April, 2007 archive

I have to admit, I don’t understand townships.

In Virginia, where I grew up, your local government was either a city or a county. There was no overlap–cities under Commonwealth law are independent of counties. There was also no question where to turn for local services or who to vote out of office when things weren’t working. (Within counties, there can be towns, which would provide some limited additioinal services, but schools, the jails, and major services are still the purview of the county.)

When I lived in Pennsylvania, I lived in a borough, which was in a township, which was in a county. I never did figure out which one did what, though, apparently, the county didn’t do much in terms of day-to-day services except run a sheriff’s office (though the township and the bourough did the policing–as near as I could find out, the sheriff’s office was like a marshall’s office, escorting prisoners to court and the like) and create jobs.

It was a relief to get to Delaware, which has counties and cities, and you know what’s what and who’s who.

Apparently, I’m not the only person confused by townships:

Consider Maureen Meehan’s story.

She’s a school business administrator in Washington Township, Gloucester County, still rankled by a $20,000 insurance bill that arrived 10 years late. During that decade, the bill had landed repeatedly at one of the (six in New Jersey-ed.) other Washington Townships.

Meehan figured the bill was so old by the time she saw it that she was within her rights to refuse to pay. She lost in court.

“It’s one of the problems of having one name for several towns. The bills went to a different Washington Township, and they were just throwing them in the trash,” sighed Meehan, who for 14 years has worked in New Jersey’s southernmost Washington Township, known more for sprawl than the famous George.

It’s just one of the mail mix-ups, clerical mistakes and skewed checkbooks caused by same-name towns.

Dick Polman casts the cold light of day on the Current Federal Administrator’s lies:

Meanwhile, here in the tumultuous present, we have a fresh half-truth from President Bush. In remarks yesterday, he maligned the Democrats for seeking to suggest a troop withdrawal timetable, and said this: “To accept the bill proposed by the Democratic leadership would be to accept a policy that directly contradicts the judgment of our military commanders.”

A policy that contradicts the judgment of military commanders…The sheer effrontery of those Democrats! But wait – I seem to recall that, last autumn, when Bush’s military commanders openly voiced skepticism of a troop hike in Iraq, Bush proceeded to contradict their judgment by replacing them.

I have had teenaged daughters.

I love them to death, even though they are no longer teenaged. And even when they were, I loved them to death.

But, frankly, Jon Swift has a point.

My two or three regular readers know that First Son is a member of an elite unit now serving in Afghanistan (an effort, by the way, which I believe should have been finished, rather than abandoned for the Current Federal Administrator’s masturbatory dreams in Iraq. First Son did his turn in Iraq in 2005, fighting for Bush’s lies).

And don’t ask Second Son to comment on this. He hits the shift key and comes out with all those symbols above the numerals on the top row of the keyboard.

That unit suffered loss yesterday in Iraq.

As proud as I am of First Son’s accomplishments (he’s an officer now and benching 250), I pretty much deal with First Son’s career by not dealing with it. I try not to think about it. I can’t change anything, I can’t stop anything, I can’t control anything.

I have done what I can by my children; they are launched into life, and now I am a bystander.

And life, I hope, goes on.

But, heaven forbid, should something bad happen, I want those lying S. O. B.s in the Pentagon to tell the truth about it, as they did not in the Tillman case, nor in the Lynch case, and nor in God knows how many other cases.

Anything else would betray his memory and the memories of all who have served before him, served with him, and will serve after him.

But, then, lies and betrayal are small beans to the Current Federal Administration and its minions, who sow deceit and feed us lies.

More:

ASZ

Atrios.

Tom Tomorrow:

Via Huffington Post.

Delaware License plate on a red Mustang ragtop:

TOPPLSS.

The car was. The driver, sadly, wasn’t.

Also seen, another red convertible (GM, not Ford), also topless (the car, that is), with a female driver eating strawberries with both hands and steering with heaven knows what.

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.