Welcome to 201k.com - A Commonwealth Perspective.

...back soon.

Tuesday, March 20, 2007:

Access to White House staff is always a sensitive issue. The President relies upon his staff to provide him candid advice. The framers of the Constitution understood this vital role when developing the separate branches of government. And if the staff of a President operated in constant fear of being hauled before various committees to discuss internal deliberations, the President would not receive candid advice, and the American people would be ill-served.

Yet, in this case, I recognize the importance of members of Congress having -- the importance of Congress has placed on understanding how and why this decision was made. So I'll allow relevant committee members on a bipartisan basis to interview key members of my staff to ascertain relevant facts. However, we will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants.

The initial response by Democrats, unfortunately, shows some appear more interested in scoring political points than in learning the facts. It will be regrettable if they choose to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas and demanding show trials when I have agreed to make key White House officials and documents available. I have proposed a reasonable way to avoid an impasse. I hope they don't choose confrontation. I will oppose any attempts to subpoena White House officials.

Saturday, March 24, 2007:

Gonzales Met With Advisers on Dismissals
By DAVID JOHNSTON and ERIC LIPTON

WASHINGTON, March 23 -- Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and senior advisers discussed the plan to remove seven United States attorneys at a meeting last Nov. 27, 10 days before the dismissals were carried out, according to a Justice Department calendar entry disclosed Friday.

The previously undisclosed meeting appeared to contradict Mr. Gonzales's previous statements about his knowledge of the dismissals. He said at a news conference on March 13 that he had not participated in any discussions about the removals, but knew in general that his aides were working on personnel changes involving United States attorneys.

Yeah, you'd hate for the American people to be ill-served by making these people testify under oath.

We've always enjoyed -- in a certain sense -- the expertise with which the White House and its flunkies craft language in pursuit of partisan unclarification. And we've very much enjoyed watching the President attempt to execute this language with varying degrees of success. It's nothing short of dazzling, the way members of this Administration can say things without actually saying them. It's also embarrassing and ethically horrific, but these are Republicans we're talking about, so ethics, like morals, don't really come into play -- it's results that matter, kid, so get out there and start repeating the message, word-for-word.

A small but amusing example popped up in the President's little speech the other day, in which he likened Congressional oversight of possible criminal activity in the Executive branch to "show trials."

Access to White House staff is always a sensitive issue. The President relies upon his staff to provide him candid advice. The framers of the Constitution understood this vital role when developing the separate branches of government. And if the staff of a President operated in constant fear of being hauled before various committees to discuss internal deliberations, the President would not receive candid advice, and the American people would be ill-served.

Yet, in this case, I recognize the importance of members of Congress having -- the importance of Congress has placed on understanding how and why this decision was made.

The dashes in the last paragraph indicate where the President realized he'd gotten the specific wording wrong, and back-tracked quickly to rephrase his sentence exactly as he'd been told to say it.

He'd inadvertantly begun to say that he "recognize[d] the importance of members of Congress having...[an] understanding [of] how and why this decision was made," when of course he can afford to recognize no such thing. What he could "recognize", putting himself back on script, was the "importance...Congress has placed on understanding how and why this decision was made." [Emphasis added].

Can't go around recognizing the role of Congress, can we? Recognizing the role Congress sees for itself -- that's ok, in some circumstances (like when you're polling 29% and facing the possibility of myriad corruption investigations.) But let's not go crazy and start lending rhetorical support to the idea of true public oversight. Next thing you know, you'll end up with the President's "staff" being accountable for the truth of the "advice" they give him.

Just think how different the last six years would have been if that had been the case.

Hey, look:

Ex-Deputy of Interior Dept. Pleads Guilty

By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
March 23, 2007

WASHINGTON, March 23 -- J. Steven Griles, the second-highest official at the Interior Department during President Bush's first term, pleaded guilty today to obstruction of justice and lying about his ties to Jack Abramoff, the disgraced lobbyist who obtained help from the Interior Department for his Indian tribal clients.

Mr. Griles, 59, the Deputy Secretary of the Interior under Gale N. Norton from 2001 to 2004, was a high-profile lobbyist for oil and gas companies before joining the Bush administration. Once in office, he came under scrutiny for continuing contacts with his former industry clients, and then for his relationship with Mr. Abramoff. After leaving the Interior Department, he resumed his former career as a lobbyist.

Mr. Abramoff, who pled guilty to charges that stemmed from his lobbying activities, is now in prison. He has cooperated extensively with investigators.

Mr. Griles agreed to plead guilty to a felony charge of lying to the Senate Indian Affairs Committee on Nov. 2, 2005, when he said that he had no special relationship with Mr. Abramoff.

What we're wondering is how this prosecution ever happened; why didn't the Patriotic Knights at the White House and the Justice Department stop this "partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants"?

More importantly, why weren't the U.S. attorneys who pursued this matter busy doing real work -- like looking for "Democratic Party voter fraud" in places where Republicans lost elections?

President Bush's Theory as to why White House Officials should not have to testify before Congress:

Access to White House staff is always a sensitive issue. The President relies upon his staff to provide him candid advice. The framers of the Constitution understood this vital role when developing the separate branches of government. And if the staff of a President operated in constant fear of being hauled before various committees to discuss internal deliberations, the President would not receive candid advice, and the American people would be ill-served.

Yet, in this case, I recognize the importance of members of Congress having -- the importance of Congress has placed on understanding how and why this decision was made. So I'll allow relevant committee members on a bipartisan basis to interview key members of my staff to ascertain relevant facts. However, we will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants.

The initial response by Democrats, unfortunately, shows some appear more interested in scoring political points than in learning the facts. It will be regrettable if they choose to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas and demanding show trials when I have agreed to make key White House officials and documents available. I have proposed a reasonable way to avoid an impasse. I hope they don't choose confrontation. I will oppose any attempts to subpoena White House officials.

Translation: There is to be no mechanism for accountability. My right to "candid advice" supersedes the public's right to know whether United States attorneys were dismissed by my chief political advisor for failing to abuse their office in the pursuit of partisan objectives.

P.S. Screw You All.

Judge Doom throttles Roger Rabbit:

Judge Starr throttles Free Speech:

Poor Reader K sends us this "News alert":

On Mar 11, 2007, at 12:56 PM, K wrote:

No comment


Subject: WSJ NEWS ALERT: Halliburton Will Shift Its Headquarters to Dubai

NEWS ALERT
from The Wall Street Journal

March 11, 2007
Halliburton will shift its corporate headquarters from Houston to Dubai, CEO Dave Lesar announced. Halliburton's Middle East headquarters will be better placed to focus on relations with the Gulf's enormous national oil companies, such as Saudi Aramco, the world's No. 1 oil producer.

The U.S. oil-services giant will maintain a corporate office in Houston, but the company will be controlled from its office in the United Arab Emirates, a spokeswoman said.

Yeah, you'd hate to have to waste any of the money they've made off U.S. taxpayers on public education or something.

Most knew him as the lead singer of Boston, but we'll always remember him as the singer in Beatlejuice.

Great singer. Really, really great singer.

Ok, first some excerpts from a story in today's Times:

March 9, 2007

Violent Crime in Cities Shows Sharp Surge
By KATE ZERNIKE

Violent crime rose by double-digit percentages in cities across the country over the last two years, reversing the declines of the mid-to-late 1990s, according to a new report by a prominent national law enforcement association.

"There are pockets of crime in this country that are astounding," said Chuck Wexler, the executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, which is releasing the report on Friday. "It's gone under the radar screen, but it's not if you're living on the north side of Minneapolis or the south side of Los Angeles or in Dorchester, Mass."

"There's a mentality among some people that they're living some really violent video game," said Chris Magnus, the police chief in Richmond, Calif., north of San Francisco, where homicides rose 20 percent and gun assaults 65 percent from 2004 to 2006. "What's disturbing is that you see that the blood's real, the death's real."

Homicides increased 20 percent or more in cities including Boston, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Hartford, Memphis and Orlando, Fla. Robberies went up more than 30 percent in places including Detroit, Fort Wayne, Ind., and Milwaukee. Aggravated assaults with guns were up more than 30 percent in cities like Boston, Sacramento, St. Louis and Rochester.

Police officials say the violence tends to happen among young men in their late teens and early to mid-20s. In some cases, it is random. But in many cases, it is among people who know one another, or between gangs, as a way to settle disputes. Arguments that 20 years ago would have led to fistfights, police chiefs say, now lead to guns.

"There's really no rhyme or reason with these homicides," said Edward Davis, the police commissioner in Boston. "An incident will occur involving disrespect, a fight over a girl. Then there's a retaliation aspect where if someone shoots someone else; their friends will come back and shoot at the people that did it."

In Richmond, Chief Magnus said he would often go to the scene of a crime and discover that 30 to 75 rounds had been fired. "It speaks to the level of anger, the indiscriminate nature of the violence," he said.

Many chiefs blame the federal government for reducing police programs that they say helped cut crime in the 1990s. But they also say the problem is economic and social. "We seem to be dealing with an awful lot of people who have zero conflict-resolution skills," Chief Magnus said.

Now, let's talk about "people who have zero conflict-resolution skills" in the context of what happened to us last night at the Bruins' game:

Shortly after the game started, four young men sat behind us. They were obviously, visibly drunk. Very, very drunk. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But within seconds, three of them began shouting at the game -- very loudly -- using language that was inappropriate even for a hockey game. Seated right next to them was a seven-year-old boy, at the game with his father, and all around them were women ranging in age from 20 to 50. The one sitting next to the seven-year-old said to the father, "You should probably move him, huh?"

We kid you not; that's what he said.

After about ten minutes of this we turned around and asked them to please watch their language, adding that everyone wanted to enjoy the game, but we wouldn't hesitate to get them tossed if it became necessary. This shut them up for about a period.

Unfortunately, they were drinking from bottles in their jackets, and by the start of the second period had decided they needed to make some sort of a statement. The language ramped back up -- and we're talking bottom-of-the-barrel stuff here -- and people again began to squirm in their seats. Out of the blue another young gentleman appeared in front of us to tell us that he and his buddy, who were seated behind the wrecking crew, were "with us all the way."

Feeling old and out of touch, we went to pee. The Bruins were down by at least a goal by that point, by the way.

When we got back to the ramp-way, the usher made us wait for play to stop, and lo, standing next to us was one of the gentleman in question. He decided to start bumping up against us, and slurring some trash talk. Amazed -- truly -- at this bad decision, we asked him how old he was, and he answered, "23", then repeatedly asked how old WE were. He was too legless to notice that the usher, who was freaking out, had run to get security. We said, "old enough to know better -- and you should probably get out of here before security shows up."

While his brain struggled to determine if our remark was the reaction he'd been trying to provoke, security showed up just as play stopped. We went back to our seat, and he pled his case to the boys in blue, leading, not surprisingly, to his ejection. Bear in mind we hadn't called security on him -- the usher did it when he started bumping into us.

But his buddies didn't see it that way. After failing to talk the police out of tossing their pal, the remaining two geniuses filed back to their seats glaring at us. It should noted that the fourth one -- we'll call him D'Artagnan -- had not been part of the screaming and swearing, had been quietly pleading with them (to no avail) to "knock it off" and was now trying Very Hard to look like he was sitting with the people on his opposite side; it was actually funny watching him try to come up with a face that simultaneously said, "I can't believe they're doing this to you" to his friends, and "Will you PLEASE remove these ruffians?" to the police.

His pals weren't as smart. While one gave us his best, "We'll see what happens to YOU" look, the other said, "You got my brother tossed!" We turned around and said, "He got himself tossed, and--" which is when security re-descended and removed all of them, including D'Artagnan, who surreptitiously apologized as he filed out.

"We seem to be dealing with an awful lot of people who have zero conflict-resolution skills." No kidding.

Look, we were once a drunk 23-year-old at Bruins' games -- we had lots of drunk 23-year-old friends at Bruins' games, and we understand. But even we knew enough to...oh man, we don't even know how to explain it. There doesn't seem to be a line some of these kids won't cross anymore. Drunk and clueless doesn't begin to cover it. Nearly every week we see one of them decide to take on the entire Boston police department (with predictable results.) We're pretty sure that as bad as we were in our day, when the police showed up we and our friends knew enough to scram; these kids go toe-to-toe with them.

Every little issue escalates into a confrontation; glares in line turn to pushing, then to fights; the police show up and they don't even know enough to run.

What the hell is going on? It's like they all think they're living in the WWF.

There's nothing like it.



Just look at this "before and after" example:


Lisa Nowak is charged with attempting to kidnap a woman she believed was her rival for the affection of space shuttle pilot Bill Oefelein.

...we still say he'll walk on appeal.

The jury in Scooter Libby's trial sent this note to the judge on Friday:

We would like clarification of the term "reasonable doubt." Specifically, is it necessary for the government to present evidence that it is not humanly possible for someone not to recall an event in order to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

In other words, there is at least one total knucklehead on the jury.

Libby will be dancing in the streets soon.

...are nearly all the frozen organic vegetables sold in Whole Foods and Wild Oats from China?

Can't we grow vegetables here anymore? Is it really cheaper to ship frozen peas from China to Boston than from, say, western Massachusetts or New York?

And how, exactly, do we know that broccoli grown in China is "organic"?

Speaking of which, where, exactly, is this bucolic image of "Cascadia Farms" supposed to be:



...because most of their vegetables seem to come from China, too. Which is odd, considering that Cascadia Farms' parent company is named "Small Planet Foods." You can't actually get much farther away from here, planet-wise, than China.

Unless you decide to get organic vegetables from Uranus.

Oh, look: Small Planet's parent company is General Mills.

This might explain why Wal-Mart has announced it'll be selling organic produce in its stores. No doubt it's coming from the same place they get everything else.