine of original sin, but, rather to the larger truth:

Persons will make wrong choices and bad stuff will result from those wrong charges.

I do not mean with that statement that it is pointless to try to do anything about the bad stuff.

We should try to understand why persons choose to do wrong so that we can help them–and others–not to do wrong when we can.

We should do all we can to prevent evil when we can and to mitigate it when we must.

But, at some point, we need to say to “some who say”:

“We cannot wrap ourselves and our loved ones or anyone else in a bubble. We cannot predict what might happen tomorrow or even in the next instant (hell, I might drop dead of a heart attack before I click ‘Publish’).

“In short, my dear some who say, it’s time to grow up.”

(A nine-term what?)

. . . among thieves.

Just another one of many.