About Me

My photo
This blog is the work of an educated civilian, not of an expert in the fields discussed.

Wednesday, January 12, 2005

Laugh or Cry: Two Examples

Strategy: Some suggest that targeting Alberto Gonzales is not the best way to attack the administration on torture because it might make the thing into some political football more than torture per se. Mark Kleiman, however, suggests that imperfect or not, it's the only thing we got. True enough for three reasons: (1) Republicans are not about to have some sort of torture hearings, since oversight has not been their thing (2) What isn't made into a political issue these days? The war with Iraq was politicized, which is why many gave away the keys back in Oct. 2002. Will we ever learn? (3) AG is not just a cog in the machine, but a primary one, and has no right to be confirmed for this and other reasons.


A sense of humor is a measurement of the extent to which we realize that we are trapped in a world almost totally devoid of reason. Laughter is how we express the anxiety we feel at this knowledge.

-- Dave Barry

I went into first gear last spring, sometime around the time when Air America went the air, in respect to thinking about politics and the Bush Administration in particular. My blog had some mileage on it already, but I took to writing longer entries, many dealing with the campaign. It must be said, however, that now that the election is over and all, things are mightily depressing. The best way to deal with such things, I guess, is to try to be philosophical about it all. We can also see the humor in it all. Recent events suggest this might be the way to go, unless we just focus on the Jets unlikely win last Saturday Night.

For instance, Judge Michael Chertoff was just nominated for head of Homeland Security. This on some level is a decent choice, since he is respected, non-controversial (except in some political circles, including his involvement in the Whitewater investigation), and has some experience in the Justice Department's fight against terror. Also, though some would disagree, he has made enough moderate noises on civil liberties (so suggests David Cole, who has written widely in dissent on the issue) to perhaps be the best we can hope for.

It might be wondered why a federal judge was chosen (more so why he would step down from a life appointment), but more so one without much management experience (DHS requires this in spades). Also, wasn't Sen. Kerry denounced by this administration for allegedly thinking the "war on terror" is mainly a crime issue?

This led to some supporters of the administration to wonder why he was appointed. They are kidding, yes? A loyalist, with a nice veneer, and another chance to fill a plum judicial slot ... the only surprising thing is that they chose someone who actually dissented on a matter that reached the Supreme Court. The fact that his experience suggests the administration was hypocritical to criticize Kerry is surprising? The fact that loyalty trumps a best fit to the position is surprising?

A pick that arguably is at least as good as the person he is replacing (cf. Rice and Gonzales) in respect to something else other than loyalty, that might be surprising. The other stuff is not and to suggest otherwise is either clueless or a bit of that right leaning wit.
"I think it's reprehensible, and [Williams] is being disingenuous to say the least - to say, 'Oh, now I realize I'm part of the media elite,' " says Katherine Lanpher, a journalist and cohost on the "Al Franken Show" on Air America Radio, about his insistence that he didn't think he was doing anything wrong in accepting the money. "At least CBS is taking responsibility for what happened. They screwed up, and there were consequences. I don't see anyone on the other side of the aisle doing that."

The other amusing bit respects the aftermath of Rathergate, which involved a long report damning a sloppy story involving Bush's National Guard service, and led to the firing of four CBS News employees ... though Rather is still around. It should be noted that though the documents involved were never authenticated, the gist of the story was not really disproven. My concern that the story was mishandled and overplayed aside, the "sin" here should be put in context.

The context would include, as bloggist Atrios noted, how various anti-left stories that turned out to be wrong was not given equal treatment. Likewise, including the current business about the government paying "journalists" to promote programs without disclosure, notice how the administration itself fucked up repeatedly without anyone being fired for it. No, they get medals and re-elected.

This is either funny or aggravating ... either way, quite so.