Convenient Double Standards

Another excellent piece from Mahablog this weekend. Most of it is discussing the cowing of the press when it comes to matters a la' Bush-Cheney, but towards then end she takes on some commentary from conservative columnist Thomas Sowell. Let's take a look at some of Sowell's writing for a moment.

[T]here is a lot of back-and-forth about whether secret service agents, for example, should be required to testify about [a president or vice president]. But the law is bigger than either of these people. It has been around longer and the optimists among us can hope that it will still be around for our children and grandchildren.

On the other hand, if the existing law gives no secret service privilege, then the agents in [the] White House are no different from any other citizens who have no right to withhold information from a grand jury.

What is scary is how many people have so little grasp of what the rule of law is -- and how important it is for all of us -- that they think the law means whatever they feel it ought to mean.

If we don't like existing law, we have the democratic right to change it for the future -- but not retroactively. That would destroy the whole concept of law.

If, however, a new privilege is created out of thin air by the courts, then it is virtually certain that some future president or presidents will descend to that same level again. If you do not understand the enormous dangers from abuses of power, then you do not understand why the Constitution of the United States was written the way it was.

Can you believe he'd say that about Dick Cheney? Well... he didn't. That was written back in 1998 and he was talking about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. What else did he have to say?

It is not what Monica Lewinsky did or didn't do with Clinton that is the issue. The issue is whether she tried to get Linda Tripp to commit a felony -- thereby committing a felony herself.

Monica Lewinsky's father has protested that his daughter is being used as a pawn by special prosecutor Kenneth Starr. She was used as a pawn, all right, but by whoever sent her out on a mission to tamper with a witness.

So let's recap: If one of our executives does something wrong, even if it's outside of the duties of his office, he still needs to be held to a higher standard and the rule of law must always apply. Well, that's some good thinking, actually, and I think many of us could get behind that sentiment.

So now, Dick Cheney has shot a man and the forensic evidence is mounting by the day that there was a serious coverup going on. Most of the details released were clearly false. But the only people around who saw it were Cheney's best friends, his Secret Service agents, and a guy with a face full of bird shot who has clearly volunteered to "take one for the team." Applying Sowell's standard, they should all be in front of a grand jury right now so we can find out whether or not anyone was asked to lie about this incident. Cheney managed to not speak to authorities for nearly 24 hours after shooting somebody. So how does Sowell react? Is he calling for an investigation today?

"“The accidental shooting of Harry Whittington, while he was on a hunting trip with Dick Cheney, has nothing to do with government policy or the Vice President'’s official duties."”

I used to respect Sowell quite a bit. And to this day, when he starts talking about economics, a wise person will at least lend him an ear and listen to what he has to say. But while I may not understand his economic philosophy very well, his political theory is very clear. IOKIYAR. (It's OK If You're A Republican.)