Aug
12
12
Shorter Michael* Mukasey
- Christ, do I look like I really have the time to prosecute every person in my own department who broke some stupid law? What do I look like, the US Attorney General or something?
‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard. We are aware of all Internet traditions.™
*Why do I keep thinking his name is Robert??? What, am I going full retar… er, actually, nevermind, don’t want to start up that controversy again…
UPDATE: Some people in the comments are accusing me of wanting to use legally shady methods to satisfy my quest for bloody-minded revenge on the Republican Party. To those people making this scurrilous charge, I say…
…
OK, you got me. It is all about revenge.
Sockpuppet #47 said,
August 12, 2008 at 19:08
Yeah, I mean, if they jail EVERY single Bush administration felon, that would mean releasing tens of thousands of pot smokers from jail to make room for them all!
Sluggo said,
August 12, 2008 at 19:08
Michael Mukasey went to the Bureau of Vital Statistics.
Legalize said,
August 12, 2008 at 19:08
Dear Senator Obama:
Please come out this afternoon and blast the fuck outa the AG. In the process could you please explain that under a 3d Bush term this is exactly what we will have for the next 4 years at least.
Mr. Wonderful said,
August 12, 2008 at 19:10
“Where there is enough evidence to charge someone with a crime, we vigorously prosecute,” he said. “But not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime,” he said.
(Does double-take, slaps self on forehead, falls down, conks out.)
bklyn said,
August 12, 2008 at 19:10
who knew mukasey is a democrat?
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
August 12, 2008 at 19:11
I’m shocked, shocked! I tell you, to find that the Bush Administration will once again refuse to investigate its own law-breaking.
Blue Buddha said,
August 12, 2008 at 19:12
I’m shocked… shocked, I tells ya… that yet another Bush appointee would let crime committing Bush lackeys go scot free.
BTW, it’s Michael Mukasey, not Robert.
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
August 12, 2008 at 19:13
Heh heh.
Derelict said,
August 12, 2008 at 19:13
I’d like to thank all those Democratic senators who voted to confirm this criminal piece of shit as AG. In particular, I’m looking at you, Shumer–you knew better, and yet you helped get this asshole into office.
Feh!
Blue Buddha said,
August 12, 2008 at 19:13
Wow, I think I must’ve read ItTDGY’s mind.
mikey said,
August 12, 2008 at 19:16
Gee, y’know, I can’t ever remember a DA saying “know what mikey? Sure, we’ve got you dead to rights on assault, disorderly, under the influence and destruction of property, but we’re not gonna prosecute you. Nah, just go back to what you were doing. Is this piece of rebar yours? Sorry, here you go”….
mikey
Mike Nilsen said,
August 12, 2008 at 19:20
His name is Michael Mukasey, as in “Capo of the Mukasey Crime Family”.
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
August 12, 2008 at 19:24
OK, Blue Buddha, what am I thinking about Joe Klein at this time?
henry lewis said,
August 12, 2008 at 19:24
I thought it was the stinking left-leaning fascist-liberal DFHs who were the moral relativists.
David Broder said,
August 12, 2008 at 19:26
You know, I’m sick of this government corruption. I think we should do something about it- and that something is get rid of the awful, awful politics and meanness of the left, mostly Obama, and certainly not McCain, who is certainly the solution to the problems we face.
Yep, another good point by Da Dean! I’m on a roll, and also awesome.
Legalize said,
August 12, 2008 at 19:28
Even shorter Mukasey: “Impeachment is still off the tabel, right?”
henry lewis said,
August 12, 2008 at 19:32
It’s true that ‘Robert’ focus-groups unusually well as a preferred name for an AG. ‘Michael’ is regarded as a little too likely to be tolerant of religious-right extremism, torture and heavy-handed vote-rigging.
Alex said,
August 12, 2008 at 19:35
You gotta admit, it’s fucking brilliant.
Jay B. said,
August 12, 2008 at 19:36
His quote should be on that pig’s gravestone (when he dies in prison a long time from now): “not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime.”
That disgusting fuck.
Jay B. said,
August 12, 2008 at 19:39
I see Mr. Wonderful had the same reaction to the same quote I had.
It’s unfuckingbelievable. We put people in jail for selling pot to terminal cancer patients and this screw, this utter piece of shit, who is the chief law enforcement officer of the Department of Justice, says, well, his department is above a stupid little thing like the law.
I hate these fuckers.
Scott said,
August 12, 2008 at 19:39
And to the national media who cover this stuff: Fuck you for not holding these fuckers’ feet to the flame, and fuck you for pretending this is all just fine and dandy.
Sophist FCD, another victim of applied metaphysics, said,
August 12, 2008 at 19:40
And the zero accountability administration rolls on.
Indeed.
Scott said,
August 12, 2008 at 19:41
Seriously, the absolute most corrupt administration in American history, and the media shrugs it off. But Obama doesn’t bowl a 300 game, and it’s a scandal. Fuck you, media. Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you.
Dan Someone said,
August 12, 2008 at 19:42
OK, I don’t know what the inspector general’s report actually found, but I have to think that it would be no better to bring criminal charges and have them thrown out because there was no criminal violation than it is not to bring them in the first place. I wish Mukasey would be more transparent about what exactly *has* been done to the wrongdoers.
owlbear1 said,
August 12, 2008 at 19:44
I guess some ‘obstruction of Justice’ charges should be the first order of business of the next AG. Fucker is on tape in front of Congress breaking the law and it would be the perfect aperitif to the war crimes trials.
I also think we should get the ball rolling now on impeaching all of the Bush’s judicial appointees. On the other hand, Obama should just declare them a threat to national security and have them detained. He would CinC and it is a time of War so its not like he needs pay attention to any laws.
javafascist said,
August 12, 2008 at 19:45
Hope at least that Shumer got a nice dinner out of it and Mukasey brought enough ky.
Doctorb said,
August 12, 2008 at 19:45
You’re probably confusing him with Robert Mugabe. It’s the glasses.
Bella said,
August 12, 2008 at 19:45
Awesome. Thank you, Chuck Shumer, you piece of shit.
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
August 12, 2008 at 19:49
Dan Someone said,
August 12, 2008 at 19:42
OK, I don’t know what the inspector general’s report actually found, but….
Because the Bush administration has given us ample cause to assume the best, Dan?
Jay B. said,
August 12, 2008 at 19:51
To Dan’s point — yes, the pig might be technically right — not every violation of the law is a “crime” in the legal sense, but it’s still a violation of the law. For an AG to allow these tap dancing, idiotic-on-their-face, arguments to be the BASIS OF HIS DEFENSE is inexcusable.
Shit, even a couple of Nixon’s AG’s had some integrity (until he got to Bork) and resigned. But these feeble cocksuckers are nothing but gimps for this historically awful administration.
He should rot in jail for obstruction.
Alex said,
August 12, 2008 at 19:51
You gotta admit, it’s fucking brilliant.
Righteous Bubba said,
August 12, 2008 at 19:58
What, am I going full retar…
Clearly you need retaraining.
TomMil said,
August 12, 2008 at 20:01
“not every violation of the law is a crime” is a correct statement of the law but in this context it is a lie. The alleged conduct of Monica Goodling and Co. are violations of the criminal law. THAT makes them crimes. This is just more bullshit evasion.
This is the state of discourse in our nation. A Democrat attends church where the preacher makes somewhat controversial statements (which BTW were only controversial if you refuse to believe that there is still prevalent racism in the USA), and that is worthy of hours and hours of coverage. On the other hand, it seems like at least once a month evidence of criminal behavior by this Administration is revealed and it’s treated as no big deal.* You know, I really do believe the USA is beyond redemption.
* This is a particularly active month for revelations of criminal behavior - This case, the allegations in Maher’s The Dark Side and Suskind’s allegations equal a trifecta.
DrDick said,
August 12, 2008 at 20:10
well hell. If he pursued and prosecuted every crime in the Buish adminstration he would not have time for anything else. Then who would see to the vital business of voter suppression and political prosecutions?
Dr. BDH said,
August 12, 2008 at 20:14
“not every violation of the law is a crime” Can we add that to the Miranda warning?
Typical Republican said,
August 12, 2008 at 20:18
But what about Michelle Obama? Reverend Wright? Bill Ayers?
And Barack Obama went to Hawaii for a vacation! HAWAII! That’s so elitist! He should have gone to Branson, Mo., like a real American.
And John Edwards had an affair and he was practically the Democratic candidate!
Liberals. Hmf.
Vote McCain!
Hoosier X said,
August 12, 2008 at 20:19
The “Thunder in the Tropics” controversy is retarded.
There, I said it.
sagra said,
August 12, 2008 at 20:21
I’m guessing the real victim here is Murkasey, no?
Charles "Chuck" Schumer said,
August 12, 2008 at 20:25
Crime, schmime - lookit my new set of flatware!
J said,
August 12, 2008 at 20:29
Calm down, Mukasey’s statement is completely accurate and unobjectionable. I am as liberal as anyone and my hatred for the corrupt, torturing, war criminal, profiteering administration burns as deep as yours, but many, many, many laws are NOT criminal laws. Breaking such non-criminal laws is a civil infraction, subjecting the law-breaker to a civil fine or other punishment, depending on the particular law. The laws governing civil service hiring are exactly that — violating them exposes the law-breaker to firing from the Government. Unfortunately, Goodling & Sampson left the DOJ already.
Mukasey is certainly a corrupt idiot — his interview with PBS earlier this year disclaiming any interest in prosecuting torturers and/or torture-enablers was disgraceful — but this statement is not some giant outrage. Any lawyer could tell you that.
This episode teaches us that perhaps we *should* create laws to criminalize this activity, but we do not have such laws. So Goodling & Sampson violated the law, certainly. But they did not violate a criminal law.
Here is another example: think about antitrust laws. Some antitrust violations are criminal, exposing the law-breakers to jail time (price-fixing, bid-rigging). Others, such as monopolizing, need not be (is Bill Gates in jail?) The DOJ did win its case with MS until the Bush administration settled it during the appeal in early 2001. Likewise, the FTC is opposing the Whole Foods-Wild Oats merger on the grounds that the combination would run afoul of the antitrust laws, but no executives will be jailed for proposing the merger.
actor212 said,
August 12, 2008 at 20:51
This picture of Mukasey makes him look like “The Incredible Mr. Limpet”
Which is an “et” too long….
Jay B. said,
August 12, 2008 at 20:51
Breaking such non-criminal laws is a civil infraction, subjecting the law-breaker to a civil fine or other punishment, depending on the particular law. The laws governing civil service hiring are exactly that — violating them exposes the law-breaker to firing from the Government. Unfortunately, Goodling & Sampson left the DOJ already.
So a few bad apples working in bad faith, completely independent of government or influence, nothing to see here. Hell, the AG himself said a little violations of the law here and there in the Department of Justice hardly add up to any problems at all — and if they were problems, they’ve been dealt with. And yes, while all of the violations of the law — whatever trifles they may have been in the upper levels of the Justice Department — have been ‘addressed’, all of the beneficiaries of said violations shouldn’t be considered suspect or even removed because it wouldn’t be fair to the hacks. Meanwhile, we’ll torpedo any real investigation and lie about the issues involved. We understand the law. And it’s utterly within our rights to excuse violations of it because we say.
J, you’re wrong. It’s utterly and extremely objectionable.
J said,
August 12, 2008 at 20:56
Jay B. — you miss the point. Goodling & Sampson did not violate any criminal laws. They certainly violated the laws pertaining to civil service hiring; those laws do *not* carry criminal penalties. The laws that MG & KS broke carry the penalty of being fired from government service; Goodling & Sampson no longer work for the government. What do you want Mukasey to do?
Should we criminalize what Goodling & Sampson did? Yes, I certainly think we should. But the fact is we just cannot prosecute them criminally, as they broke no criminal laws. Even passing a criminal law now wouldn’t help; the Constitution’s prohibition on *ex post facto* laws prevents that.
So, so, so many reasons exist to criticize Mukasey and the corrupt Bush DOJ, but his statement that MG & KS won’t be criminally prosecuted just is *not* one of them. This post & its outrage are embarrassing to anyone who has any understanding of how the legal system works.
Scott said,
August 12, 2008 at 20:58
J, no criminals have been prosecuted. Monica Goodling and her buddies are sitting back laaaaaughing about the whole thing. They got away with serious criminal activity, and they know they’ll never face any penalties whatsoever.
Mukasey’s statement could be shortered down easy: “Sure, people committed crimes, but I wasn’t hired to prosecute Republicans.”
Scott said,
August 12, 2008 at 20:58
Corruption isn’t a crime that you can be prosecuted for? I know the GOP has fucked stuff up, but I don’t quite think they’ve got around to rewriting those laws yet…
J said,
August 12, 2008 at 21:01
Seriously, direct me to a provision in the US Code that *criminalizes* the highly objectionable and illegal conduct that Goodling and Sampson did.
Not every illegal act is a crime — it’s illegal to jaywalk or speed, but you pay tickets for those infractions. Likewise, not all antitrust violations send executives to jail; sometimes the companies pay fines. Title VII makes it illegal to hire/fire individuals on the basis of race or gender, but companies that discriminate on such basis don’t have members go to jail; they pay damages. The Family & Medical Leave Act requires employers to grant employees various health-related leave time; employers who violate it pay fines, they don’t go to jail. Etc, etc, etc
Jay B. said,
August 12, 2008 at 21:02
Also: Imagine for a second that a Democrat said, oh, I don’t know, “no controlling legal authority” and imagine the apes on the right banging about after he said it. It was, as you might say “unobjectionable from a legal standpoint” and that would have precisely ZERO impact to the fact that it’s a tin-eared idiotic thing to say from an ACTUAL standpoint.
As I’ve said and you wrote, this may be in fact legal in the technical definition, but arguing in the technical definition has crippled Democrats for decades. No one gives a shit.
The AG swept an immense amount of bullshit under the rug and has never accounted for any of it. There’s no accountability and no investigation of what seems to be even worse that the tepid thing he’s copped to.
So, at long last, who gives a fuck about the ‘law’? If the Democrats didn’t argue with this foolish notion of propriety, they could beat the tar out of the out of control Justice Department so when they get in the White House they can get rid of the Bush landmines his cronies appointed.
Frame the argument.
J said,
August 12, 2008 at 21:04
Scott — where is free-floating “corruption” criminalized in the US Code? What they did is heinous & wrong & illegal, but it’s not a criminal offense. Just as it would be heinous and wrong and illegal for Wal-Mart to put up a sign saying “Blacks Need Not Apply,” no store owner or executive would go to jail. They’d pay a big fine.
J said,
August 12, 2008 at 21:09
By the way — I haven’t reviewed Goodling’s testimony in detail, but if her account of events is dramatically different from evidence in the Inspector General’s Report, she really should be charged with perjury. And *that* is a crime.
Athenawise said,
August 12, 2008 at 21:16
“But not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime.”
Yeah, I know. I’m probably the 20th person on this thread to single out that quote.
Mukasey, pukesey. This is the highest legal officer in the land.
J said,
August 12, 2008 at 21:17
Read pages 12 to 14 of the OIG’s report (here: http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0807/final.pdf)
These are not criminal laws. No law they broke carried a criminal penalty. Even AG Hillary Clinton couldn’t possibly criminally prosecute these noxious goons.
Jay B. said,
August 12, 2008 at 21:17
J
But see, you keep talking about ‘fines’ and ‘no criminal penalties’. That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about ripping the Republicans to shreds because they don’t give a shit about the law.
A functional press would see if there was more to it than a few non-entities like Monica Goodling and Kyle Sampson.
A functional administration would promise to root out the unqualified people Goodling and Sampson installed because they were the beneficiaries of an illegal act.
A functional opposition party would ram the tin-eared statements of the AG down his throat and demand that more substantive action take place. What “substantive action”? Who cares? Publicly run against the whores installed illegally in the Justice Department, tar the Republicans with hiring a hack shop that puts our rights — and our safety at risk. Talk about how the GOP would rather have apparatchiks than professionals protecting America. Talk about how the Republican AG doesn’t think it’s that big a deal that violations of the law have taken place at the highest reaches of Justice and is content to do nothing about them. These attacks have the benefit of being true
The GOP should never be allowed near power again.
One would help prevent this by showing, exactly, how they’ve abused it to truly epic ends.
J said,
August 12, 2008 at 21:19
Athenawise — that quote is not wrong.
It violates the law to fire an employee because he is black or because she is a woman. The employer does not go to jail, however; the employer pays $$ because the federal employment discrimination laws are not criminal laws.
I take it you are not a lawyer and have no experience with the legal system beyond television?
J said,
August 12, 2008 at 21:22
Jay B says: “A functional administration would promise to root out the unqualified people Goodling and Sampson installed because they were the beneficiaries of an illegal act.”
Sorry, but that would also be illegal. Two wrongs do not make a right. I’m a Democrat and I believe, strongly, in the rule of law. Just because our opponents are lawless goons does not mean we should imitate them. The hacks hired by Goodling will leave of their own accord; they will not enjoy their work when their superiors instruct them to *enforce,* rather than ignore or scale back, environmental and civil rights laws.
Jay B. said,
August 12, 2008 at 21:25
This post & its outrage are embarrassing to anyone who has any understanding of how the legal system works.
You have it exactly opposite. It’s people who understand how the legal system works — like the jokes at Justice — who don’t understand why this is outrageous.
Simba B said,
August 12, 2008 at 21:27
I’m a Democrat and I believe, strongly, in the rule of law.
You’re also a concern troll. Sorry, not buying it.
Jay B. said,
August 12, 2008 at 21:30
Sorry, but that would also be illegal
No it wouldn’t. As we were told ad nauseum, they serve at the behest of the president, don’t they?
Or, if they are career civil service Republican hacks, well, they should be pointed out and mocked mercilessly. The DoJ — as is evidenced by the Siegleman case and the USA firings — has been infected and compromised. If we can’t root out hacks the only other thing that we can do is be aware of their impact.
The hacks hired by Goodling will leave of their own accord; they will not enjoy their work when their superiors instruct them to *enforce,* rather than ignore or scale back, environmental and civil rights laws.
Right. Because that’s how the world works. Unfirable civil service political appointees will be shamed into leaving their jobs.
Jay B. said,
August 12, 2008 at 21:31
He’s not a concern troll. He’s being honest.
I think he’s missing the bigger picture, but from a “legal standpoint” J’s right.
So what?
J said,
August 12, 2008 at 21:32
Jay B, show me a law in the US Code *criminalizing* what they did, and I’ll share your outrage. But they broke no criminal laws.
Simba B — this is not concern trolling. Ignorant, BS attacks & faux-outrage is for the right. This administration is responsible for so many outrages, we do not need to go around inventing outrage where none exists.
What happened at the DOJ is a disgrace; I used to work there, and the times were difficult. But it’d be illegal to root out these hacks, and the laws that Goodling & Sampson broke are not criminal laws.
We should (a) elect democrats; (b) pass laws criminalizing this conduct, so the next GOP administration may be properly punished if they attempt to load the Department with hacks.
J said,
August 12, 2008 at 21:35
“I think he’s missing the bigger picture, but from a “legal standpoint” J’s right.
So what?”
The “so what” is that we should be committed to the rule of law, and firing the hacks doesn’t comport with that. We cannot allow our [justified] hatred of the GOP to lead us to transforming ourselves into their equally corrupt mirror image.
Sockpuppet #47 said,
August 12, 2008 at 21:37
Fire the hacks. It is easy. An honest performance review. I bet you that every one of em can be SHOWN to be too incompetent for the job. Then you give em the boot.
Along with anyone else that doesn’t make the grade, no matter who hired them.
J said,
August 12, 2008 at 21:38
By the way — I do believe that Goodling & Sampson will likely face an ethics inquiry from whatever state bar of which they are a member. Hopefully they will be disbarred and unable to practice law. A very small consolation, but it’s the best we can hope for under the law. Aside from AG H. Clinton prosecuting Goodling for perjury (if her congressional testimony deserves it, and it probably does).
Joe Max said,
August 12, 2008 at 21:48
Yeah, I know… but can you imagine that Bush would EVER have nominated anyone whom we denizens of Left Blogsylvania would have approved of?
No he’d keep throwing right-wing assholes at us while squawking about the “obstructionist Democrats.” And the Dems knew it.
J— said,
August 12, 2008 at 21:52
For possible violation(s) of criminal law, see the report’s discussion of Jan Williams and her repeated inaccurate representations to the investigators.
woody, tokin librul said,
August 12, 2008 at 21:53
Fire EVERYBODY with a degree from ANY Xian diploma mill: Hillsdale, Regents, Liberty, Bob Jones, Oral Roberts, any of ‘em…
Jay B. said,
August 12, 2008 at 21:53
But J,
They were put there on purpose, for a reason. If they are career hacks, and you can’t fire them, you have to limit their effectiveness and their viability. They WON’T leave on their own because that’s the plan all along.
To get rid of them have the make first make the DoJ suspect, which it is, and make their appointments illegitimate, which they are.
This directly affects Americans — the GOP has installed incompetents in career positions and that makes America less safe and the law a weapon instead of a shield.
These are truths. If you want to respect the Rule of Law — well one has to start with the spirit of it, rather than the technical definition.
The Rule of Law has been trampled by the GOP and by this AG. Hoping that Monica Goodling gets disbarred does not address it. There literally can’t be justice until the AG addresses the damage that’s been done and takes responsibility for it. Merely accepting lawbreaking at the DoJ and furrowing a brow, isn’t and SHOULDN’T be sufficient.
That you, in your stated outrage, can’t see how to address it vis a vi his blase remark about “violations of law that aren’t crimes” (as if that is a normal thing for the AG to say about people who worked for him) is thin.
To then think that those of us who see an opportunity to take umbrage over the rampant corruption at Justice — and demand accountability, whatever form it might take — are being mean is just silly. If you want to win in politics, you have to be able to play the game.
sagra said,
August 12, 2008 at 21:55
Poor babies. No doubt they were thrown out into the snow and sleet, lost and alone. Oh how they must have suffered for all those long minutes it took for the Wingnut Welfare Welcome Wagon to arrive!
Dragon-King Wangchuck said,
August 12, 2008 at 21:57
What a harsh fate for crapping all over the DoJ. They’re now in such disrepute that members of the ABA House of Delegates wouldn’t want to trade places with them.
Kyle Sampson landed a sweet lobby job so not too shabby. Monica Goodling is now Mrs. Red State. Not a plight I’d wish on my worst enemy, but considering her qualifications, she’s pretty much landed on her
backfeet as well.woody, tokin librul said,
August 12, 2008 at 21:59
Schumer, Loserman and Feinstein had international constituncies to consider. Carper, Nelson, and Landrieu are Blue Dawgs. Bayh is on Obama’s short list…
How can you respect an AG whose very name, to say nothing of whose actions, cannot but remind one of “snot?”
Dragon-King Wangchuck said,
August 12, 2008 at 22:00
Well sagra, looks like it’s the thread of contiguous thoughts.
dan said,
August 12, 2008 at 22:01
You’re also a concern troll. Sorry, not buying it.
gee, I’d hate to have someone who seems to know something about the law discussing the topic.
woody, tokin librul said,
August 12, 2008 at 22:04
which might be true of any of those of us in this room…but monica goodling and the others have demonstrated they LIKE the taste of Fascist shit, so will be welcome at Heritage, or AEI, or with Scaiffe, where they’ll do very very very well, eating fascist shit to their hearts’ content; and they’ll get loits of practice tongue-laving the prostates of their fascist/GOPhuque mentors…
Jay B. said,
August 12, 2008 at 22:05
gee, I’d hate to have someone who seems to know something about the law discussing the topic.
Oy.
It would take a lawyer not to see why this is an outrage.
mikey said,
August 12, 2008 at 22:05
I have no expertise, but I think J is probably correct.
However, I will take the position that the OUTRAGE demonstrated by this thread and it’s cousins around the intert00bz is entirely justified. The totality of the actions of this administration and DoJ under all the AGs they’ve inflicted up us bring that about. Had the DoJ otherwise acted in an honest and independent manner up to this point, this action by Mukasey might result in a few raised eyebrows, but no real outrage.
That said, I gotta agree with J’s support of the rule of law. I would be disgusted if a new administration conducted a witchhunt of the type advocated by some of the commenters here. I want to see us get back to following the rules and playing fair, not emulating the bush/cheney adminstrations worst tactics.
The new leadership in the government agencies will have every right to conduct performance and qualification reviews when they take their new positions. And those should be done with an entirely blind eye to who came from where and where they went to school and what their political ideology might be. That kind of litmus is EXACTLY the problem we’re dealing with here. You can’t have it both ways, nor should you want to.
If it makes you feel better, a bunch of these ideologues will likely walk away rather than work to support the hated commie liberal agenda…
mikey
sophie brown said,
August 12, 2008 at 22:08
disbar, disbar, disbar, disbar.
norbizness said,
August 12, 2008 at 22:08
He looks like Mr. Pitt. Elaine’s going to get some menial bullshit tasks tonight, I’ll betcha.
Jay B. said,
August 12, 2008 at 22:10
And Brad,
This is why “spite politics” won’t work with Democrats.
They’ll take a red-meat issue like this, which has a moral and even tangentially legal basis (hey, ask Don Seigleman about it) about the unacceptable and dangerous politicization of the Department of Justice — and they’ll dissect the legal basis of the claim to death.
That we, uneducated, unlawyerly types think it’s outrageous, well, don’t you see? It’s not.
Telling the people what is and isn’t outrageous is similar to the ways that the Republicans keep telling us that the economy is better than we’re giving it credit for.
Jay B. said,
August 12, 2008 at 22:14
hat said, I gotta agree with J’s support of the rule of law. I would be disgusted if a new administration conducted a witchhunt of the type advocated by some of the commenters here.
Right, because an open investigation of shoddy hiring practices that directly affect the actual Rule of Law is less important than supporting the milquetoast impotent rhetoric of the Rule of Law.
Jay B. said,
August 12, 2008 at 22:20
OT, but someone has to please explain to me what the fuck this means from Time Magazine:
“Jared Polis has a chance to make history on Tuesday as Colorado goes to the polls - and not just because he has poured more than $5 million of his own money into one of the country’s costliest primary campaigns for the U.S. House of Representatives. If he wins Tuesday’s closely contested race for the seat Senate-contender Mark Udall is vacating in Colorado’s second congressional district, the 33-year-old Internet mogul will almost assuredly join Tammy Baldwin and Barney Frank as just the third openly gay member of Congress - and become the first openly gay man elected to the House.”
???
Barney Frank is openly gay and has been re-elected to the House about a dozen times. Gary Studds was openly gay, ditto. I think there was some Republican from Wisconsin and/or Arizona who was also openly gay.
mikey said,
August 12, 2008 at 22:23
Dude, wipe the spittle off your lips. Take a deep breath. Ok?
Now. Why would I be opposed to an open investigation into shoddy hiring practices? Sounds like a pretty good idea to me.
What I would be opposed to is the same kind of behaviors I was opposed to when the bush administration did them. Hiring/firing someone outside of the rules proscribed by the system, or on a political or ideological basis. Torturing. Indefinite detention without due process. Illegal aggressive invasions. I don’t care if it’s THEIR assholes that are doing it, or OUR assholes that are doing it, going outside the rules to get what you want simply because you have the POWER to do so is wrong, and I will holler just as loud if an Obama administration indulges in that kind of misuse of power as I have at bush/cheney. In fact, I expect the first thing I’ll be hollering at the Obama administration about is a continuation of the bush administration’s arbitrary and illegal detainee policies.
But sorry, fellah. If you want to find some support for excesses and abuse of power just because it’s our guy, or because it’s in response to previous excesses and abuses of power, I honestly hope you end up being a very lonely voice in the wilderness.
Because eight years of excesses and abuses of power is what got us here. More of that is not going to make things any better…
mikey
Jay B. said,
August 12, 2008 at 22:28
Then what “witch hunts” are you referring to mikey? And who has advocated for them? And who said “let’s get unqualified liberals in first”?
Or are you simply doing valiant battle with straw?
Galactic Dustbin said,
August 12, 2008 at 22:34
““But not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime,”
Every time some Republican starts in about Democrats ‘coddling criminals’ and is ’soft on crime’, a banner with this statement should come down behind him/her/it with balloons and confetti, while the Benny Hill Theme plays on.
Galactic Dustbin said,
August 12, 2008 at 22:35
Or are you simply doing valiant battle with straw?
We should fight them over there before the smoking gun turns out to be haystack shaped cloud!
J— said,
August 12, 2008 at 22:38
Mukasey would like to keep the discussion of misconduct focused on a few individuals. From his prepared remarks before the ABA (my emphasis):
Yet later in his same speech:
Additional failures within the same department, ones that will presumably be framed once again as the result of active failure at a very restricted, individual level and passive failure at the broader, institutional level.
I think the anger at his politically dismissive yet legally accurate statement about the report’s findings (although, again, see what it says about Williams) stems in part from people knowing damn well that what Goodling and Sampson did is representative of a conscious, active, and systemic approach to executive branch bureaucracy that the Bush administration has sought to implement as thoroughly as possible in as many offices as possible, and one that has been devised and directed from above.
Dorothy said,
August 12, 2008 at 22:39
Not every illegal act is a crime — it’s illegal to jaywalk or speed, but you pay tickets for those infractions. Likewise, not all antitrust violations send executives to jail; sometimes the companies pay fines. Title VII makes it illegal to hire/fire individuals on the basis of race or gender, but companies that discriminate on such basis don’t have members go to jail; they pay damages.
Just because the punishment is a fine rather than jail time doesn’t make it any less a “crime”, does it? Most of us learned in our high school gov’t classes that any violation of the law–including speeding, jaywalking, petty theft, shoplifting, vandalism–is a “crime”. If lawyers only mean “felonies” when they say “crimes”, that’s a distinction that’s lost on the average American (like the meaning of “is” in testimony).
It may well be that the only “punishment” for their crime is getting fired (which has already happened), so there is no advantage to pursuing criminal charges against Sampson and Goodling, but that doesn’t make what they did less “criminal”, does it?
So can every person who applied for a position at DoJ during this time period sue–particularly those who were specifically asked these illegal questions during interviews. And would they sue the DoJ, the White House, or Sampson and Goodling personally (or some combination of all of the above)?
And it seems like having everyone who was hired during this time period re-apply for their job wouldn’t be illegal: companies pull that kind of shit fairly often.
Jay B. said,
August 12, 2008 at 22:42
And there was a failure on the part of some employees to cry foul when they were aware, or should have been aware, of problems.
Yeah, I wonder why they didn’t speak out? They must have been too busy at work to notice the shoddy politicization of their department. I’m sure there wasn’t a threatening environment or coercion or that they too were beneficiaries of the hiring orgy of hacks.
Because that would be outrageous.
OneMan said,
August 12, 2008 at 22:44
There are two tracks to follow in this situation. First is the official track of Congressional oversight of the Executive branch as much as that is possible. While it may be true that Congress cannot force the DoJ to clean house, they can hold hearings, commission investigations and generally make life difficult and uncomfortable for said hacks.
Unofficially, every opinion maker, every 527 (I’m looking at you, MoveOn), every possible voice in the media should raise an incredible howl about this. The bright spotlight of public opprobrium should be trained directly on the DoJ from Mukasey right through to the partisans who were hired by Goodling and co. Write. Write your congressman. Write a letter to the editor. Don’t allow this issue to die.
We have every right to focus the public’s mind on the mendacity of this administration. This is the perfect opportunity to lay bare what a horrible bunch of jerks are running this country.
mikey said,
August 12, 2008 at 22:45
#
Jay B. said,
August 12, 2008 at 22:28
Then what “witch hunts” are you referring to mikey? And who has advocated for them? And who said “let’s get unqualified liberals in first”?
Or are you simply doing valiant battle with straw?
Jeez, dude, defensive much?
Tellya what. You let me know when anyone else is allowed to participate in the conversation. In the meantime, enjoy yourself…
Sheesh…
mikey
Simba B said,
August 12, 2008 at 22:46
Dorothy—I think that quote refers to the distinction between criminal and civil law.
Jay B. said,
August 12, 2008 at 22:54
mikey,
I wasn’t being defensive because I didn’t think you were accusing me of anything, because nothing I wrote had anything to do with ‘witch hunts’, abuse of power and Democrats being equal opportunities hacks — but then, I didn’t read anything that anyone wrote that remotely resembled your concerns.
So I asked what on Earth you were talking about. Nothing, evidently. Sheesh.
Sorry for posting so much but, then, people responded to what I wrote and I wrote back. I thought that was the point of these threads.
mikey said,
August 12, 2008 at 22:58
*AHEM*
Jay B Said:
A functional administration would promise to root out the unqualified people Goodling and Sampson installed because they were the beneficiaries of an illegal act.
But of course, you would have NO intention of firing QUALIFIED people Goodling and Sampson installed?
Sockpuppet #47 said,
August 12, 2008 at 21:37
Fire the hacks. It is easy. An honest performance review. I bet you that every one of em can be SHOWN to be too incompetent for the job. Then you give em the boot.
If you’re willing to live with the outcome of an “honest performance review”, then you’ll be happy. ‘Cause I’m pretty sure the new leadership will conduct one.
#
woody, tokin librul said,
August 12, 2008 at 21:53
Fire EVERYBODY with a degree from ANY Xian diploma mill: Hillsdale, Regents, Liberty, Bob Jones, Oral Roberts, any of ‘em…
Can you say Witchhunt? I knew y’could
Jay B Said:
Or, if they are career civil service Republican hacks, well, they should be pointed out and mocked mercilessly. The DoJ — as is evidenced by the Siegleman case and the USA firings — has been infected and compromised. If we can’t root out hacks the only other thing that we can do is be aware of their impact.
But what, Mr. Straw? Career civil service DEMOCRATIC hacks would be all well and good with you?
Straw indeed…
mikey
Dragon-King Wangchuck said,
August 12, 2008 at 23:03
Hey, let’s play the “What would it take for Michael Mukasey to actually lay charges” game.
Clear Hatch Act violations by placing political appointees and loyal Bushies into career positions? Nope.
Warrantless Wiretapping in clear violation of FISA, likely beginning even before September the Eleventh 2001? Nope.
Clear political involvement and manipulation of DoJ resources in a hit job on a Siegelman? Not a chance.
Maybe we can get someone to flash their boobs on Prime Time TV, just in order to give Mukasey something to do.
actor212 said,
August 12, 2008 at 23:08
I tend to agree with D-K W. There have been so many worse violations of laws and corrupt conduct prior to this, I’m thinking the Dems ought to give a mulligan on this one, so late in the game.
We have bigger fish to fry.
stryx said,
August 12, 2008 at 23:08
I just realized what the problem is B.
It’s Robert Mugabe, not Robert Mukasey.
Honest enough mistake.
Sockpuppet #47 said,
August 12, 2008 at 23:12
It’s pretty simple isn’t it? The new administration is going to have serious reason to believe the entire department is chock full of incompetents. What would a normal corporate manager do? Install a lot more oversight, proper scrutiny of what people are up to, and tough, regular performance reviews. If the procedure for firing them is unnecessarily complex or difficult, make it simpler, because it is obvious lots of firing will have to be done.
Idiot underlings are always the fault of idiot management. Get the idiot management replaced, and the rest sorts itself out as the new management DOES THEIR JOB.
The other thing is to scrutinise the C.V.s of the new hires. Check they actually do meet the stated requirements for the job. Check they didn’t lie to get the position. Lying on a job application is always grounds for firing, and it is a quick way to get rid of the absolute worst. The rest of them will either be weeded out as their poor performance becomes obvious.. Or they will have to put their noses to the grindstone and actually do their job to a satisfactory standard!
Dragon-King Wangchuck said,
August 12, 2008 at 23:15
actor 212,
I can’t believe you’re coming out against prime time nipple-age.
You might be pleased to know that we’re still in agreement. Maybe revelations from a warrantless wiretap investigation might be useful in October, but fat chance getting to that point now.
The time to fight those battles was during the Mukasey confirmation hearings - now is the time to tell everyone how old and crazy John McCain is.
Jay B. said,
August 12, 2008 at 23:32
Me: A functional administration would promise to root out the unqualified people Goodling and Sampson installed because they were the beneficiaries of an illegal act.
You: But of course, you would have NO intention of firing QUALIFIED people Goodling and Sampson installed?
Me: AHEM. What the fuck are you talking about? If I thought they should fire everyone after a performance review then I would have written that. But then, in your war on straw, it’s important to call out what’s not there in order for you to have a point. If they hired qualified people great. This is what the House Judiciary committee thought about a lot of them, however:
“Today’s report describes ‘systematic’ violations of federal law by several former leaders of the Department of Justice,” said Conyers. “Apparently, the political screening was so pervasive that even qualified Republican applicants were rejected from Department positions because they were ‘not Republican enough’ for Monica Goodling and others. The report also makes clear that the cost to our nation of these apparent crimes was severe, as qualified individuals were rejected for key positions in the fight against terrorism and other critical Department jobs for no reason other than political whim.”
But your right mikey. What a douchebag I am! AHEM! Rule of Law! Rule of Law!
Me: Or, if they are career civil service Republican hacks, well, they should be pointed out and mocked mercilessly. The DoJ — as is evidenced by the Siegleman case and the USA firings — has been infected and compromised. If we can’t root out hacks the only other thing that we can do is be aware of their impact.
You: But what, Mr. Straw? Career civil service DEMOCRATIC hacks would be all well and good with you?
Exactly! You’ve cracked the code mikey because that’s exactly what I meant. Why else would I write that?
Make shit up, put words in other people’s mouths and look like an idiot in doing so. Class act all the way.
mikey said,
August 12, 2008 at 23:35
Copy and paste to put words in other people’s mouths, huh?
Calm, reasoned, rational response.
Yeah, I sure do look like an idiot here. Maybe someday I’ll have your class, bud…
mikey
Jay B. said,
August 12, 2008 at 23:38
I’m quoting you moron.
Xenos said,
August 12, 2008 at 23:38
J- While the Hatch act violations may not result in criminal sanctions, one can still prosecute administratively - it is not like there is a statute of limitations problem here. A judgment of systematic violation of the law will effectively keep these people out of government in the future, and as a legal finding will be more effective in getting people disbarred than a DOJ internal report.
Also, the there is the obstruction of justice issue. Go over the statements before Congress, to internal investigators, to the FBI. Prosecute perjury and obstruction. Finally, by pulling on all these threads, evidence for outright corruption may be discovered. The hacks who were put in the civil rights section prosecuted people they knew were not guilty, even if the hacks were not party to the Hatch Act violations.
In any case, the whole mess requires a very well funded independent prosecutor. A nice clean exercise of prosecutorial discretion, not the Mukasey misdirection administration. And start with Gonzales and Mieirs - those two have plenty to worry about. No fresh page, no way.
Hoosier X said,
August 13, 2008 at 0:06
Can I play?
Be a Democrat.
Do I win?
Jay B. said,
August 13, 2008 at 0:14
To be fair, I have to point out that at least a couple of law-talkin’ types actually get the political angle of this.
And it matters because if and when Obama tries to professionalize the DoJ after this debacle, the screaming on the right will be deafening. Addressing this now is vitally important.
But we won’t because it’s mean and unfair and inappropriate. And we can keep calling McCain old instead. Sigh.
Jay B. said,
August 13, 2008 at 0:29
Another lawyer who can get a little outraged at this — and he was a former law partner of Mukasey.
Here, Horton even darkly suggests that further investigation is needed:
In a recent interview with a former first assistant U.S. attorney, I collected details of a widespread buy-out program used by the Gonzales and Ashcroft Justice Department to remove career professionals in several U.S. attorneys offices. In one case I have examined, this tool was used to replace career professionals with hacks who were obviously hired in violation of the civil service rules.
Witch Hunt!!! OMG!
It’s best to lay down and die. After all, legally, he’s right. What can we do?
henry lewis said,
August 13, 2008 at 0:29
In a sane Washington, after these revelations, a new AG would turn the department upside-down. It would be a bloodbath. The press would be cheering wildly and nobody would dare use the term ‘witchhunt’.
To J: If your embarrassment at an emotional response and your arguing for a strict interpretation of the rule of law helps enable this environment of scott-free corruption, then it’s time you examined your lawyerly world-view.
To Jay B. & mikey: I’ve long admired both of you here in these threads. On this particular issue, from my point of view, you two are more in agreement than not. Please stop calling each other names.
PS said,
August 13, 2008 at 0:30
Mikey makes more sense more often than most people around here, or in fact most places. Worth bearing in mind, that, when tempted to overreact to anything he might say.
And I’m having a leetle difficulty spotting the substantive (as opposed to rhetorical) differences around here. If we’re brainstorming towards finding a solution, it would be good to, ah, let a thousand flowers bloom. Between us we might be able to muster up an idea. Maybe even two.
sagra said,
August 13, 2008 at 0:31
I think you boys are in the wrong place. This is mockery. Bickering is down the hall, second door to the right.
Matt T. said,
August 13, 2008 at 0:33
He looks like Tim Conway. Attorney General Dorf.
PS said,
August 13, 2008 at 0:34
Henry Lewis, thanks. Pity I didn’t refresh before posting.
henry lewis said,
August 13, 2008 at 0:38
No, no, PS, thank YOU.
Different facets of the same prism.
And only a minute apart….
Unree said,
August 13, 2008 at 0:47
OT, but someone has to please explain to me what the fuck this means from Time Magazine:
“Jared Polis has a chance to make history on Tuesday as Colorado goes to the polls - and not just because he has poured more than $5 million of his own money into one of the country’s costliest primary campaigns for the U.S. House of Representatives. If he wins Tuesday’s closely contested race for the seat Senate-contender Mark Udall is vacating in Colorado’s second congressional district, the 33-year-old Internet mogul will almost assuredly join Tammy Baldwin and Barney Frank as just the third openly gay member of Congress - and become the first openly gay man elected to the House.”
???
Barney Frank is openly gay and has been re-elected to the House about a dozen times. Gary Studds was openly gay, ditto. I think there was some Republican from Wisconsin and/or Arizona who was also openly gay.
JayB, this one is even nitpickier than Mukasey’s spew about violating the criminal law. And Time’s sloppy diction didn’t help. Here’s a gloss: Openly gay men have served in Congress, but all were closeted when first elected. The first and only person to run successfully for Congress in the category to which Polis aspires, Non-Incumbent Openly Gay, was Tammy Baldwin.
humbert dinglepencker said,
August 13, 2008 at 0:48
Ah. What’s that great line from the movie ‘The Quick & The Dead?’
“Like I always say - put a fox in the henhouse and you’ll have chicken for dinner every time.”
islmfaoscist said,
August 13, 2008 at 0:54
Shorter Mucusey:
Jay B. said,
August 13, 2008 at 1:01
No, no, PS, thank YOU.
Oh jeez, get a room already.
The Netiquette and Tea Cozy Knitting class is upstairs, three doors down. I trust mikey’s a big boy, but yes, I took great offense to something that merited mild umbrage.
Unree: Ah. I see. But it is terribly shitty writing.
henry lewis said,
August 13, 2008 at 1:08
The Netiquette and Tea Cozy Knitting class is upstairs, three doors down.
Oh, I see, you’re an addict. Well, I apologize.
Or is that too polite for these rock’em, sock’em internets.
KnightErrant said,
August 13, 2008 at 1:10
By acting in concert to circumvent Civil Service laws Goodling, Sampson, et. al. have engaged in the felonious act of Conspiracy.
Conspiracy: A combination or confederacy between two or more persons formed for the purpose of committing, by their joint efforts, some unlawful or criminal act, or some act which is lawful in itself, but becomes unlawful when done by the concerted action of the conspirators, or for the purpose of using criminal or unlawful means to the commission of an act not in itself unlawful. ~ Black’s Law Dictionary
Tehanu said,
August 13, 2008 at 1:10
j, thank you for standing up for the rule of law. henry lewis, PS, and sagra: right on, folks. mikey and jay b: remember who the real enemies are, please, and don’t get all snitty with each other. Nobody profits from our internecine squabbles except the Rethugs.
Jay B. said,
August 13, 2008 at 1:14
Oh, I see, you’re an addict. Well, I apologize.
Nah, that was a joke. That’s still OK, right?
I’m all smiles and unicorns like everyone else here.
tigrismus said,
August 13, 2008 at 1:24
To Jay B. & mikey: I’ve long admired both of you here in these threads. On this particular issue, from my point of view, you two are more in agreement than not. Please stop calling each other names.
Pshaw, they’re lefties: they’ll fight, and then they’ll have sweaty make-up sex. It’s all good.
dim-witted badger said,
August 13, 2008 at 1:24
Unicorns? Even worse than fucking pelicans, if you ask me.
henry lewis said,
August 13, 2008 at 1:26
and then they’ll have sweaty make-up sex.
You got a link for that?
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
August 13, 2008 at 1:38
I’ve had all night fights with assorted Sadly, No!sians at various times.
Where’s my sweaty make-up sex, dammit?!!?one!!
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
August 13, 2008 at 1:40
P.S. Feel free to get your Holy Joe hate on.
tigrismus said,
August 13, 2008 at 1:54
henry, you’ll have to ask them, or just keep checking youtube…
thunder, I never fight with anybody(I’m here for the recipes), so I don’t know where the orgy palace is.
Gary Ruppert said,
August 13, 2008 at 1:57
The fact is, liberals are biased and fullofhate.
Jennifer said,
August 13, 2008 at 2:01
I never had make-up sex with any of the foreskin fundamentalists.
Then again, I didn’t want to anyway.
Smiling Mortician said,
August 13, 2008 at 2:03
I’ve just made the perfect martini. Luksusovka with a smidgen of Lillet and a single drop of homemade Polish plum vodka. Anybody want one? You can trust me when I tell you that it . . . er . . . enhances the sweaty make-up sex.
Jennifer said,
August 13, 2008 at 2:05
They’ll take a red-meat issue like this, which has a moral and even tangentially legal basis (hey, ask Don Seigleman about it) about the unacceptable and dangerous politicization of the Department of Justice — and they’ll dissect the legal basis of the claim to death.
Back on topic, the Don Siegleman case is an entirely different story. Just what is already publicly known makes it look like there was at least one individual involved in clearly criminal conduct, and probably several more. And yes, unlawful prosecution is a criminal violation, as opposed to breaking the laws that govern hiring practices and workplace discrimination.
MzNicky said,
August 13, 2008 at 2:06
Do I win?
Hoosier X: Yes.
tigrismus said,
August 13, 2008 at 2:11
I’m not sure if there are any hard rules for make-up sex, like it has to be with the fight partner. I think the only firm recommendation is to avoid Gary, because he’s still a niño.
MzNicky said,
August 13, 2008 at 2:20
humbert dinglepencker: As this seems to have become a button-pushing kinda thread, with regard to chicken dinners, I would invite you and every other S-Noseian to click on the “Meet Yer Meat” ad on the sidebar. Watch the whole thing, if you can, you bleeding (!) hearts, and then get back to me on why you still eat meat. Yeah, the gauntlet’s thrown DOWN, DFH liebrals! (No, I’m not a PETA person. To me personally it’s more about karma and the reason we putatively even are here in the first place.)
special note to mikey: You cannot BELIEVE the awesomeness of veggie, even vegan, cuisine that I know you in particular as a gourmand would appreciate. I’ve got recipes. Screw the fake bacon and horrendous tofu stuff. Call me, fellow sentient being.
MzNicky said,
August 13, 2008 at 2:25
Smiling Mortician: You can call me too, dollink.
Jay B. said,
August 13, 2008 at 2:25
Back on topic, the Don Siegleman case is an entirely different story.
But it’s not. Not in the least. It’s directly tied to the systemic politicization of the DoJ by the Bush Administration. It all ties into what they were/are trying to do and why it most certainly matters.
jim said,
August 13, 2008 at 2:29
By acting in concert to circumvent Civil Service laws Goodling, Sampson, et. al. have engaged in the felonious act of Conspiracy.
Plainly, KnightErrant, you are unaware of Mukasey’s famous “If It’s One That Ends In ‘Y’ & It Happened During My Tenure As A.G., It Doesn’t Really Count” ruling from earlier this year.
Righteous Bubba said,
August 13, 2008 at 2:30
Iced Ox Saliva with Iced Chinese Black Vinegars
Ingredients:
4 splashes ox saliva
5 teaspoons perfectible Chinese black vinegar, clandestinely strained
1 ounce ceremonial pure grain alcohol
Stir all ingredients entrancingly with ice, strain contents into a hard bukkit and serve.
Jennifer said,
August 13, 2008 at 2:41
Jay B - not gonna argue that one with you. It is different in that what happened to Siegelman was criminal was my one and only point. Which is to say, it’s not impossible to prosecute politicization of the DOJ; you just have to prosecute the cases where there were criminal violations.
Jennifer said,
August 13, 2008 at 2:50
MzNicky - I’m not going to watch that video or feel bad about eating meat, because I eat the pasture-raised stuff that has a life while it’s alive. And the cows, pigs, chickens and turkeys I eat would never have lived in the first place if they hadn’t been bred, born, and raised for the ultimate destination of the dinner plate. I’m sure it hurts at least momentarily when they are slaughtered, just as I expect it will hurt for at least a few seconds when I die. But I just can’t get overly appalled by my own behavoir when I realize that I’m merely the latest evolutionary link in a species that has been eating meat from day 1.
Not knocking on your choices in the least, because obviously YMMV and clearly I myself have big issues with factory farming of animals. But eating humanely raised meat is not something I consider to be an immoral choice.
Inconstant Reader said,
August 13, 2008 at 2:54
Remember how the rightards keep yelling (re immigration), “What part of illegal don’t you understand”? Can we throw that back in their faces?
Sockpuppet #47 said,
August 13, 2008 at 3:08
I just ate a fried black pudding sandwich. Mmmmm, blood.
Factory farming is just one aspect of the problem with capitalism gone wild. Anyone or anything that can’t fight back, gets put on the conveyor belt..
As far as I see it, it is part and parcel of a wider problem with how we treat our environment, and even each other. It is near impossible to keep any real purity, to avoid ALL of the crap. If you pay taxes or buy anything from a corporation, you contribute to unimaginable horrors.
I’m not going to knock anyone’s efforts to make the world a better place though. I just see forgoing meat as too symbolic rather than substantiative for me.
Smut Clyde said,
August 13, 2008 at 3:09
“What part of illegal don’t you understand”?
I have tried yelling “What part of perturbative analysis of lattice-gauge theory in SU(3) don’t you understand!?”, but it doesn’t have the same ring.
Smut Clyde said,
August 13, 2008 at 3:11
I just ate a fried black pudding sandwich
My work here is done.
J— said,
August 13, 2008 at 3:48
It’s directly tied to the systemic politicization of the DoJ by the Bush Administration. It all ties into what they were/are trying to do and why it most certainly matters.
Yes, one of the Bush administration’s top domestic objectives—if not the top objective—has been to overhaul the executive into an integral part of the GOP electoral machine. Top priority in this has, logically, gone to the Justice Department.
Moving the Goal Posts | Akkam's Razor said,
August 13, 2008 at 3:54
[...] that Monica Goodling had violated the Hatch Act in the hiring of Justice Department Attorneys. Mukasey has officially declined prosecution, stating that the negative publicity suffered by those forced out was sufficient, ignoring the [...]
mikey said,
August 13, 2008 at 4:12
MzNicky. I LOVE vegetarian dishes. I really don’t know if I’ve ever had anything vegan. If I did, it was just vegetarian to me.
With my extreme partiality to Northern Indian, Burmese and Southern Chinese cuisine, my protein requirements tend to be minimal, and lentils and tofu are perfectly capable of providing that in any dish that wants it.
And I can go day after day, eating FABULOUS food that contains no meat. If you’ve ever had Hnapyan gyaw in a lentil soup with a real dense naan that still has little bits of rock in it, you have finished your duties on this planet and can accept your fate.
But.
But then.
Along comes PORK. I admit it. I’m powerless behind the pork. A thick pork chop, breaded and seared, baked and topped with a sweet, rich milk/mushroom gravy. A chicken breast seasoned simply, wrapped in bacon and topped with herbs, served atop creamy mashed yukon gold potatoes with a drizzle of THICK rich chicken gravy. A turkey cutlet cordon bleu, topped with a couple slices of Black Forrest Ham and a couple slices of the tangiest swiss cheese. The pork comes along. Calls my name. And all thoughts of a sustainable, local, reasonable vegetarian diet are gone from my head.
It’s not me. It’s the pork….
mikey
Dragon-King Wangchuck said,
August 13, 2008 at 4:27
Pork.
Oh man. Really, if it’s wrong to eat pigs, why the hell do they taste so damn good. Virginia ham. Apple wood smoked bacon. A chunk of hock sitting at the bottom of the pea soup pot.
I likes me my lentil soups, my dhals, my classic margherita pizzas. But you can’t beat a hunk of pig.
Leon Trotsky, Exile-in-Mexico said,
August 13, 2008 at 4:56
Man, it’s nice to know no one can resist pork.
On the other hand, I don’t think any of you guys are going to be condemned to go back through the cosmic cycle for eating that delectable sausage, that scrumptious bacon…
Man, no wonder Jesus made up a religious sect to get around kosher law. Freaking pig meat.
J said,
August 13, 2008 at 4:57
To Jay B & others who are completely ignorant of how the American legal system operates, here’s something from FireDogLake:
“Understand: Mukasey has turned into a terrible shill for the Administration. But it has been clear for over a year that the Administration would escape criminal charges for having committed massive violations of the Hatch Act. But that has more to do with the Hatch Act than with Michael Mukasey. Even a Democratic AG would have a hard time charging this stuff, given the stated penalties for civil Hatch Act violations.
The Hatch Act gives citizens no real recourse for the politicization of our government. And the loyal Bushies know this. After all, by all appearances, they’re still committing Hatch Act violations.”
(http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/08/12/i-hate-to-say-i-told-you-so/) Emphasis in original.
The conduct of Sampson & Goodling — as noxious, hideous, corrupt & terrible as it most certainly was — just did NOT violate any *criminal* laws.
To repeat something I’ve said several times already that perfectly illustrates this: Title VII (federal law) prohibits firing an employee because they’re black. Such a firing is *illegal,* but it is NOT a crime. Under Title VII, the EEOC might be able to impose a fine or the fired employee might bring a civil suit for damages.
Under the federal civil service laws, weak as they currently are, it seems the most that can be done against scum like Goodling & Sampson is to fire them. But they no longer work for the Government.
What we should do is press our Congress critters to pass some criminal penalties for this kind of corrupt politicization of our Justice Department. We should not pillory Mukasey for making this statement. Besides, we have *plenty* of other valid reasons to trash this pathetic excuse for an AG.
MzNicky said,
August 13, 2008 at 5:04
I’m not going to watch that video or feel bad about eating meat, because I eat the pasture-raised stuff that has a life while it’s alive. And the cows, pigs, chickens and turkeys I eat would never have lived in the first place if they hadn’t been bred, born, and raised for the ultimate destination of the dinner plate.
I guess it’s a tossup, then, between being alive at all or having an existence that’s nothing but excruciating torture and then being served up as tainted and unsustainable protein that’s easily and more environmentally attainable elsewhere.
I’m sure it hurts at least momentarily when they are slaughtered, just as I expect it will hurt for at least a few seconds when I die.
Then you’re deluding yourself, and your perception of suffering resides in the realm of denial.
MzNicky said,
August 13, 2008 at 5:06
I’m not going to knock anyone’s efforts to make the world a better place though. I just see forgoing meat as too symbolic rather than substantiative for me.
Then watch the video. I dare you.
Righteous Bubba said,
August 13, 2008 at 5:07
To Jay B & others who are completely ignorant
Welcome, friend!
MzNicky said,
August 13, 2008 at 5:07
mikey: Watch the video.
MzNicky said,
August 13, 2008 at 5:08
Man, it’s nice to know no one can resist pork.
Watch the video.
Fozzetti said,
August 13, 2008 at 5:09
It would be interesting to have employees hired after 2000 re-submit their applications…but to whom? All the Justice Dept is corrupt. A Herculean task to clean it up. And then there is the Judicial branch, hundreds maybe thousands of incompetent or corrupt Federal judges.
A first step might be expanding the Supreme Court by 2 judges. With a Dem majority in Congress we could do it. The Cons would howl, shreik, rend their clothes and hair, but it’s what they DO anyway.
mikey said,
August 13, 2008 at 5:21
Watch the video.
But why? Intuitively, and contextually, I know the video will cause me to feel guilt and disgust. But it won’t change what I do.
I know my government is an illegal conspiracy that murders, kidnaps and tortures. I still vote. I shouldn’t. I shouldn’t particpate in this ongoing criminal enterprise. My support helps sustain their crimes.
I’m honestly not trying to be a smart ass. I want to do good. I know some of the things I do in my life sustain the worst criminal conspiracy in modern memory. I know I could become more ascetic, more focused on resisting them, more honest and sustainable in my life.
I KNOW these things.
I’m weak. I try to do some good. And I’m not allowed under the program I’m in to tell you what I do, I am free to say dammit, I do some good. Lots of people would agree with that conclusion.
But I’m a long way from perfect. And I’m sorry. I’ve paid some hard coin. I know, I know, I’m not the only one, but if I feel I’m entitleled to enjoy a pork chop? I’d like to see the rationale that says I’m not.
So if I don’t want to talk my self out of my relatively, if not completely benign diet, I ask again. Why would I watch that thing?
mikey
Fozzetti said,
August 13, 2008 at 5:22
Actor 212: ” …so many worse violations of laws and corrupt conduct prior to this, I’m thinking the Dems ought to give a mulligan on this one, so late in the game.”
The Justice Depart MUST be honest and Non Partisan. That is the BEDROCK of our Government of LAW. We expect partisan behavior from Congress and the Exec Branch, but the Justice Depart is (one of) the first things which must be repaired, or the rest can’t be.
Smut Clyde said,
August 13, 2008 at 5:36
if it’s wrong to eat pigs, why the hell do they taste so damn good.
I think it’s because they taste like people…
Come to think of it, how come no-one is marketing Long-pig flavoured crisps?
Fozzetti said,
August 13, 2008 at 5:37
Perhaps punishment for Hatch Act violations could be made stronger: corrupting the Justice Dept. is such a very very serious crime with BAD ramifications that will last generations.
The punishment law could be passed to be RETROACTIVE, just like the disregarding the 4th amendment. Why not?
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
August 13, 2008 at 5:39
Smut Clyde said,
August 13, 2008 at 5:36
if it’s wrong to eat pigs, why the hell do they taste so damn good.
I think it’s because they taste like people…
Come to think of it, how come no-one is marketing Long-pig flavoured crisps?
I sense a bizness opporknockity in your future, SC.
J— said,
August 13, 2008 at 5:42
Ignorance is bliss; redundancy is tediousness.
Jay B. can of course speak for himself, but as I read his comments in this thread, his main concern has been with the political significance of Mukasey’s statement.
MzNicky said,
August 13, 2008 at 5:48
Intuitively, and contextually, I know the video will cause me to feel guilt and disgust. But it won’t change what I do.
As an intuitive and aware human, you know that watching the video will make you consider changing what you do. And that’s hard.
I want to do good.
And giving up meat is a very easy choice that will do just that. Change happens at the individual level. There’s just no justification, ethically, environmentally, or
humanistically anymore to eat animal flesh. That’s just all there is to it.
But I’m a long way from perfect. And I’m sorry. I’ve paid some hard coin. I know, I know, I’m not the only one, but if I feel I’m entitleled to enjoy a pork chop? I’d like to see the rationale that says I’m not.
mikey darling, I’ve paid hard coin too. Not the same currency as yours, but hard all the same. Many of us have. It’s why we’re compassionate liberals.
Watch the video. Because as a truth-teller you know you have to face the truth.
Jennifer said,
August 13, 2008 at 5:58
I guess it’s a tossup, then, between being alive at all or having an existence that’s nothing but excruciating torture and then being served up as tainted and unsustainable protein that’s easily and more environmentally attainable elsewhere.
Well, cows can’t talk, so I’m unable to query the ones grazing in the pasture as to whether their existence is one of nothing but excruciating torture, but somehow I doubt that it is. After all, grazing is what nature intended for cows. And also, to be prey animals, which is why they don’t have big teeth or sharp claws for killing and eating other animals. Since the cows that I eat are pastured for their entire lives, and since they’re a species of animal that has always been killed and eaten by other animals, I can’t see how me eating one that has been grazing its entire life is any more torturous for the cow than if a wolf or a lion ate it instead. It seems that you are arguing that I have a choice to eat other things instead, and it is from this that the immorality of my actions springs, and sorry, but that strikes me as at least a somewhat specious argument. My choice to continue eating prey animals that have been humanely raised isn’t superior to your choice, but it’s not inferior either. It’s just what it is: a choice.