Monday, June 27, 2005

Another Thing on Anonymous Sources   Every time I write about my bottomless loathing for the practice of anonymous sources, I get responses championing the practice, arguing that they are vital, and necessary, to make the government accountable.  Bushwah.  Anonymous sources are the government, as often as not.  And far from making the government more accountable, they very often snipe at those who actually do try to make the government accountable, offering up a witch's brew of rumor, lies, conjecture, and state secrets in an attempt to destroy any who dare to disagree with the government, just as they did to Ambassador Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame. 5:31:35 PM    comment []

Jail for Two Reporters   Well, the Supreme Court has ruled, and it's decided:  the two reporters who refuse to give up their anonymous source will sit and rot for the next 18 months.  This anonymous source, for those of you who forgot what was at stake here, exposed Valerie Plame as a CIA agent and got uncounted foreign CIA sources, and other foreign citizens who simply spoke to Plame, killed.  But that was all okay, because it hurt the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had embarrassed the White House by telling the truth. Honestly, it's hard for me to get upset.  Except, Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper, the two reporters who face jail-time, didn't actually run the story; it's actually Robert Novak who should be going to jail.  I also think the penalty on Time is too small.  They are charging Time magazine $1,000 a day for not releasing documents demanded by the grand jury in the Plame case.  That's just a cost of doing business.  I think a daily fine of $100,000 or $1,000,000 is more appropriate.  But I am not altogether convinced that every journalist that quotes anonymous sources shouldn’t be thrown in jail.  Anonymous sources are a direct attack on both the integrity of journalism, and indeed society itself.  They seldom provide remotely useful facts; instead, "upon [their] tongues continual slanders ride". 3:55:04 PM    comment []

Rehnquist Not Resigning   The Supreme Court ended its session today without an announcement from Chief Justice Rehnquist.  Yesterday, the press reported that Chief Justice Rehnquist has not spoken to the White House.  Now, if the Chief Justice had any intention of retiring, he probably would have announced that retirement today.  It’s premature to come to any positive conclusions, but...I told you so.  I told you so.  I was right, and the entire Washington press corps was wrong.  Senate Majority Leader Frist, who precipitated the entire "nuclear option" judicial fight in anticipation of the Chief Justice's retirement...he was wrong, too. I have long thought that Rehnquist is a man who lives for his work.  He is neither young nor in good health.  Those who were expecting--indeed, rooting for--him to retire were practically wishing him dead.  I also don't think he wants one of the kind of judicial zealots that the President favors replacing him on the bench.  I think he has too much respect for the law to willingly let President Bush pick his replacement.  The Chief Justice is a conservative and a Republican, but I think if he can manage it, he'll stick around until this President's successor can appoint his replacement.  The only way I think he'll leave the Court prior to that, while he's still alive, is if he thinks his mental function has diminished.  No one, to date, has accused him of that (though I don’t rule out the possibility Republicans desperate for his resignation will begin to do so).  When William Rehnquist was a very junior Justice, he saw Justice William O. Douglas stay on the Court even after it seemed he had begun to mentally decline, tainting decades of remarkable service.  The risk of such damage to his legacy would lead the Chief Justice to resign in short order. 12:32:17 PM    comment []

Context on Karl Rove's Remarks   In his remarks last week, Karl Rove repeatedly stopped just short of suggesting that all liberals are traitors; among other things, he said that Democrats (he has always used the words "liberal" and "Democrat" interchangeably) wanted to offer "therapy" and "understanding" to terrorists.  Well, guess what?  It turns out that the Bush administration had meetings with members of the Iraqi resistance on June 3rd and June 13th, including a terrorist group that claimed responsibility for an attack that killed over 20 Americans last Christmas.  That's right, just before Karl Rove accused Democrats of offering aid and comfort for terrorists, the Republicans were in a room with terrorists, suing for peace.  It's been said that men always point the finger at others for what they are guilty of themselves.  Truer words. 10:11:59 AM    comment []

Quote for the Day, 6/27/2005   "Three years ago I came to Florida without a nickel in my pocket.  And now I've got a nickel in my pocket."   -Groucho Marx (Hammer), The Cocoanuts 9:57:01 AM    comment []