But in the hierarchy of bloggers, most of us are pretty small potatoes. Every so often Instapundit, or the Wall Street Journal’s “Best of the Web,” or one of the other big dogs will pick up something one of us writes here at dcat, and our numbers will soar for a day or so, and then we settle back into our comfortable, intimate (nice euphemism, that) regular crowd. Most of us have published things that have gotten a wide readership outside of dcat, but on the whole, no one is confusing our work here with that of Andrew Sullivan.
I try to remind myself of this every time I post something from a website with a whole lot more readership than we have here. After all, the odds that any of you read dcat before the Times or “Daily Dish,” or any of dozens of other sites is laughable, so when I link to another site with limited commentary, or without a whole lot to add to the conversation, it probably seems silly and solipsistic. I equate it with a gnat feverishly waving its arms to draw your attention to the elephant’s back on which it is perched.
So consider this entry the introduction to a new semi-regular feature, “Gnats on an Elephant’s back,” whereby I refer you to something you have inevitably already seen while adding just a few sketches of commentary, but without giving a full post. The general philosophy of dcat is that we provide mini-opinion pieces on a range of issues rather than simply lead you elsewhere. But we also know that elsewhere might be your preferred destination.
Over at the Daily Dish Andrew Sullivan discusses what does seem like Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ demonstrable perjury during his confirmation hearings. The liberal and democrat in me wants to smirk and see justice done. But when I pull back a bit, I want to be more reasonable. What some of us tried to warn the right about during the 1990s was that by lowering the bar so much and prosecuting every perjury as if it was a high crime, and by introducing impeachment so easily, we were traversing dangerous terrain. The same can be said for redistricting and for executive branch kingmaking – it might seem like a damned good idea when the power pendulum is swinging your way. But in American politics nothing is permanent. And when the pendulum changes course, as it is wont to do, the law of unintended consequences is bound to kick in. So while half of me wants to see Gonzales face the full extent of the legal system he has gamed, the other half would love to see someone step back, look at the contemporary political situation, and stop the madness.
Meanwhile today’s Times has two stories of more than passing significance.
The first tells us of the passing of Coretta Scott King’s passing. Beyond the sadness and the reflection that inevitably occurs, and the fact that one cannot help but wonder how long her husband might have remained by her side had that bullet not torn through the sky on April 4, 1968, two thoughts spring to my mind. The first is a reminder that Mrs. King was herself a hero in the struggle for civil rights and not merely an appendage to her husband. The second was that I wish she had been more careful with her own legacy, not to mention that of her husband, in the last decade or so when the King Center in Atlanta, a place I have visited and worked in on several occasions, became little more than a political football and personal fiefdom for the King family. I tend to think that things won’t get much better in the near term.
The second story tells us what we long knew would happen: The Senate has confirmed Samuel Alito for the Sandra Day O’Connor’s seat on the Supreme Court. I was sanguine about the nomination and confirmation of Justice Roberts. I am less so about Alito. I frankly think he lied his way through the confirmation hearings. Either that or he is less qualified than he appeared to be. How else can one explain his proclaimed lack of familiarity with the writings of John Yoo (whose work I have read, and I am not likely to be nominated for the Supreme Court any time soon) or anyone else who has written about the theory of a “unified executive”? I have other qualms with Alito as well, all of which were absolutely legitimate for Democratic Senators to address, but until we are willing to confront the repugnant duplicity that Supreme Court nominees are allowed to get away with in their hearings, the whole process will be a farce determined solely by the numbers game in the Senate. If I could make one humble proposal it would be this: If you say that you have not given any thought to an issue that has been before the Supreme Court and in the newspapers in the last ten years, that should scuttle your nomination immediately. The Senate, and by extension the engaged public, deserves an honest hearing in these circumstances, whether the nominee comes from a Democrat or a Republican president.
In any case, these are the stories that have caught the gnat’s attention today.
No comments:
Post a Comment